現代英文中的「倒裝」#3: 「否定」倒裝 (「subject-auxiliary」倒裝之一)

 


在關於現代英文「倒裝法」的前一個篇章,我介紹了「subject-auxiliary」和「subject-whole verb」兩種倒裝的結構分別,也列出了現今仍會觸發(或要求)這些倒裝法的各種不同情景。


今次,我將集中講解「subject-auxiliary」倒裝的第一種情景,我們可稱它為「否定」倒裝


我在前一篇中舉過以下「否定」倒裝法的例子:


Never have I seen such a man. 我從未見過這樣的人。
Never did I imagine this outcome. 我從未想像過會有這樣的結果。


這類型的倒裝句,一般都包含一個「否定整個子句」的副詞或副詞組 – 通常是「never」這單字副詞或包含「never」的詞組,被移至子句開頭的位置。


像「never」這種核心的子句副詞,在現代英文的正常詞序中,理應出現在這位置:


I have never seen such a man.


I never imagined this outcome. 


假如子句中的限定動詞只是一個單字,像第二組例句中 simple past 字形的「imagined」,副詞「never」應在它的前面出現。而假如限定動詞組本身已包含了輔助動詞,像第一例句中的「have seen」,「never」便會出現在第一個位置的輔助動詞(即這裡的「have」)之後。


然而,「never」一旦被移至子句的開端,便會觸發限定動詞組中主語與輔助動詞的位置互換。而如果原本只有一個單字的限定動詞(例如「imagined」),我們也要先加入一個額外的輔助詞「do」來進行與主語的倒裝:


Never have I seen such a man. 


Never did I imagine this outcome.


以上例句,「never」都被移至子句的開端,繼而觸發了「subject-auxiliary」的倒裝。


第一組例句,主語「I」和輔助動詞「have」進行了倒裝。第二組例句,主語「I」則與額外加入的輔助詞「do」進行了倒裝。


這就是現代英文中的其中一個會要求subject-auxiliary」倒裝的情景。


也就是,如果把一個否定子句的副詞(最常見是「never」)移到子句的開端,我們便要把主語和輔助動詞的位置對換。如果限定動詞本身不包含輔助動詞,我們須額外加入一個「do」(的正確的字形),再把主語和「do」進行倒裝。


當「never」是子句的開頭,不倒裝反而是不對的:


Never I have seen such a man.

Never I imagined this outcome.


這個由「V2」詞序(請參考 #1)時期遺留下來的「化石」,跟現代英文詞序中的副詞移動規律相矛盾。因為現時詞序,即使將副詞或副詞組移到開頭,主語也會維持在限定動詞前面的位置。


現代英文中「正常」的副詞移動會像這樣:


I swam yesterday.


Yesterday, I swam. ✔️


但在現代英文中,以「never」開頭,並有「subject-auxiliary」倒裝的子句仍是頗常見的。這可被視為一種「風格化」的表達方式,即刻意套用不合現代英文詞序的「化石」文法,以強調所描述的事物是何等「特殊」和「難以置信」。


例如:


I never imagined this outcome. ✔️

(在正常詞序下,語氣也相對正常)


Never did I imagine this outcome. ✔️

(使用了倒裝法,語氣會比較「風格化」,更能強調出「never」)


現在出現在這種倒裝句中最多是副詞「never」,但有時也會有一些包含「never」的長副詞組。


例如:


Never in a million years would I have imagined this.  

給我一百萬年我也從不會想像這樣的事


(原本詞序: I would never have imagined this in a million years.) 


此例句中,用以修飾核心動詞的副詞「never」和副詞組「in a million years」都被移至子句的開頭位置,因此觸發了「subject-auxiliary」的倒裝。


(這裡的限定動詞組是「would have imagined」,當中的第一個輔助動詞是「would」。「would」是一個表達「想像」的動作的情態動詞。這句子表達想像的動作,因此用到「would」)


另一個較常見的「否定」副詞組,亦會被移前並觸發這種倒裝的,是「not only」。當「not only」出現在某子句時,會有另一子句被連接詞「but」連接(有時會省略),再有副詞「also」:


Not only did she win the race, but she also broke the record.

她不僅贏得了比賽,還打破了紀錄。


(原本詞序: She not only won the race, but she also broke the record.) 


“Nor” 和 “neither” 也常常會引發這種倒裝。

例如:

She did not enjoy the book. Nor did she enjoy the movie.
她不喜歡那本書,也不喜歡那部電影。

They didn’t go. Neither did she (go).
他們沒有去。她也沒有去。


當這種倒裝發生在 「neither」之後,主要動詞(如第二個例子中的 「go」)通常會被省略。

最後要注意的是:


假如子句中的限定動詞是「be」的任何字形,那麼即使觸發了這種倒裝法,我們也無須加入額外的輔助詞「do」。這與組成問題句時的規律一致。


例如:



She was never satisfied. 她從未滿足


Never was she satisfied.


你可以嘗試用這種倒裝法來使自己的句子更多樣化 – 但也不是必需的。如果你決定要這樣組成句子,就記得確保句子的結構正確,就如我上述解釋的一樣。


同時也請留意在套用倒裝法後,句子的語氣是否真適合你想表達的內容。如果你並非打算以倒裝來強調要表達的事,不使用它可能還更好。



我最近在書中見到的例子,由「never in her life」副詞組作子句的開頭,並有這種倒裝。


___________


小練習:


請使用「否定」倒裝重寫以下句子:


  1. She has never been so excited.
    她從未如此興奮過


  1. He not only finished the project ahead of schedule – he also exceeded expectations.
    他不僅提前完成了這個項目,而且還超出了預期



________________________________




“Inversion” in Modern English #3:

“Negative” Inversion (A Type of Subject-Auxiliary Inversion)


In the last installment of this series on “inversion” in modern English (here), I explained the structural difference between “subject-auxiliary” and “subject-whole verb” inversion.


I also listed out the different scenarios in which these two structural types of inversion would be triggered (or required) in modern English respectively.


This time, I will zoom in on the first scenario for “subject-auxiliary” inversion, which we can call “negative” inversion.


I gave these example sentences of “negative” inversion in the previous newsletter: 



Never have I seen such a man. 我從未見過這樣的人。
Never did I imagine this outcome. 我從未想像過會有這樣的結果。



This type of inversion always involves a “clause-negating” adverb or adverb phrase – most often “never” or a phrase involving “never” – that has been moved to the first position of the clause. 


As you probably know, in the normal word order of modern English, a core clause adverb like “never” would appear in this position:



I have never seen such a man.


I never imagined this outcome. 



That is, if the finite verb of the clause is just one word, like “imagined” in the second example, the adverb “never” would appear in front of it; and if the finite verb phrase contains an auxiliary verb, like “have seen” in the first example, then the “never” would appear after the first auxiliary.


However, whenever “never” is moved to the first position of the clause, this movement triggers the “inversion” of the subject and the auxiliary verb in the finite verb group – if the finite verb is originally just one word, like “imagined,” we have to add an extra auxiliary “do” and invert that:



Never have I seen such a man. 


Never did I imagine this outcome.



In both of these examples, “never” has been moved to the first position of the clause. This movement triggers “subject-auxiliary” inversion.


In the first example, the subject “I” inverts with the auxiliary verb “have.” In the second example, the subject “I” inverts with the added auxiliary “did,” leaving us with this inverted word order. 

In modern English, this is a scenario in which “subject-auxiliary” inversion is required


That is, if we move a “clause-negating” adverb, most often “never,” to the first position of the clause, we have to invert the subject and the auxiliary verb, and when there is no auxiliary verb, we must add in an extra “do” (with the correct form) and invert the subject and this “do.”


Not doing so is not okay if the “never” is at the start of the clause:



Never I have seen such a man.

Never I imagined this outcome.



This special “fossil” of English’s past “V2” word order (see #1) contradicts the normal movement rules for clause adverbs in modern English word order, since we would retain the subject in the position before the finite verb even when we “topicalize” an adverb or adverb phrase to the front.


An example of “normal” adverb movement in modern English: 



I swam yesterday.


Yesterday, I swam. ✔️



In modern English, clauses with “never” at the front and “subject-auxiliary” inversion are still quite common – but they are usually used as a more “stylized” way of highlighting how “unbelievable,” “special,” or “outrageous” something is precisely because they invoke this word order and “old” grammatical trait that are now out of place in modern English grammar. 


For example:


I never imagined this outcome. ✔️

(The tone is rather normal because this is normal word order.)


Never did I imagine this outcome. ✔️

(The tone is a bit more “stylized, with more emphasis on the “never,” because of the inversion.)


By far, “never” is the adverb that we see most in this type of inverted sentences, but we sometimes see longer adverb phrases involving “never” as well, like:



Never in a million years would I have imagined this.  

給我一百萬年我也從不會想像這樣的事


(Original word order: I would never have imagined this in a million years.) 



In this example, the adverb “never” and the adverb phrase “in a million years,” which both modify the core action in this clause, are both moved to the front. Because of “never,” this also triggers “subject-auxiliary” inversion. 


(The finite verb phrase here is “would have imagined.” The first auxiliary verb of this phrase is the modal verb “would.” “Would” is a modal verb that expresses “imaginary” actions. It is needed here because the meaning that needs to be expressed is imaginary.)


Another more common “negative” adverb phrase that would be put in front to trigger this type of inversion is “not only.” When “not only” is in one clause, we would have another clause linked by the conjunction “but” (sometimes omitted) with the adverb “also”: 


Not only did she win the race, but she also broke the record.

她不僅贏得了比賽,還打破了紀錄。


(Original word order: She not only won the race, but she also broke the record.) 


“Nor” and “neither” also often trigger this type of inversion.


For example:


She did not enjoy the book. Nor did she enjoy the movie.
她不喜歡那本書,也不喜歡那電影。


They didn’t go. Neither did she (go).

他們沒有去到。她也沒有。


When this type of inversion takes place after “neither,” the main verb (like the “go” here in the second example) is often omitted. 


And, one last thing to note:


When the finite verb in the clause is a form of “be,” then we don’t need to add the extra auxiliary “do” even when this type of inversion is triggered! This is the same for question formation. 


For example:


She was never satisfied. 她從未滿足


Never was she satisfied.


You can try to use this type of inversion to make your sentences more varied – but there is no real need to. If you do use it, make sure that your sentence is structurally correct according to what I explained above.


You should also make sure that the tone that you are conveying with the inversion is appropriate for what you are expressing. If you are not using this type of inversion to enhance what you are trying to express, not using it would be better.



An example I saw in a book recently – the adverb phrase “never in her life” is at the beginning of the clause, triggering this type of inversion. 


___________


Mini Exercise: 


Rewrite the following sentences with “negative” inversion:


  1. She has never been so excited.
    她從未如此興奮過


  1. He not only finished the project ahead of schedule – he also exceeded expectations.
    他不僅提前完成了這個項目,而且還超出了預期


___________


Answers: 


  1. Never has she been so excited.


  1. Not only did he finish the project…

Comments

Popular Posts

及物與不及物動詞對:「Lay」vs.「Lie」(+其他例子)

有被動語態的動名詞組(Gerund Phrases): 「Being Chosen for a Flight Mission」 ✈️

比利時巧克力 - 「Belgian」Chocolate 🍫

2025 New Year's Resolutions?

你有「完善的計劃」(“Robust” Plan)來學習英文嗎?

No Doubt… 不容置疑(?)