inversion

This is the place to post questions and discussions on usage and style. The members of the Wordwizard Clubhouse will also often be able to help you to formulate that difficult letter.
Post Reply

inversion

Post by azz » Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:52 am

a. In the room danced two youngsters.
b, In the room were dancing two youngsters.

c. In the distance moved a cloud of dust.
d. In the distance was moving a cloud of dust.

e. With the basketball played a group of young people.
f. With the basketball were playing a group of young people.


Are the above sentences grammatically correct?


Many thanks
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: inversion

Post by Phil White » Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:20 pm

None of them follow the standard conventions of syntax. In very rare circumstances, a and b and e and f may conceivably be used as rhetorical devices, but the scenario must have been prepared beforehand (i.e. such sentences could only follow a focus on the room/basketball. I cannot conceive of any circumstance in which c or d may be used.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

Re: inversion

Post by tony h » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:58 pm

OK Phil, I'll give it a try. They remind me of books I used to read when I was a boy.

c. In the distance moved a cloud of dust.

The small band of khaki clad men had reached the edge of the village. They looked out over the flat plain of the dessert which they would have to cross. "Look", said Algy pointing north. In the distance moved a cloud of dust. George got out the binoculars. "Jerry half-tracks. It looks like they're heading for Al Wadi."

d. In the distance was moving a cloud of dust.

Mr. Somerton was sitting on the veranda looking out over the fields. It looked like a good harvest was in store. A good harvest meant there would be money to invest in the water system. As the sun descended towards the horizon the sky started to look red. In the distance was moving a cloud of dust. It always happened as the cold evening air hit the hot earth forming mini tornedos pulling little particles into the sky. In a moment Mr. Somerton's chair had crashed over. The cloud had changed direction. This wasn't dust, it was locusts. His crop would be gone in a matter of hours.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: tony

I'm puzzled therefore I think.

Re: inversion

Post by Phil White » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:51 pm

Still doesn't really work for me, Tony. The fronting of the locative expression, combined with the inversion, put massive emphasis on the fronted noun.
In sentences a and b, the utterance is "about" the room. That's what the fronting and inversion do. likewise, in sentences e and f, the utterance is "about" the basketball.

In the case of sentences c and d, this would mean that the sentence is "about" the distance. It's not. it's "about" the cloud of dust.

It's all about the focus, and putting the focus on "distance" simply does not work for me.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

Re: inversion

Post by azz » Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:37 pm

Thank you both so much.

How about
1. In the hallway stood a guard.
2. In the hallway a guard stood.

3. In the hallway sat a guard on a stool.
4. In the hallway a guard sat on a stool.

?

My feeling is that (1) and (4) work and the other two don't... However I think this one is fine

5. In the room two youngsters danced.



Many thanks.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: inversion

Post by Phil White » Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:23 am

Your feeling is correct. Your sentence 5 is, of course, absolutely normal, but if you front the locative phrase like that, it would be normal to place a comma between it and the subject. Indeed, if you front any phrase or clause before an uninverted statement, it would be normal to place a comma, as in this sentence, where a comma is inserted between the "if" clause and the subject..

A couple of initial thoughts:

1. It seems that the inversion can only be used with intransitive verbs.
"*In the hallway played the guard cards."
"*In the room danced a couple a waltz."

2. As far as I can see, inversion can only be used if the intransitive verb is also unqualified in any way:
"*In the church sang a choir beautifully."
"*In the church sang beautifully a choir."
"In the church sang a choir."
"*In the hallway sat a guard on a chair."

3. It does, however, appear that further information that qualifies the subject and not the verb may be added:
"In the hallway sat a guard playing cards."

The fact, however, remains that inversion of this kind is a relatively rare rhetorical device. It has the effect of shifting the focus of the sentence, in this case rather like zooming in with a camera.

At present, I can't offer any clear guidelines as to where inversion is possible and where not. I am relying on intuition.

Why, for instance, can I not say "In the garden smoked a man"? It meets my requirements 1 and 2 above, but is, to my ear, simply wrong. I have no idea why.

It does seem that it is more readily available with verbs that indicate position or movement:
"Along the road walked a man."
"On the hill stood a castle."
"Into the bedroom rushed Major Sharpe, feverishly fumbling with his trouser buttons."
"At the crossroads waited my friend."
But not "*At the crossroads stopped my friend."

The hypothesis that inversion is more acceptable for verbs of motion is borne out by the following:
"In front of the troops stood a piper."
"In front of the troops marched a piper."
"*In front of the troops played a piper."

(And yes, I have been watching too many episodes of Sharpe recently...)
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

Re: inversion

Post by azz » Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:36 am

Thank you so much for another amazing reply1

This is very hard to get a grip on. I'd like to test a few other sentences, and then I'll quit. I think we have two problems. First: where can one use inversion? Second: when does one have to use inversion?

A. In front of the troops, a piper marched.


B. Along the road, a man walked.
C. Along the road, a man ran.


D. Along the road ran a man.


E. In the garden, a man walked.
F. In the garden walked a man.



Many thanks.
Last edited by azz on Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: inversion

Post by tony h » Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:53 pm

Phil White wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:51 pm
Still doesn't really work for me, Tony. The fronting of the locative expression, combined with the inversion, put massive emphasis on the fronted noun.
...
In the case of sentences c and d, this would mean that the sentence is "about" the distance. It's not. it's "about" the cloud of dust.

It's all about the focus, and putting the focus on "distance" simply does not work for me.
I find your mood on this interesting. For me, in my examples, "in the distance" is the primary point. It places whatever comes next in a non -immediate-risk-area. It sets the scene. Surely it is the same as "in a land far, far away a old woman was preparing her evening meal". It strikes me that that slides you into the story far more smoothly than "an old woman was preparing her evening meal in a land far, far away".


Similarly :

"I turned a corner and saw a lion prowling in the distance" This form creates fear which is then dissipated.

vs

"I turned the corner and saw in the distance a lion prowling" This form creates interest and wonder.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: tony

I'm puzzled therefore I think.

Re: inversion

Post by Phil White » Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:41 pm

Tony, your point in the above post is about the fronting of the adverbial "in the distance", with which I take no issue. Your points are all valid. What I dislike is the inversion of the subject and verb in azz's original sentences ("moved a cloud").

A far, far longer post on which I have been working for about 3 or 4 hours, will follow later. I shall explicitly look at the cloud of dust again.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

Re: inversion

Post by Phil White » Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:42 pm

azz wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:36 am
This is very hard to get a grip on. I'd like to test a few other sentences, and then I'll quit. I think we have two problems. First: where can one use inversion? Second: when does one have to use inversion?
azz, your second question is easy to answer: Never ... except when it is mandatory.
Your first is largely answered in my previous post, but the answer in that post is not entirely satisfactory, or indeed complete.

I can't find any detailed analyses of the precise syntactical scenario you are asking about, so I shall do my best without the help of other sources.

It is important to understand exactly what is going on here.

Firstly, we need to distinguish between "fronting" and "inversion". In English, normal word order is Subject - Verb - Object - Adverbials. If you do not depart from this, you will rarely, if ever, be wrong, although your language will be a little dull and uninteresting.

So we have the structure "the kids played football in the park every evening."

It is possible to move the adverbial expressions (usually only one) to the front of the sentence for emphasis:
"Every evening the kids played football in the park."

The effect of this "fronting" is to place the focus of the sentence on the fronted element, i.e. the time of day in this example. It would be possible, but unusual, to front "in the park" instead:

"In the park, the kids played football every evening."

This places the focus on the park. We are talking about what happens in the park, and not what the kids did. It is an unusual emphasis to have, but if that is the emphasis, the fronting is correct.

But note that the subject - verb - object word order remains unchanged.

Note also that we can never (except in poetry) front the object of the sentence:
"*Football played the kids in the park every evening."

We can only front the adverbials.

Adverbial expressions fall into five categories, although we generally only think of the first three of these: Adverbials of time, manner, place, degree and frequency.

Any adverbial can be fronted in English:
  • In the tent, Wellington explained the situation to Major Sharpe.
  • In 1803, Sharpe was a sergeant in India.
  • With the last of his strength, Major Sharpe killed the remaining thirteen Dragoons.
  • Every time he met a woman, Major Sharpe had difficulty keeping his trousers on.
  • Greatly, Major Sharpe wished that he could remember where his trousers were.
So far, so good: We can always front adverbials.

In some cases, we can also invert the subject and the verb after an adverbial has been fronted:
"Into the fray rushed Major Sharpe, his weapon unsheathed."

The question is, when can we use this inversion and is it mandatory or common?
Before I attempt to answer that and immediately qualify my answer with an exception, I shall add another element to the mix. English sometimes provides the option of using "dummy subjects" in a number of situations:
  • It is raining.
  • There was a guard in the hallway.
In sentences of the type we are discussing, it is sometimes possible to use a dummy subject. In the examples below, I will often give the non-inverted form, the inverted form and the form with the dummy subject "there" and mark those which are not possible [*] or which are, in my opinion, dubious [?].

Okay, off we go!

Neither inversion nor the dummy subject are possible for transitive or ditransitive verbs:
  • In the clearing, Major Sharpe found a dead Frenchman.
  • *In the clearing found Major Sharpe a dead Frenchman.
  • *In the clearing, there found Major Sharpe a dead Frenchman.
  • That afternoon, Major Ross gave Major Sharpe a letter.
  • *That afternoon gave Major Ross Major Sharpe a letter.
  • *That afternoon there gave Major Ross Major Sharpe a letter.
The list could be extended endlessly, but I have been unable to find any examples of transitive or ditransitive verbs being used with inversion in such scenarios.

So what about intransitive verbs?

Intransitive verbs allow inversion only when the adverbial that is fronted is an adverbial of place (one exception to this is described below):
  • In the hallway stood Major Sharpe. (Place)
  • *At five o'clock rose Major Sharpe. (Time)
  • *With great urgency ran Major Sharpe to the bedroom. (Manner)
Again, there are endless examples, but I can think of only one exception to this rule (see below).

Furthermore, even when the fronted element is an adverbial of place and the verb is intransitive, there appear to be restrictions:
  • In the courtyard stood Sergeant Harper.
  • *In the courtyard smoked Sergeant Harper.
  • Over the fort flew the banner of the French Imperial Guard.
  • In the tent slept Major Sharpe.
  • *In the tent coughed Major Sharpe.
  • Along the track rode Major Sharpe.
  • On the battlefield stood two thousand men.
  • ?On the battlefield waited two thousand men.
  • *On the battlefield fought two thousand men.
  • *On the battlefield died two thousand men.
Some people may argue that the last two of these examples are (just) acceptable, but they sound impossible to my ears.

So what determines whether inversion is possible or not in these examples? This is not easy and leaves considerable latitude for subjectivity. It seems to me that in all the cases where inversion is possible, the verb must inherently suggest a location or some kind of movement. In other words, if you use a word like "stand" or "sleep", it implies motionlessness. And if you use words like "ride" or "walk", they imply motion. They therefore have a direct semantic affinity to the fronted adverbial. If I say "The flag flew", with no further context, it begs the question "where?". If I say "Major Sharpe coughed", it begs no such question. If I say "Major Sharpe rode", without any other context, it begs the question "where" or "where to?". "Sleep" implies a state of motionlessness (but does not beg the question "where?"). "Smoke" does not imply movement or location, neither does it beg the question "where".

Of course, all events happen at a location, but the important thing is the extent to which the location is important to our understanding of the event (the verb). Exactly where the line is drawn will lie in the judgement of the speaker. In stylized writing, and in poetry in particular, this boundary can be stretched. This is the case with your original "in the room danced two youngsters"; and I could imagine a novelist using "in the courtyard smoked Sergeant Harper" to achieve an effect of "painting a scenario". Indeed, it seems to me that the inversion technique is used for precisely this purpose: to "freeze" a narrative in order to paint a backdrop to further narrative.

So, we have 3 principles by which we can determine with some confidence whether or not inversion can be used in such constructions:
  1. The fronted adverbial must be an adverbial of place. (But see exception below.)
  2. The verb must be intransitive.
  3. The verb must in some way imply or demand a location or describe motionlessness or motion.


Before I look at the issue of whether inversion is mandatory, I shall tackle a couple of outstanding issues.

I have been tantalizing you with the threat of an exception. I suggested above that inversion can only be used when the fronted adverbial is an adverbial of manner. I can think of one and only one exception to this, namely the figurative use of "come" with an adverbial of time:
  • In Autumn come the winds.
  • In 1815 came the battle of Waterloo - and Sharpe came too.
  • At five o'clock came the eagerly anticipated news.
  • *At five o'clock came the train.
    This is not possible, because "came" is being used literally.
I can think of no other exceptions to my second principle outside of the realm of poetry or highly stylized writing.

The second issue to be cleared up concerns the use of the dummy subject "there" in such constructions:
At present, it seems to me that the usage is subject to the same constraints as inversion, but with the additional constraint that the real subject must not be a proper noun.
  • Along the track rode a company of Dragoons.
  • Along the track, there rode the company of Dragoons he had seen earlier.
  • Along the track rode Major Sharpe.
  • *Along the track, there rode Major Sharpe.
Otherwise, as I say, the constraints are the same as for the use of inversion.

The third issue that needs clearing up concerns the use of the verb "be".

Take the sentence "the house was on the hill". Some may want to call this an "existential" use of "be", with the meaning that something exists at a particular location. I prefer to see it as a copular usage, the same as "the house is large" or "the house is white". Indeed, we can say "the house was large, white and on the hill".

In this sentence, the "on the hill" can be fronted:
"On the hill was the house." In this case, the inversion is mandatory:
"*On the hill, the house was."

This example would appear to fit into the same schema as the others we have been looking at, but that is not so. Because the verb "be" is copular, "on the hill" is not adverbial, but adjectival. This explains why inversion is mandatory with "be", but not with any other verb that we are looking at. The syntax is simply different.

So is inversion ever mandatory other than in the exception above? Let me put it this way: Fronting is never mandatory, so this inversion is, in that sense, never mandatory. Also, there are often other options available which would be preferred in modern English.

But let's look at some examples:
  1. Along the track rode Major Sharpe.
    Excellent in a narrative context.
  2. Along the track, Major Sharpe rode.
    In its naked form, this sounds strange. But narrative sentences are rarely as simple as the examples we are playing with here. In the context of a longer sentence, this works fine: "Along the track, Major Sharpe rode, worried that he might have contracted the pox.". The inverted version also works fine in such a context: "Along the track rode Major Sharpe, worried that he might have contracted the pox."
  3. Above the fort flew the banner of Castille.
  4. Above the fort, the banner of Castille flew.
    This is fine, and not as ungainly when naked as "Along the track, Major Sharpe rode.".
  5. In the hallway stood the guard.
  6. ?In the hallway, the guard stood.
    This is very peculiar in the naked form shown here, but again, it is fine in "In the hallway, the guard stood, smoking a cigarette."
So is the inversion mandatory when all three principles I listed are met? Sentences 2, 4 and 6 above are certainly ungainly when standing on their own, but in a more normal extended syntactical context, they are fine. I would say that the inverted form is preferable when the construction has no further adornment, but it is not mandatory, and certainly not when the sentence is elaborated.

Of course, despite all that I have said, there will be cases where writers use fronting and inversion in ways that do not follow the principles I have hypothesized above. And often they will work well. But they will be conscious departures from what seems to me to be normal practice.

I said to Tony that I would revisit "in the distance". In fact, I shall revisit all of azz's original sentences, as I was perhaps over-hasty in my response.
  1. In the room danced two youngsters.
  2. In the room were dancing two youngsters.
  3. In the distance moved a cloud of dust.
  4. In the distance was moving a cloud of dust.
  5. With the basketball played a group of young people.
  6. With the basketball were playing a group of young people.
I shall ignore sentences b, d and f, as the use of the past progressive in preference to the simple past is of no significance. If the narrative demands the progressive (which it often will), the progressive is just fine, and all of my above comments remain valid for the progressive forms.

Sentence a meets criterion 1, as the fronted adverbial is an adverbial of place. It meets criterion 2 because the verb "dance" is intransitive. For me, it is absolutely marginal in respect of criterion 3. While the verb "dance" does imply movement, "in the room" implies a static location, so the verb and the adverbial do not "match" completely. But I stand by my original assessment that the sentence is possible if well prepared for.

Sentence c in fact has the same analysis: It meets criteria 1 and 2 and is marginal on criterion 3 on the same grounds. "Moves" implies motion, but the adverbial does not. I still do not like it, but I have to say that it is acceptable. For some reason, it seems to work better with the dummy subject: "In the distance, there moved a cloud of dust".

Sentence e. Hmmmmm, sentence e. I do not know what I was thinking when I said that this was conceivable. Often, when confronted with one of azz's sentences, I will spend many minutes, hours or even days thinking "before I say that this is ungrammatical, can it be made to work?", and I, like Tony, construct scenarios in which the sentence can be forced to work. Clearly, I did that with this sentence. Ah yes! It comes back to me! I had imagined somebody relating a dream sequence about a basketball... Such scenarios are obscure, and even then, I doubt that one in a million would choose even to front the adverbial, let alone to attempt to invert the subject and verb. So again, I revise my opinion somewhat. Sentences e and f are highly unlikely.

Like Major Sharpe, the battle over, I would like to turn to more enjoyable things. But unlike Major Sharpe, I am too bloody exhausted...
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

Re: inversion

Post by Erik_Kowal » Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:01 am

Thanks, Phil. That explanation is a tour de force.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: inversion

Post by azz » Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:37 am

I really don't know how to thank you for this amazing reply! It is beyond belief! You have written an article on the subject! This is not the first time! I am truly grateful!

Many many thanks,
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

ACCESS_END_OF_TOPIC
Post Reply