11

I'm writing a scientific paper and my supervisor (who is non-native speaker, whereas I am a native speaker) asked me to change this construct:

Only do males have a y chromosome.

to

Only males have a y chromosome.

with no do. Is the former construct ungrammatical, or barring that, awkward?

I know that there are some situations where we need to use the do-structure, e.g.:

Only afterwards does she apologise.

So does this pattern apply to my sentence? Why or why not?

For context, the broader passage I'm writing begins with:

In stage 3 researchers look for connections between these genes, for example by performing Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA). Here the set of identified genes are compared with predefined sets of genes. The predefined sets of genes indicate a known relation. For example having a related function, existing in the same location in the cell or taking part in the same pathway. A further way a set could be defined is a topological set, which takes into account finer grained internal relations to define a set. For example a topological set could be identified by community detection in a gene regulatory network.

Which sets up a context describing different types of sets; then, the passage where the sentence in question appears is:

In contrast to having two stages for analysis, analysis can be performed in one stage. Past ILP research has integrated the two stages of finding differently expressed genes and GSEA by using relational subgroup discovery. These have used the hierarchical Gene Ontology to relate genes and has the advantage of being able to construct novel sets by sharing variables across predicates that define the sets. For example a set could be defined as the genes that have been annotated with two GO terms. Other ways researchers have tried to integrate the use of known relations is by adapting the classification approach. New features are built by aggregating across a predefined set of genes - for example by taking an average expression value for a pathway.

In most of these methods it is common to ignore the detailed relations between entities in a pathway, the pathway is treated as an unstructured set of genes. Only do topologically defined sets take advantage of any known internal relations. On the other hand ...

F.E.
  • 6,208
user27815
  • 211
  • 1
    Good question! Why is there no inversion here? – Araucaria - Him Jun 24 '15 at 10:24
  • 1
    Your very good question attracted some close-votes. I've given it a little edit to make the problem a bit clearer. If you don't like the edit, you can just roll it back (click on the "edited ***** ago" button, and press "rollback" at the top of the original version! – Araucaria - Him Jun 24 '15 at 10:30
  • Before the additional motivation was added ("I know there are some situations where ...") I considered voting to close as well. This is a rare example of a user telling us why he's asking something that would otherwise be obvious to a native speaker. Though I still think this question, while it certainly requires deep English expertise and technical details to answer, would be better placed on ELL. For one thing, I think the community there has more practice answering this kind of question; for another, OP is clearly an ELL, and if he has further questions that site is the place for him. – Dan Bron Jun 24 '15 at 11:04
  • 4
    I am a native English speaker ;) – user27815 Jun 24 '15 at 12:04
  • 3
    @user27815 You're a native speaker and you believe "Only do males have a y chromosome" flows better than "Only males have a y chromosome."? Well, no accounting for taste, I suppose ;) Let me try to edit your question for formatting, in order to attract helpful answers. – Dan Bron Jun 24 '15 at 12:43
  • I actually agree in the example I gave that 2) sounds better, but in the actual context I am using it does not sound right.

    Hence why I asked for the reasoning behind the answer. So I can try and understand what it is that is making my sentence sound strange! Might need to be reworded to avoid the problem.

    – user27815 Jun 24 '15 at 12:48
  • No problem about the edit. That's what I'm here for. I agree that in your actual example do works fine. I recommend you rework the question to ask about that situation, rather than the current example which everyone agrees is better without the do. Or, more broadly, you can ask where and when you could use this "do-structure" (whatever it's called), and where you can't. – Dan Bron Jun 24 '15 at 12:55
  • 1
    @DanBron Does it? It makes my grammar ear twitch ... :) – Araucaria - Him Jun 24 '15 at 15:01
  • 1
    @DanBron Inversion is a kinda sexy grammar topic for most grammar junkies. I think the people here will love it! – Araucaria - Him Jun 24 '15 at 15:03
  • 1
    Inversion typically occurs after adverbs and adverbial phrases: here comes the bus; over tips the boat; only then did we realize his true intent; etc. In your example, only appears rather to be an adjective modifying males, which does not usually permit inversion. – Anonym Jun 24 '15 at 16:38
  • @Anonym Yes, that's subject-dependent inversion though. This is subject-auxiliary inversion. The same type you find in questions :) – Araucaria - Him Jun 24 '15 at 20:37
  • @EdwinAshworth Not really, because that question and answer neither asks nor explains why inversion isn't needed when only modifies the Subject - and that is the nub of this question. – Araucaria - Him Jun 24 '15 at 23:27
  • @Araucaria The question asks 'when ...' in the first instance. Daniel's 'There are adverbs and adverbial expressions with a negative, restrictive or emphatic meaning, which are followed by inversion when placed first in a sentence.' addresses the issue well. 'Only then/after/later' mirror 'Only afterwards'. The prenominal usage of the restrictive focus particle 'Only males ...' does not trigger inversion any more than 'just' does. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 25 '15 at 00:01
  • 'Only males' is inseparable (apart from modification of the noun); focus particles need to be next to the noun phrase they refer to. Only / just / even [certain unfortunate] males ...; Males alone ... . – Edwin Ashworth Jun 25 '15 at 00:19
  • How about making is simpler by saying, "Males have the y chromosome.", – Linda Lawson-Bruton Jun 25 '15 at 17:59
  • I think this is an interesting question! :) . . . In my idiolect, "Only do* males have a y chromosome"* is okay. Tentatively, I'm sorta seeing that example as a mix of the two versions: "Males do have a y chromosome" and "Only males have a y chromosome". It'll be interesting to see the argumentation for and against its grammaticality. – F.E. Jun 25 '15 at 18:26
  • Perhaps another somewhat similar example could be: "Only do boys shoot birds in the park". – F.E. Jun 25 '15 at 18:30
  • Huh? How is the OP's question "off-topic"? – F.E. Jun 28 '15 at 09:17
  • 2
    Only two more vote-to-reopen needed. I mean, how would you do any research without already knowing the "rules"? I really do wonder sometimes... – Mari-Lou A Jun 28 '15 at 11:23

1 Answers1

7

The following is a description of the grammar in standard British English:

A special meaning of Only

Only can have several meanings and usages. We're interested in this type of meaning:

  • I only go there on Thursdays.

Notice that this has almost a negative flavour. It effectively means:

  • I don't go there except for on Thursdays.

With this meaning, using only is basically the equivalent of negating the whole sentence but then adding some sort of exception. Notice that in English we can move the word only to accentuate the focus of the exception. Consider this sentence:

  • I only cycle to work on Thursdays.

If the speaker means that Thursday is the only day that she cycles to work, we can move the only to just before the preposition phrase on Thursdays to show that this is the exceptional day:

  • I cycle to work only on Thursdays.

Some grammatical stuff

To understand when we use inversion with only in modern English, we need to understand a teeny bit about the structure of sentences. Most English sentences have a Subject and a Predicate, where the Predicate has the form of a verb phrase. Verbs in English often set up special slots for other phrases, very often noun phrases. So the verb LEND sets up a slot for a recipient and another for the thing being given:

  • I lent [Bob] [my elephant].

These phrases that fill up these slots are usually called COMPLEMENTS. Some Complements have special names such as Direct object or Predicative Complement. In the sentence above, Bob and my elephant are Complements of the verb LEND.

Aside from Subjects and Complements, there are other extra bits of information that we can stick into the sentence that tell us where, or when, or how and so forth, something happened. These extra phrases have no special relationship with the verb, we can just kind of stick them onto the sentence. These extra bits are sometimes called adverbials, but I prefer the term ADJUNCT (the term adverbial conjures up the idea of adverbs, whereas Adjuncts can be noun phrases, or very often preposition phrases). In the following sentence the Adjunct is the preposition phrase on Thursday:

  • I lent Bob my elephant on Thursday.

Inversion with Only

If you remember that sentence a bit further above, I cycle to work only on Thursdays, you might have noticed that we can move this on Thursdays bit to the beginning. We can prepose it:

  • I cycle to work [only on Thursdays]
  • [Only on Thursdays] do I cycle to work.

Notice that when we prepose the only section we need to move the whole phrase. The word only and the phrase that it applies to. Notice also that we see the word do in the version where we preposed the only-phrase. To understand why, consider the following example:

  • Only if we've received the papers can we release the baboon.

In the example above we see the preposed phrase only if we've received the papers. Notice that in the main clause the subject and auxiliary verb have now changed places. Instead of we can release the baboon, we see can we release the baboon (the main auxiliary verbs in English are the common garden verbs BE and HAVE which we use to make different verb constructions, as in we have finished, or I am going - and also modal verbs. The main modal verbs in English are can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should and must).

When the subject and auxiliary verb change positions like this, we call it subject-auxiliary inversion. In English if we prepose a phrase modified by only, we must also use inversion. Now notice that in the sentence I only cycle to work on Thursdays, there is no auxiliary verb. Present simple and past simple sentences in English do not always need an auxiliary verb. When we need to do inversion with present simple and past simple sentences, we insert a special dummy auxiliary, the verb DO. So in the sentence:

  • Only on Thursdays do I cycle to work.

... we see that we have inserted this special auxiliary and then inverted the auxiliary with the subject, I.

Inversion and Subjects

But why do we need inversion in these particular examples, and when can we use this sort of preposing?

Well, notice that the crucial word there is the word preposing. If we prepose a phrase, it means that we move it to the beginning of the sentence. There are some phrases that we can't move to the beginning of the sentence. Most importantly we cannot prepose Subjects. Why? Well, Subjects are already at the beginning of the clause! We cannot move them to the beginning. They're right at the beginning anyway. We only change the order of the subject and the auxiliary if we actually move the only-phrase from its normal position to the front of the sentence. So in the following sentence where only modifies the Subject, Bob ...

  • Only Bob was absent.

... we do not see any inversion. The following sentence is ungrammatical:

  • *Only was Bob absent.

And because we do not need inversion when only modifies a Subject, we don't need to use DO as a dummy auxiliary in these sentences either:

  • Only nincompoops cycle to work on Thursdays.

The following is not good:

  • *Only do nincompoops cycle to work on Thursdays.

Preposing and Adjuncts

What types of only-phrase can we prepose like this? Usually these phrases are Adjuncts. We can sometimes prepose Complements modified by only, but the results are often not very good. When they are kind of acceptable, they will sound archaic or very contrived. Here are some examples:

  • ?Only my elephant did I give Bob.

  • ?Only Bob did I give my elephant.

  • ?Only Bob did I punch.

(? indicates marginal acceptability here).

So long as the preposed phrase is an adjunct, the results are normally fine (although it's probably worth bearing in mind that this style of sentence can be quite formal).

The Original Poster's examples

The Original Poster's first example does not need inversion, because the word only is modifying the Subject of the sentence. This means that there is no preposing. The word males appears in its normal position in the sentence. And because we don't need to invert the Subject and the auxiliary verb, we don't need a special dummy auxiliary DO here to help us do it.

Let's look at the second example:

Only topologically defined sets take advantage of any known internal relations.

The main verb here is take. The Subject in the clause is topologically defined sets. The word only is therefore modifying the Subject, and so we don't need inversion here, and we do not, therefore, need DO-support either.

Basically, only if there is preposing of some phrase do we need to use inversion!

  • 1
    It is strange, though, that only does not allow inversion the way other adverbs do. When adverbs modify the verb and are fronted for emphasis or poetic effect, inversion is normal (though the end result is often a bit clumsy): “swiftly rise the waters of the Great River” (yes, I’m re-reading Tolkien at the moment), “never have I ever”, “often do they go to London”, etc. But when only modifies the verb, emphatic fronting just seems plain impossible: “they only go to London” → “*only do they go to London”. That is odd, is it not? – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jun 24 '15 at 17:53
  • @JanusBahsJacquet my question is why does English use inversion at all? "Swiftly rise the waters" is archaic and poetic, but "only afterwards does she apologize" requires the inversion. In closely-related German and Dutch, such inversion is required far more regularly. Why did English lose most of that inversion, but not all of it? – phoog Jun 24 '15 at 21:23
  • @phoog Because it's unnecessarily complicated it was lost in most cases where it didn't really have much of a function. Where it plays an important role (questions), it's mandatory; but why it wasn't lost in the case of fronting… anybody's guess. It's not always there even then, though: “never the twain shall meet”, for instance, does fine without it, but “never I have ever” is impossible. Inversion in English is a higgledy-piggledy mumble-jumble altogether. Give it a few centuries more, I'm guessing it'll be gone altogether except perhaps in questions. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jun 24 '15 at 21:34
  • There's a lot more depth to the whole debate. 'I cycle to work just on Thursdays' can be transposed to 'Just on Thursdays, I cycle to work' (and do-insertion would sound unnatural here). – Edwin Ashworth Jun 25 '15 at 00:13
  • @JanusBahsJacquet Your example "they only go to London" has various interpretations, depending on the focus of "only". Focus is the term McCawley uses for what is being contrasted with some alternative. Bolding the focus, we have (1) "They only go to London" (but we don't go there). (2) ??"They only go to London (obscure interpretation), (3) "They only go to London" (not Nairobi). If inversion is possible at all, I think it would be in sense (1), and then "only" is not a verb modifier, but rather a subject modifier -- ??"Only do they go to London". – Greg Lee Jun 25 '15 at 00:44
  • Araucaria is here doing something I could never do. Since I am a descriptive grammarian, for me, a grammar is a theory about the speech of native speakers. When a theory makes a wrong prediction, you can't say the facts are wrong. That is just not the way it works. And besides, not only do I find the "only do + subject" versions acceptable, but I just asked my wife about "Only do the males have y-chromosomes", and she said it sounded perfectly okay, to her. (We are both native speakers of English.) – Greg Lee Jun 25 '15 at 01:11
  • @GregLee, Yes, I've been speaking to a couple of over-the-ponders on here, and it seems there might be a varietal issue here. I've only had a chance to check with two Brits so far (and myself!), but looking at Edwin's comment and Janus' I'm very confident that that's not grammatical in British English. It certainly makes me wince in a She doesn't eats* fish* kind of way. I was wondering whether for you, personally, the weight of the subject might be the factor in the increased acceptability of the OP's second example? – Araucaria - Him Jun 25 '15 at 06:42
  • @GregLee So I've done a canvas of the people here. All of the Brits found both ungrammatical. Of the three Americans, two found them both ungrammatical. The third was unsure about the second, but thought the first was ungrammatical. One Canadian thinks they're both ok if given a certain kind of intonation - but no rendition of this special intonation was persuasive for the others. So maybe there is a pond issue, but it doesn't seem to be the case that either sentence would be blanketly acceptable for Standard American ... – Araucaria - Him Jun 25 '15 at 13:31
  • @GregLee Interestingly, both F.E. and the teacher who thought the second would be ok, thought that this might be an emphatic usage. One thing is clear though - the rules for preposing when some item modified by only has been preposed and for when the Subject is being modified are clearly different, even in your idiolect. The reason being that inversion is more or less mandatory in the former case, but certainly isn't in the latter. I assume that even for you Only males have a y chromosome is acceptable? [btw, for what it's worth I consider myself a descriptive grammarian too] – Araucaria - Him Jun 25 '15 at 13:57
  • "Only males have a y-chromosome" (bolding the primary stressed word) is acceptable, but with normal stress, "Only males have a y-chromosome" is only interpretable in another sense, where "only" introduces the sentence as taking exception to something that was just said, And yes, I do think the weight of the subject phrase makes a difference. – Greg Lee Jun 25 '15 at 16:02
  • Btw, if you are a descriptive grammarian, then in this answer you give, you have sinned. – Greg Lee Jun 25 '15 at 16:09
  • @GregLee What the makes the difference there in B.E. is probably whether only or males is the first accented word (where an accent is a stress with a prominent pitch). So where it has the anaphoric contrast only will have no stress, whereas when it is used as a focussing device it will appear in the head of the intonational phrase along with males (i.e. they will both be stressed). – Araucaria - Him Jun 25 '15 at 16:11
  • @GregLee Maybe, but how so? (I am a grammarian in training, I suppose). In terms of making a wrong prediction, it may do so outside of the variety of English that I speak. But then that would just not be the same elephant that I'm describing, it would be a different one. I'm still researching the possible UK/US divide here, and will modify the post when I've got something more concrete with regards to US varieties. But maybe that's not where I've sinned? – Araucaria - Him Jun 25 '15 at 16:14
  • No, it doesn't matter how many people you can get to agree with you or how many agree with the OP. The truth is not up for a vote. – Greg Lee Jun 25 '15 at 16:19
  • @GregLee I don't get you? Agree with me or agree with the OP? – Araucaria - Him Jun 25 '15 at 16:24
  • Aren't you being obtuse? The question is whether the OP's sentence "Only do males have a y chromosome" is grammatical. He wrote it; his supervisor thinks it's wrong. Who is right? You claim to have proven that the supervisor is right. Isn't that what is going on here? – Greg Lee Jun 25 '15 at 16:32
  • @GregLee Ah, when I wrote this, or certainly when I started, OP hadn't explained that they were a native speaker, and I assumed (perhaps misguided by the first example, and by Dan Bron's comments) that they were a learner. Hence my language learnerish advice at the bottom of the post. I'm not trying to persuade anyone about "what's right", I'm just trying to explain how native speakers use the language. However, might be the wrong group of native speakers possibly! – Araucaria - Him Jun 25 '15 at 16:33
  • 1
    Okay, but now you know OP is a native speaker, you know that you must revise your answer. (And btw, studying the speech of non-native speakers is just as interesting for a linguist as natives' speech. Being a native speaker doesn't give anyone a special magical insight into what is grammatical.) – Greg Lee Jun 25 '15 at 16:43
  • @GregLee The question was completely different when the OP posted it. Have a look at the edit history. My natural assumption was that the OP was a non-native speaker and the supervisor was a native-speaker. Especially given that the supervisor had corrected OP's English this seemed a natural thing to assume. In the variety of English that I speak, OP's examples are ungrammatical, so the purpose of my post was to explain why the "native speaker" supervisor likewise found the examples ungrammatical. If I'd known that the speaker was an L1, I would have just put it down to a varietal difference. – Araucaria - Him Jun 25 '15 at 16:43
  • @GregLee Yes, that's so, am still doing some research. I only found out they were a native speaker about ten minutes ago as I hadn't read the new bit at the very top of the post. I don't particularly like being called "obtuse" by the way ... – Araucaria - Him Jun 25 '15 at 16:51
  • Sorry -- you're not obtuse. Now, I'm thinking about a rule that exports "only" from being part of the subject to being a sentence adverb. Once the sentence structure starts with two constituents which are not verbs, this triggers subject-aux inversion. – Greg Lee Jun 25 '15 at 17:12
  • @Araucaria

    FYI: I am British.

    I think I have used the do for emphasis.

    – user27815 Jun 26 '15 at 05:52
  • @user27815 Interesting :) Have you used it in a sentence where only is modifying the subject. So for example in a sentence like "Only do mammals have fur." ? Or do you put the do in a different position there? – Araucaria - Him Jun 26 '15 at 10:28
  • @Araucaria- Not here any more: You've a flair for answering questions expertly! I read through the entire thing (sans comments), and did learn a good deal more about inversion. Could you please explain this part of your answer a bit more? : When we need to do inversion with present simple and past simple sentences, we insert a special dummy auxiliary, the verb DO. So in the sentence:

    Only on Thursdays do I cycle to work. My question is why do we need Do there at all, and even if some word is warranted there at all, why only DO and not some other word?

    – user405662 Jun 05 '21 at 14:06
  • 1
    @user405662 It might be helpful to consider: The elephants are* escaping* / The police have* arrested the president* / You can* dance really well. Suppose you want to turn those into questions. We'd need to use an interrogative construction. This involves the auxiliary verb appearing before the subject:: Are the elephants escaping?* / *Have the police arrested the president /?* / *Can you dance really well?. So far so good. Now try this: She likes cheese*. We can't move the non-auxiliary verb, it has to be an auxiliary (that's what the construction requires): – Araucaria - Him Jun 05 '21 at 17:38
  • 1
    @Araucaria- Not here any more I should have been able to work that out myself. It looks obvious, now that you explained it. Thank you very much, anyway. :) – user405662 Jun 05 '21 at 17:42
  • 1
    @user405662 If we tried to move likes, we'd get # Likes she cheese?. That's no good. If we tried to use another auxiliary verb, for example can, that would change the meaning: *Can she like cheese?* <--That doesn't mean the same thing. We have a similar problem with a non-modal auxiliary like have e.g.: *Has she liked cheese?*. So to fill the gap there's a special auxiliary when we don't have another to use. – Araucaria - Him Jun 05 '21 at 17:44
  • 1
    @Araucaria- Not here any more Yeah, I got that from your previous comment itself. :) – user405662 Jun 05 '21 at 17:47
  • 1
    @user405662 I kind of guessed that from your comment, but I'd already typed it all ;) Thought it might be useful for other readers! After you see it, it kind of makes sense but it's not at all obvious when you first consider it! – Araucaria - Him Jun 05 '21 at 19:09