Only later she realized - no inversion

i9en

Member
Russian
Hello!
In the grammar book "Advanced Grammar in Use" is the following explanation:
If the main verb is not "be" and there is no auxiliary, we use "do", although inversion is not necessary in this case:
Only later did she realize how much damage had been caused. = Only later she realized how much damage had been caused.

I wonder if it is true for "Not only", "Only once", "Not until" and similar expressions. For example:
Not only does the machine wash your clothes, but it also dries them.
Only once did I go to the opera the whole time I was in Italy.
Not until I filled my glass did I notice that it was broken.


Can I not invert them? Like:
Not only the machine washes your clothes, but it also dries them.
Only once I went to the opera the whole time I was in Italy.
Not until I filled my glass I noticed that it was broken.


Is the inversion only necessary for "be"? Could you advise?
 
  • lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Not only does the machine wash your clothes, but it also dries them.
    Only once did I go to the opera the whole time I was in Italy.
    Not until I filled my glass did I notice that it was broken.
    Those inverted versions are fine, but the normal word order is with the main clause first.

    The machine not only washes your clothes, it also dries them.
    I went to the opera only once the whole time I was in Italy.
    I only noticed that my glass was broken when I went to fill it.
    Your other suggestions are not valid constructions.

    You haven’t provided an example using “be”, but the point about that is:


    The machine is not only costly to buy, it’s also expensive to run. :tick:
    Not only is the machine costly to buy, it’s also expensive to run. :tick:
    NOT: Not only does the machine be expensive… :cross:
     

    i9en

    Member
    Russian
    lingobingo, what about this example from the grammar book?
    If the main verb is not "be" and there is no auxiliary, we use "do", although inversion is not necessary in this case:
    Only later did she realize how much damage had been caused. = Only later she realized how much damage had been caused.

    Can it be done specifically with "Only later"? I don't really understand when inversion is not necessary from the statement above if I can't change it with "Not only", "Only once", "Not until", etc.
     
    Last edited:

    lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Can what be done? It’s not even clear what’s from the grammar book and what’s your addition.

    This sentence is wrong:
    Only later she realized how much damage had been caused.

    I’ve already explained how it works. Only if you put the subordinate clause first is it necessary to switch around the subject and verb in the main clause (as I’ve just done in this sentence!).

    For more information on the various types of inversion, see this article: Subject–verb inversion in English - Wikipedia
     

    i9en

    Member
    Russian
    This sentence is wrong:
    Only later she realized how much damage had been caused.
    This very sentence is actually from the grammar book. It is not my addition (the other sentences are mine). So I'm not sure if this one is wrong.
    It says that both are possible:
    Only later did she realize how much damage had been caused. (or Only later she realized ..)
    "Advanced Grammar in Use Third Edition" by Martin Hewings p.152
    (that's why I was a bit confused)
     
    Last edited:

    kentix

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    "Only later she realized how..." sounds wrong to me, too.

    "She realized only later how..." sounds correct.
     

    Laurentiana

    Member
    English - Canada
    I think your book may be giving Only later she realized as the semantic equivalent of Only later did she realize, not as a correct alternative. In any case the others here are right - it’s not correct usage.

    paul
     

    i9en

    Member
    Russian
    Considering all the replies, it looks like the example from the grammar book is incorrect, or at least weird. I don't think it was about some semantic equivalents. I attached the screenshot, just in case.
    1570957669316.png
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    natkretep

    Moderato con anima (English Only)
    English (Singapore/UK), basic Chinese
    And I'm confirming again what others have said - that 'Only later she realised ...' sounds wrong to me.
     

    lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Only later she realised how much damage had been caused :cross:

    It is, of course, the word “only” at the beginning that makes the above sentence wrong, since it’s part of a set construction (similar to “not only … [but also]”, which also requires inversion). Without that word it’s fine.

    Later she realised how much … :tick:
    She realised, later, how much … :tick:
    Only later did she realise how much … :tick:
    Only afterwards/the next day/at the end of the year/in her dotage did she/would she realise how much …

    But note also that inversion is not needed in a dummy-it construction with a that-clause:

    It was only later [that] she realised how much … :tick:
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top