For this couple of days, I'm reading a book titled English sentences Japanese people always get wrong (Written by Toshiya Echizen), and have some questions regarding the interpretation of some example sentences introduced in it.
First of all, I would like to know what your immediate interpretation for the following two sentences would be like when you just read them.
- With no jobs Bobby would be happy.
- With no jobs would Bobby be happy. (Note: This is not a question sentence.)
Secondly, I would like to know if you agree with the below explanation given by the author of the book. (Note: The original explanation is written in Japanese in the book, and the English explanation below is my translation.)
- With no jobs Bobby would be happy.
(Author’s interpretation)
a) Because Bobby has no job, he must be happy. or
b) Although Bobby has no job, he must be happy.
- With no jobs would Bobby be happy.
(Author’s interpretation)
No matter what kind of job Bobby takes, he won't be happy.
The author explains that:
The "no" in the first example sentence modify just the subsequent word "jobs", not the entire sentence, so it does not cause a subject-auxiliary inversion within the sentence. (Bobby would be happy.)
In the second example, on the other hand, the words "With no jobs" suggest "No matter what jobs ....., someone/something won't be.....", and the negation refers to the entire sentence, so it causes a subject-auxiliary inversion within the sentence. (would Bobby be happy)
Do you agree to this explanation? Is there anything you disagree or anything you can add?
With this question, I have no intention to challenge the author’s explanation. I'm just curious whether the explanation is the common understanding for most native English speakers.