Inversion after "only a few years ago"

Question

Can anyone please tell me why we don't use inversion after "only a few years ago"?

Today I was doing one of the CPE exercises from Side and Wellman and I encountered the following sentence :

"Only a few years ago the herring gull more often than not remained close to the sea and nested on cliffs."

My question is, why don't we use inversion here after "only a few years" as I have always been taught that, after "only + when or the specific time" we use inversion.

"Only when Mohegan scouts led them through the woods did the settlers stand much of a chance."

Is that not true ? I have already checked plenty of sentences in COCA none of which used inversion. Why ?

Answer 1

The presenting question asks about this grammatical sentence
[I'll return to the bracketed expressions below]

• [Only a few years ago] the herring gull [more often than not] remained close to the sea.

because of a rule which was not applied, even though

I have always been taught that, after "only + when or the specific time" we use inversion.

That is, in technical terms ("inversion" is a general term; this is one specific inversion rule), when an adverbial phrase of time, place, or circumstance occurs at the beginning of the sentence, subject-auxiliary inversion may occur, provided the appropriate conditions are met.

So the question is really about why this sentence (where this inversion rule has been applied)

• *Only a few years ago did the herring gull more often than not remain close to the sea.

is ungrammatical.

And the reason is because the appropriate conditions for the rule are not met. Basically, this kind of inversion is a negative phenomenon -- if the preposed adverbial negates the whole sentence, then inversion is required, not just allowed. For instance,

• Never have I seen such a thing

is grammatical, while

• *Never I have seen such a thing

is not, because the whole clause I have seen such a thing is negated by the never.
The sentence has exactly the same meaning as

• I have never seen such a thing

But in the presenting example, the phrase only a few years ago does not negate the sentence.
Indeed, it means the same as the phrase a few years ago; one can be substituted for the other

• [A few years ago] the herring gull [more often than not] remained close to the sea.

with no difference in meaning at all. Only is just a way of expressing the speaker's surprise at how short a time it has been. Similar remarks apply to not long ago, another fixed phrase that also contains a negative but does not negate the sentence. These phrases are self-contained, and one can substitute ten years ago without changing meaning. In this phrase only doesn't negate anything, and so the phrase can go just as well at the end of the sentence as the front.

• The herring gull more often than not remained close to the sea only a few years ago.
• The herring gull more often than not remained close to the sea not many years ago.

Similar remarks apply as well to the not in more often than not, another closed idiom containing an overt negative that doesn't negate anything and merely muddies the waters. Stylistically, this sentence is a mess; but it is grammatical.

As a semanticist might say, the negative trigger only has narrow scope in this phrase (like the not in more often than not), and therefore there is no negation of the clause itself. Thus, subject-auxiliary inversion can't occur with this preposed phrase.

Executive summary: The rule you "have always been taught" is wrong. The rule should have mentioned negation of the clause. Instead it gave one instance and generalized it, incorrectly.
This is typical of English grammar rules that people "have always been taught". Sorry about that.

As for references, here is one of the first published accounts of this phenomenon.

Answer 2

Inversion is the reversal of the normal word order in a sentence or phrase. There are two types of inversion:

Subject-verb inversion, where the subject and the main verb switch positions and the word order becomes verb + subject: On the top of the hill stood an old oak tree.

Subject-auxiliary inversion, where the subject and the auxiliary switch positions and the word order becomes auxiliary + subject (+ verb): Hardly had I arrived home when my phone rang.

Source: http://www.grammaring.com/what-is-inversion

You seem to be asking about subject-auxiliary inversion, which here depends on the use and importance of 'only'.

The way 'only' is used in your second sentence does indeed make it a case for subject-auxiliary inversion. Here 'only' is used together with 'when', and implies conditionality: the 'subject-first' form of this sentence would be

The settlers stood much of a chance only when Mohegan scouts led them through the woods.

The first part of the sentence is dependent on the second through "only when" -- for the settlers to stand much of a chance (1st part) it was necessary (signified by the use of 'only when') that the scouts lead them through the woods (second part of the sentence.)

'Only' is integral to this sentence and you cannot rewrite the sentence omitting 'only.' Therefore when rewriting this sentence to begin with 'only', subject-auxiliary inversion must be applied and the auxiliary 'did' needs to be introduced:

Only when Mohegan scouts led them through the woods did the settlers stand much of a chance.

This is a typical example of subject-auxiliary inversion.

HOWEVER, the use of 'only' is very different in your first sentence:

Only a few years ago the herring gull more often than not remained close to the sea and nested on cliffs.

The herring gull more often than not remained close to the sea and nested on cliffs... (when?) ...only a few years ago.

'Only' is not applied to the subject (herring gull) here but merely to 'a few years ago', so as to emphasise that it was only a short period of time in the past. 'Only' does not impose any conditionality or dependency between 'the habits of the nesting gull' and 'a few years ago' -- moreover 'only' is not indispensable to this sentence: you can omit it, rewriting the sentence as "a few years ago, the herring gull more often than not remained close to the sea and nested on cliffs." So this sentence is not a case for subject-auxiliary inversion.

In short, subject-auxiliary inversion is applied to your second sentence but not to your first because (the use and significance of 'only' being very different in both sentences) only the second sentence is a suitable case for applying subject-auxiliary inversion.

NOW CONSIDER THIS SLIGHT (invented) VARIATION:

The herring gull began to remain close to the sea and nest on cliffs only a few years ago.

Meaning: this is a new trend as far as the herring gull's nesting habits are concerned. When did it begin? Only a few years ago.

The herring gull only began to remain close to the sea and nest on cliffs a few years ago.

It was only a few years ago that the herring gull began to remain close to the sea and nest on cliffs.

That changes the whole sense and significance of 'only' because 'only' now creates a conditional link between 'the nesting habits of the herring gull' and 'a few years ago.' Only has now become integral to the sentence because you cannot omit 'only' without changing the meaning of the sentence. Therefore this sentence has now become a case for subject-auxiliary inversion and when rewriting it to begin with 'only', the auxiliary 'did' must be added:

Only a few years ago did the herring gull begin to remain close to the sea and nest on cliffs.

---

I acknowledge that it was the excellent answers earlier provided here by Josh and John Lawler which helped me to better understand the conditions for applying subject-auxiliary inversion, and allowed me to re-edit this into a more coherent answer.

Answer 3

Here is the original sentence as you found it in your book:

Sentence A: Only a few years ago the herring gull more often than not remained close to the sea and nested on cliffs.

Your question was: Why don't we use inversion here after "only a few years"?

Consider Sentence B, with inversion:

Sentence B: Only a few years ago did the herring gull, more often than not, remain close to the sea and nest on cliffs.

I've put some optional commas in, to make it easier to read.

This sentence is acceptable, although it is perhaps kind of wordy with the "more often than not."

---

Now, perhaps you'd like to know what the slight difference is between A and B. I will construct some situations in which these sentences might occur. (This is total fantasy. I'm not a biologist or naturalist and I never heard of the herring gull before. I will use the BBC's The Best of Natural History, Saving Species podcast as a model. To get the full flavor, you have to read it with a Julia Child cadence, i.e. lots of oomph.)

Situation A: Today I will be visiting Irvingshire, where local naturalist, Morris Davenport, will be our guide, to visit a small coastal island where the herring gull is building up a population in a new habitat. Only a few years ago, the herring gull, more often than not, remained close to the sea and nested on cliffs. Recently, however the species has been expanding its natural range to include the small coastal islands, where the herring gull's food source is no longer limited to the herring.

Situation B: Today I will be visiting Evanshire, where local ornithologist, Pamela MacKenzie, will be our guide, to learn about the herring gull's recent change of habitat. Historically, this charming bird lived happily on small islands off the coast. But when weasels were accidentally introduced to the islands, the herring gull population plummeted due to predation. Fortunately, the herring gull did not go extinct. Some enterprising members of this species figured out that they could also live comfortably on the high coastal cliffs overlooking the islands, where there were few natural predators, and the cliff-dwelling herring gull population soared. But last year, the weasels were culled from the islands, and the herring gull returned to its historical habitat. Only a few years ago did the herring gull, more often than not, remain close to the sea and nest on cliffs. Now it can be found in growing numbers on the coastal islands that were its original home.

Edit:

A list of situations that allow inversion is given at http://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/inversion.html. Here are some of the examples:

Only then...

Only later...

Continuing the pattern, I will propose:

Only earlier...

Only a few years ago...

Answer 4

• 'Only a few years ago' the herring gull more often than not remained close to the sea and nested on cliffs.

• Only when Mohegan scouts led them through the woods, did the settlers stand much of a chance.

The linguistic phenomenon reflected in the second is one of inversion or, more precisely, inversion of helping verbs, modals or even 'invited-dummy-do' This is done especially when we like to emphasize or lay stress on a situation at the exclusion of all else. Thus it's common in such sentences that put negative adverbs to the fore (hardly, never, seldom, only then, only later, only in this way etc). Please note some of these though seemingly positive are in reality just the opposite.

In the expressions​, as noted below, inversion comes in the second part of the sentence.

• Only after
• Only when
• Not until
• Not since
• Only by

Our second example is a case in point. But perfect-english-grammar.com advises what is to be seen such adverbs should modify the whole phrase/clause, not a particular noun/ verb. In our first example misnomer of a preposition, "ago" does the trick. Though a preposition, it is used after the phrase it links to the sentence. 'Ago' reduces​ the phrase, "only a few years" to just an ordinary adverb of place and derides it of incisive pungent nature characterised in negative adverbs. It modifies the verb "remained"

In explaining material from Vince_Inversion_Emphasis_S.pdf has been referred to as well.