"Not once but twice" triggers subj-aux inversion?

[Dan Goncharoff]

Sorry, I just don't get it. If someone is trying to say that usually the
"subj-aux inversion" is associated with negative adverbials, I can buy that.

If someone is trying to say that it is wrong to change word order to make a
point, to add emphasis, even to just sound poetic (or pretentious), I have
to disagree. It's is one of the great joys of English that we are not stuck
with a lot of rules for word order.

DanG


On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: "Not once but twice" triggers subj-aux inversion?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 1:43 PM -0400 6/27/11, Dan Goncharoff wrote:
> >It's OK to be positive. The Bible tells me so.
> >
> >Psalm 106:43
> >Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their counsel,
> and
> >were brought low for their iniquity.
> >
> >DanG
>
> Yes, back then--or in poetry, a few centuries beyond then--just about
> any fronted adverb or prepositional phrase could trigger inversion
>
> Oft have I sighed for him who hears me not      [Campion, c. 1610]
> Much have I traveled in the realms of gold.     [Keats, 1816]
>
> But it's gradually become associated with negative adverbials.
>
> LH
>
> >
> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu
> >wrote:
> >
> >>  ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> >>  -----------------------
> >>  Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >>  Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> >>  Subject:      Re: "Not once but twice" triggers subj-aux inversion?
> >>
> >>
>
> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>  At 12:41 PM -0400 6/27/11, Neal Whitman wrote:
> >>  >>From Charles Krauthammer's column yesterday:
> >>  >
> >>  >"Not once but twice (Afghanistan and then Iraq) did Bush seek and
> receive
> >>  >congressional authorization, as his father did for the Gulf War."
> >>  >
> >>  >Why the subject-auxiliary inversion? With "Not once" I get it, but not
> >>  with
> >>  >"Not once but twice," which isn't a negation of the main verb.
> >>  >
> >>  >Further discussion and additional attestations on the blog:
> >>  >http://literalminded.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/not-once-but-twice/
> >>  >
> >>  Interesting, Neal.  I share your judgments and your puzzlement about
> >>  the (evident) possibility of inversion with "not once but twice",
> >>  although I would differ from one of your comments in the blog:  "Not
> >>  only" + inverted clausal complement (your example is "Not only should
> >>  you say thanks in person; you should also send a thank-you note")
> >>  does *not* involve negative inversion.   I've argued for this claim
> >>  partly on the basis that it introduces a veridical environment ("not
> >>  only p but q" entails p) but mostly on linguistic grounds.  In
> >>  particular, no negative polarity items are possible within its scope:
> >>
> >>  Not only should you (*ever) say thanks in person...
> >>  Not only have I (*ever) eaten (*any) shrimp, I've eaten squid.
> >>
> >>  In fact, "not only" clauses host positive rather than negative
> >>  polarity items.  One of my minimal pairs (in a 2000 article on this)
> >>  was
> >>
> >>  Not only does she already love someone else, but she's also married.
> >>  *Not only does she love anyone else yet, but she's also married.
> >>
> >>  In this respect, "not only" differs radically from "only" itself,
> >>  which *is* negative in meaning and thus licenses both negative
> >>  polarity items and (when fronted) inversion:
> >>
> >>  Only then/in Japanese restaurants would I ever eat any jellyfish.
> >>  Only if you begged me would I lift a finger to help you.
> >>  Only God could ever make a tree.
> >>
> >>  Instead, the inversion with "not only" is related to that in other
> >>  cases of backgrounded clauses in correlative constructions, as in:
> >>
> >>  No sooner had she spoken than down the chimney tumbled two feet from
> >>  which the flesh had rotted.  [from _Scary Stories to Tell in the
> >>  Dark_]
> >>  So tall is he that he can dunk without leaving his feet.
> >>
> >>  LH
> >>
> >>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>  The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >>
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org