As I said, it sounds fine to me and as far as I know it is a perfectly fine construction:
From my Oxford dictionary:
no sooner do you give him a toy than he breaks it
(le regalas un juguete y enseguida lo rompe)
When you say no sooner than you state that something happens before another action .
http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1535_questionanswer/page61.shtml
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0216.html
Quote from: BBC:CO:UK/World service/learning English. "My question is about ‘no sooner’ and ‘than’ requiring the semi-inversion. Most of those sentences sound like 'no sooner came John to the station than the train arrived'. And my question is, how can I make two sentences of this one sentence, in order to understand better the way it functions?
We need to be clear what happened first. Does it mean, the train came in and then me, or I came in and right after me the train? Well, my experience is actually that I arrive at the station, and then the train doesn’t come in for hours.
But, to answer your question, if I say “no sooner had I arrived at the station than the train came in”, it means, I came in, and right after me the train. I got there first… just! I’ll give you another couple of examples:
“No sooner had I put the phone down than it rang again”.
“No sooner had I finished the meal than I started feeling hungry again”.
It’s actually a rather literary construction. I’d expect to read it, maybe write it, but I probably wouldn’t say it. Instead I think I’d say something like this:
“The train came in just after I got to the station”, or “ had only just got to the station when the train came in”…or something like that."
That´s the the purpose of using the structure no sooner than , a literary structure built to express that between two actions, there is one that happens first. However, when you use no sooner with the present time, you are not really using the structure no sooner in the way is properly meant for.
