I have seen this construction quite often:

Online ads have been around since the dawn of the Web, but only in recent years have they become the rapturous life dream of Silicon Valley.

What is the rule there?. When your sentence doesn't start with pronoun + verb, invert them as verb + pronoun?. I know it sounds awkward but is it possible (grammatically correct) to use something similar to:

Online ads have been around since the dawn of the Web, but only in recent years they have become...

And in any case, does this only work with have (or has)? Maybe it works fine with 'had' but I can't think of an example right now.

  • 1
    It's the introduction of the word 'only' in the clause 'only in recent years' that changes things. "...but in recent years they have become..." is fine. So is "... but they have recently become ..." as well as "... but they have, in recent years, become ..." but when stated as "but only in recent years" it needs to be phrased "have they..." I bet @JohnLawler can shed light on why that is.
    – Jim
    Mar 24, 2012 at 23:49
  • Wow, really? That's extremely interesting. I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years.
    – r_31415
    Mar 24, 2012 at 23:51

3 Answers 3


Switching around the normal word order is called inversion, and this specific type is called subject-auxiliary inversion. Wikipedia has a list of usages of subject-auxiliary inversion, including interrogative constructions (e.g. Did you eat?), but the following is the declarative section:

Declarative sentences with negative elements (i.e. never or not) are formed. See also Negative inversion.

  • Example #1: Never again shall I watch that opera!
  • Example #2: Not since childhood did she eat cotton candy.

Declarative sentences with restrictive elements (i.e. only or so) are formed.

  • Example #1: Only on Fridays does he go to the bar.
  • Example #2: So hard did she work that she overslept the next day.
  • Example #3: So did I.

I found a blog called Practice English which has a laudably comprehensive post on the topic of inversion:

In statement it is usual for the verb to follow the subject, but sometimes this word order is reversed.

We can refer to this as inversion. There are two main types of inversion:

  • when the verb comes before the subject (optional inversion)

In the doorway stood her father. (or …her father stood.)

  • when the auxiliary comes before the subject and the rest of the verb phrase follows the subject (inversion is usually necessary)

Rarely had he seen such a sunset. (not Rarely he had seen…)

Inversion brings about fronting, the re-ordering of information in a sentence to give emphasis in a particular place. Often this causes an element to be postponed until later in the sentence, focusing attention on it.

  • Inversion after negative adverbials

When we begin a sentence with a negative adverb or adverbial phrase, we sometimes have to change the usual word order of subject and verb (often using an auxiliary verb) because we want to emphasise the meaning of the adverb. We use inversion when we move a negative adverb which modifies the verb (never, nowhere, not only, hardly etc.) to the beginning of a sentence. For example:

I had never seen so many people in one room. (= normal word order)

Never had I seen so many people in one room. (= inversion)

There are adverbs and adverbial expressions with a negative, restrictive or emphatic meaning, which are followed by inversion when placed first in a sentence. The most common adverbs ad adverbial expressions with negative, restrictive or emphatic meaning that are followed be inversion are:

Seldom, Rarely, Little, Nowhere, Nor even one, In no way Scarcely/Hardly/Barely … when, No sooner … than, Not only … but (also) On no occasion/account/condition, In/Under no circumstances Only after, Only later, Only once, Only in this way, Only by, Only then, Only when, Only if, Not till/until, Never, Never before, Not since, Neither/Not/So, Well (formal) etc:

This is only the first 15% or so. Though not the highest quality of writing (it contains a few typos, etc), IMO it represents the contexts of proper inversion admirably well and staggeringly comprehensively.

The only real (albeit minor) disagreement I have seen that I have with it involves the following:

We can put the verb before the subject when we use adverbs expressing direction of movement, such as along, away, back, down, in, off, out, up with verbs such as come, fly, go. This pattern is found particularly in narrative, to mark a change in events:

The door opened and in came the doctor. (less formally …and the doctor came in)

As soon as I let go of the string, up went the balloon, high into the sky. (less formally …the balloon went up)

Just when I thought I’d have to walk home, along came Miguel and he gave me a lift. (less formally …Miguel came along and gave me …)

As far as I have seen, it's not necessarily formal to say in came the doctor - in fact, the doctor came in seems more consistent with a formal context. (It also could be that the author meant to say less informally, and if so, I'd have agreed completely).

  • 1
    Negative Polarity of any sort is always a cause for complexity, and Subj-Aux inversion is no exception. Mar 26, 2012 at 22:43
  • 1
    Not since childhood [did she eat] cotton candy. hits my AmE ear as ungrammatical. Had she eaten?
    – TimR
    Feb 14, 2015 at 20:57

The SVO (Subject Verb Object) "rule" can be broken for emphasis or stylistic effect (in the sentence you cited the reason is emphasis).

It's also broken with questions, when verb commonly precedes subject: Who was that lady I saw you with last night?

It seems interesting what James Joyce said: "I have the words already. What I am seeking is the perfect order of words in the sentence. You can see for yourself how many different ways they might be arranged."

  • 1
    It's not a rule, it's just the unmarked configuration of transitive sentences. Any variation from it is marked, and thus conveys information. Mar 26, 2012 at 22:39
  • @JohnLawler: I replaced rule with "rule" hoping to fit your observation.
    – user19148
    Mar 28, 2012 at 8:34
  • 1
    @Carlo_R.: Your answer is vastly improved by those quote marks, without which I'm not sure I would have upvoted it! Aug 22, 2012 at 2:28

This answer is yet one more that will take up some of the points already treated in this original question, in another duplicate, and finally in a third would be duplicate question put to the site some eight years later. None of the answers is specifically an answer to this third question, but there is no other spot for presenting an answer that keeps to this given question. The question is that asked by RockRan1 (July 21).


Why in many sentences do we use verbs before pronouns such as we write in a question?

For example:

Neither did I try nor did I want to.
She told me that I can improve my grades, and boy was she right.

Can you explain to me the logic/rules behind using "did" before I in the first and "was" before she in the second sentence?


I In the case of "do" this language practice is termed do support.

(CoGEL) 3.37 DO-support

The term DO-SUPPORT (or 'DO-periphrasis') applies to the use of DO as an 'empty' or 'dummy' operator […] in conditions where the construction requires an operator, but where there is no semantic reason for any other operator to be present. All uses of DO as an auxiliary come under this heading. The main ones are :
(a) In indicative clauses […] negated by not, where the verb is simple present or simple past:
♦ She doesn't want to stay.

Negative imperative clauses introduced by Do not or Don't may, with some reservation […], be placed in the same category.

(b) In questions and other constructions involving subject-operator inversion, where the verb is in the simple present or past tense:
♦ Did he stay late? What do they say? Does it matter?

This category includes tag questions ([…] reduced questions where the dummy operator is not accompanied by a main verb: ♦ He knows how to drive a car, doesn't he? […])

It also includes inversion after an initial negative element¹: ♦ Never did he think the book would be finished so soon.

(c) In emphatic constructions where the verb is simple present or simple past (cf emphatic positive constructions, 3.25):
♦ They "do want you to come. ♦ Michael "did say he would be here at nine, didn't he?
Here we may also include the 'persuasive imperative' introduced by do:
♦ "Do sit down! "Do be quiet. A: May I sit here? B: Yes, by all means DÒ. (See, however, 11.30 Note [a] on the dubious status of DO as operator in this construction.)
(d) In reduced clauses, where DO acts as a dummy operator preceding ellipsis of a predication […]

¹ Note: This describes the category in question, and it is useful to expand on it, which will be done now, right below, essentially on the basis of Practical English Usage, Michael Swan, OUP second edition, No 298, 5.

The following words, expression and constructions with negative or restrictive meaning require the inversion when they are placed at the beginning of the clause (there ae others).

  • nor, neither, never, seldom, hardly, rarely, little, only
  • at no time, not until (much) later, not only, only then, no sooner, hardly ever, in no case,
  • not + < object >

Inversion is not used after non-emphatic adverbial expressions of place and time.

  • Not far from here you can see foxes.

Examples (from same source)

Under no circumstances can we cash checks. ♦ At no time was the President aware of what was happening.
Not until he received her letter did he fully realize the depth of her feelings.
Hardly had I arrived when trouble started.
Only after her death was I able to appreciate her.
No sooner had he departed that the mice got back in.
Not a single word did she say.
Not a noise could they hear.

Notice that in this grammatical question the addition of "do" corresponds to the inversion of the auxiliaries, which "operates as does "do", for instance in the important context of questions, hence the standpoint that this addition of "do" is a case of do-support.

II In the case of the subject-verb inversion of the second sentence, the idea is different; the inversion aims at communicating a feeling of exclamation.

Practical English Usage, Michael Swan, OUP second edition No 298, 2
Exclamation often have the same structure as negative questions […].
Isn't it cold? ♦ Hasn't she got lovely eyes?
In spoken American English, exclamations often have the same form as ordinary (non-negative) questions.
Have you got a surprise coming! ♦ Am I mad!
In a rather old-fashioned literary style, inversion is sometimes found in exclamations after how and what.
♦ How beautiful are the flowers! ♦ What a peaceful place is Skegness!

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.