2

In general, we would say "Only this way can we", but I also came across many sentences in the internet which use “Only this way we can”. Is the expression "Only this way we can" grammatically correct and natural? Many thanks!

"To find the best way of living a worthy life through a relatively uncharted experience, is simply by using our intuition. Only this way we can learn the wonders of eternal consciousness, and literately witness that it is alive and exists at all."(The Conspiracy Rhetoric of Mankind author: Paul J. Linke)

————

The above is the same question as in https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/only-this-way-we-can-can-we.3564026/ ; however, the answers there seem not to be theoretical or persuasive to explain why this grammar is necessary, so I copy and paste it here.

1MinLeft
  • 41

1 Answers1

1

This is an example of Negative Inversion.

According to Wikipedia:

In linguistics, negative inversion is one of many types of subject–auxiliary inversion in English. A negation (e.g. not, no, never, nothing, etc.) or a word that implies negation (only, hardly, scarcely) or a phrase containing one of these words precedes the finite auxiliary verb necessitating that the subject and finite verb undergo inversion. Negative inversion is a phenomenon of English syntax.

It's therefore correct to say:

"Only this way can we learn the wonders of eternal consciousness, and literately witness that it is alive and exists at all."

BillJ
  • 12,832
user405662
  • 8,423
  • 1
    Hmm. Nice post, but doesn’t answer the OP’s question! – Araucaria - Him Dec 27 '21 at 16:49
  • @Araucaria- Not here any more Welcome! Where do you find my answer deficient? One could flesh it out by adding more examples perhaps, but the basic question about which version of OP's sentence is correct is IMHO dealt with sufficiently. – user405662 Dec 27 '21 at 16:57
  • 2
    Well, it’s just that OP seems completely aware that the version with subject auxiliary inversion is grammatical. What they want to know is whether the version without it is. This isn’t covered by the Wiki quote and you don’t specifically rule it out in your answer! – Araucaria - Him Dec 27 '21 at 17:00
  • 1
    I thought bolding necessitating that the subject and finite verb undergo inversion was enough for OP to know the other version is ungrammatical. But i defer to your superior knowledge of such things (indeed, linguistics in general), and so I would like you to add what's been left out. Or better still, write a detailed answer. :) – user405662 Dec 27 '21 at 17:04
  • 4
    Well, compare, For no reason, Trump would dance naked and For no reason would Trump dance naked. :-) Or Only after considering the consequences, people should undertake potentially lethal actions and Only after considering the consequences should people undertake potentially lethal actions. The Wiki description isn’t complete/accurate! – Araucaria - Him Dec 27 '21 at 18:32
  • 1
    @user405662 Thanks for your being the first to respond to my question, and indeed your answer helps. But "necessitating that the subject and finite verb undergo inversion" just seems not to be adequate for my need. – 1MinLeft Dec 28 '21 at 04:04
  • @Araucaria - Not here any more. Thanks for your making my question more specific. – 1MinLeft Dec 28 '21 at 04:04
  • @Araucaria- Not here any more I can see that my answer is indeed incomplete without addressing the part brought out by your examples. The comma version in your examples doesn't call for S-V inversion because the phrases preceding commas aren't part of the matrix clause,while this is not so in the commaless version. To put it in a crude way. Right? – user405662 Dec 28 '21 at 05:29
  • Google Ngram shows that Only in* this way can we ...* is much more frequent than Only this way can ... – DjinTonic Dec 28 '21 at 13:38
  • @user405662 It's about whether the whole sentence is negated or not. (If it is, there's SAI) – Araucaria - Him Jan 19 '22 at 16:46