As far as I know, I can use an inversion to omit "if" in if-clause of conditional.

But is it possible to do an inversion in resulting clause of conditional sentence?

Normal conditional:

[1] If I had not been there, I would not have met her.

With inversion in resulting clause:

[2] If I had not been there, never would I have met her.

  • 1
    Yes, if the apodosis is a clause introduced by preposed "never", then inversion occurs. – BillJ Jan 30 '17 at 9:23
  • @BillJ Thanks. Can you, please, elaborate a bit more? When and why is it used? Is there any (semantic) difference between an inversion in if-clause and resulting one? – DimanNe Jan 30 '17 at 9:38
  • 1
    Under certain conditions, it is possible for the protasis to take the form of a content clause with subject-auxiliary inversion, for example: If I had known about this ... ~ Had I known about this .... This is found mainly with had and were. There is no difference in meaning between the two. – BillJ Jan 30 '17 at 9:53
  • @BillJ To be honest, I do not understand why you gave me an example of inversion in protasis (if-clause). My question was about inversion in apodosis (resulting clause). – DimanNe Jan 30 '17 at 10:55
  • You asked about "an inversion in if-clause" in your first message to me. – BillJ Jan 30 '17 at 10:58

This is nothing to do with a conditional. As I recently replied in another question, some emphatic negatives and negative-polarity items can come first in a clause, pushing the subject after the verb. "Never would I ... " is quite a common construction, particularly in a literary context, and irrespective of whether there is a conditional before it.

|improve this answer|||||
  • Quite so, but the OP's concern was specifically about whether inversion was possible in the apodosis of a conditional. Obvious answer, I know, but we are dealing with learners who don't know all the rules of grammar. – BillJ Jan 30 '17 at 14:20

Yes, you can. But in this way: If I had not been there, never would have I met her.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 1
    Sorry, but that's wrong. It can only be "never would I have met her". – BillJ Jan 30 '17 at 9:24
  • @BillJ: No, it is not wrong. Although it is very unusual and somewhat archaic. – Chenmunka Jan 30 '17 at 10:08
  • 1
    @Chenmunka It is wrong.We're talking here about Standard English grammar where it most certainly would be ungrammatical. Your comment is not helpful. – BillJ Jan 30 '17 at 10:12
  • user48367 Please correct the error in your answer. never would I have met her. – BillJ Jan 30 '17 at 10:38
  • @Chenmunka and others, can anyone tell me where I can read more about this "very unusual and somewhat archaic" way of using English? What piece of grammar is it? – DimanNe Jan 30 '17 at 10:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.