0

  1. Only recently (in February 1998) women’s ice hockey was incorporated into the Olympic Winter Games, while men’s ice hockey has been a fixed event ever since the first Winter Games started in 1924.

  2. Only recently (in February 1998) was women’s ice hockey incorporated into the Olympic Winter Games, while men’s ice hockey has been a fixed event ever since the first Winter Games started in 1924.

  3. Only recently (in February 1998) that women’s ice hockey was incorporated into the Olympic Winter Games, while men’s ice hockey has been a fixed event ever since the first Winter Games started in 1924.

Out of these three, which one is correct? Why? And why are the others wrong?

Note: Some users have stated in comments underneath that example (3) is ungrammatical, but it's not clear why. In addition one established user said that (1) was clumsy but meant the same as (2), the difference was stylistic. Another one, however, said that (1) and (2) had different meanings. A third mentioned that negative only licensed the subject-auxiliary inversion in (2), and that it was an NPI. Whilst helpful, these do not properly explain which of (1)-(3) are acceptable and why.

Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
user481833
  • 9
  • Version #3 is syntactically invalid (could be fixed by adding *It was...* at the start). I think version #1 is clumsy - this is a context where we'd normally invert subject/object (*was hockey* rather than *hockey was*). But that's just a stylistic choice. – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '23 at 11:28
  • @FumbleFingers There is a difference in meaning between (1) and (2). The difference semantic as well as stylistic. (Although (1) definitely requires a comma). – Araucaria - Him Jun 14 '23 at 12:50
  • This question is clearly about the English language. The close reason seems bizarre to me. – Araucaria - Him Jun 14 '23 at 13:09
  • 1
    Note that the inversion is licensed by the negative only. Such inversion is an NPI. – John Lawler Jun 14 '23 at 17:01
  • @Araucaria-Nothereanymore: Now I'll have to vote to reopen the very question I was the first to VTC! I don't recognise any significant difference in meaning between #1: Only recently was dueling declared illegal and 2: Only recently dueling was declared illegal. Maybe #1 is more likely in contexts primarily focused on *dueling* (before it was banned), and #2 is more likely in contexts primarily focused on *banning* various things. But that's a matter of style and nuance rather than different meanings. So now I'm voting to reopen simply to learn about any supposed difference! – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '23 at 17:20
  • 2
    (My VTC was for migration to ELL. Obviously no-one else's was! :) – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '23 at 17:23
  • @JohnLawler Fumblefingers And, in fact, it’s even more complex than that. The SAI allows the exceptive negation to scope right over the rest of the clause, which is in its entirety now an NPI environment. But it can’t/doesn’t scope over the clause without SAI, and the rest of that clause is not an NPI environment. – Araucaria - Him Jun 14 '23 at 18:09
  • Does this answer your question? Inversion in 'only [adverb] have they'. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 15 '23 at 16:21
  • 2
    NPI strength is shown by say seldom; 'Seldom ice hockey was regarded so highly' is awful. But I feel that 'Only recently' can have the sense 'Even in the recent past' as well as 'At no other times than in the recent past', which complicates things. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 15 '23 at 16:32
  • @EdwinAshworth Exactly so. And in the not long ago sense, there is no negation of the larger clause. – Araucaria - Him Jun 15 '23 at 17:45

0 Answers0