Only when I heard him speak I recognised him.

[Nonverbis]

Upstream Proficiency by Virginia Evans and Jenny Dooley.

The task was: The following sentences contain mistakes. Find them and correct them.

Only when I heard him speak I recognised him.

The answer key:



Well, for me this sentence is grammatically correct. Inversion is optional.
Could you clarify this matter: whether the original sentence is grammatically correct or not?

 

[5jj]

It is not. When 'only when' begins a sentence in this way, inversion is obligatory.

 

[Phaedrus]

"Only" can be parsed in two ways there. If it is an adverb modifying the when-clause, then, as 5jj says, inversion is obligatory.

But "only" can alternatively be parsed as a coordinating conjunction introducing the entire independent clause.

Parsed that way, the sentence does not even accept inversion:

Only[,] when I heard him speak[,] I recognized him.

 

[PaulMatthews]

[1] Only when I heard him speak I recognised him.

[2] Only when I heard him speak did I recognise him.


[2] has subject-auxiliary inversion, and is the correct version.

This inversion occurs in declarative clauses only when certain types of element are put in front position. Negatives are one very obvious type of element that trigger subject-auxiliary inversion when fronted:

Never had I seen such chaos.
At no stage were they in danger.

"Only" is not negative, but it is semantically close to a negative in that Only John liked it, for example, entails No one other than John liked it..

Note that the inversion is also found with some items that are not similar to negatives:

John enjoyed it and so did Robert.

 

[Phaedrus]

[1] Only when I heard him speak I recognised him.

[2] Only when I heard him speak did I recognise him.


[2] has subject-auxiliary inversion, and is the correct version.

[2] is correct if the sentence means the same thing as "I recognized him only when I heard him speak."

I didn't recognize him just by looking at him. But then he spoke. Only when I heard him speak did I recognize him.

[1] is correct if "only" is a coordinating conjunction conjoining the independent clause "when I heard him speak, I recognized him" to whatever came before.

I had assumed that I didn't know him at all. Only, when I heard him speak, I recognized him.

The answer thus depends on how you interpret "only," semantically and syntactically.

This inversion occurs in declarative clauses only when certain types of element are put in front position. Negatives are one very obvious type of element that trigger subject-auxiliary inversion when fronted:

Never had I seen such chaos.
At no stage were they in danger.

"Only" is not negative, but it is semantically close to a negative in that Only John liked it, for example, entails No one other than John liked it..

Note that the inversion is also found with some items that are not similar to negatives:

John enjoyed it and so did Robert.

This fleshes out the interpretation on which "only" modifies the "when"-clause. It says nothing about the other interpretation, which is equally possible.

 

[Tdol]

But this is a case of only when, not only, when,

 

[Phaedrus]

But this is a case of only when, not only, when,

That's true, but the comma is not essential. Some people, including some professors, don't even follow introductory subordinate clauses with a comma.

 

[5jj]

Some people, including some professors, don't even follow introductory subordinate clauses with a comma.

Some professors would probably fail basic grammar/punctuation tests.

 

[Phaedrus]

Some professors would probably fail basic grammar/punctuation tests.

That or they might inspire the test makers to change the list of possible answers. I'm not talking about slouches. Barry Stroud, for example, is one of the finest contemporary philosophers and has been teaching at U.C. Berkeley, a top institution in the U.S., for over 50 years. On page 2 of his most famous work, The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism, I find the following sentence:

• "If I were sufficiently interested in pursuing the matter it would be natural to look into the source of my beliefs."

Let's concentrate on the use of "only" as a conjunction which can introduce an independent clause. Contra Tdol, it is not normally followed by a comma. It is normally preceded by a comma. And just as a sentence can begin with "And" (or "But" or "Yet" or "For" or "Or" or "So"), a sentence can be introduced by the coordinating conjunction "Only" as well. FANBOYS is incomplete; "only" is part of the club.

• "Will was a sort of genie-in-the-lamp, only he was a bit too wayward." (COCA)
• "And Voldemort was there, only he wasn't quite human." (COCA)
• "He's just like Dad, only he's uglier." (COCA)

 

[PaulMatthews]

[1] Only when I heard him speak I recognised him.

[2] Only when I heard him speak did I recognise him.

[2] has subject-auxiliary inversion, and is the correct version.

[2] is correct if the sentence means the same thing as "I recognized him only when I heard him speak."

I didn't recognize him just by looking at him. But then he spoke. Only when I heard him speak did I recognize him.

[1] is correct if "only" is a coordinating conjunction conjoining the independent clause "when I heard him speak, I recognized him" to whatever came before.

I had assumed that I didn't know him at all. Only, when I heard him speak, I recognized him.

The answer thus depends on how you interpret "only," semantically and syntactically.

You're repeating yourself. You made the point about the possibility of "only" being a coordinator in #3.

It's true that "only" behaves like a coordinator in certain constructions, where it typically has a meaning similar to "but": I would have gone only/but I was too busy.

But it differs from coordinators in a few ways; for example it cannot appear in multiple coordinations: we can hardly say ? I would have gone [only I was too busy], [only I was not really interested].

And, unlike coordinators, it can only be followed by a finite clause.

For these (and other) reasons, it would be unwise to treat "only" as a member of the coordinator category. I would, however, go along with a claim that it is a preposition, one that takes a clausal complement.

In any case, and most importantly, the far more salient interpretation of the OP's example is that "only" is not a coordinator but an adverb, a focusing modifier. This is reinforced by the answer key in the OP's book, which was looking for the inverted "did I". If the authors intended "only" to be analysed as a coordinator, one would expect them to have provided some prior discourse setting the appropriate context.

This inversion occurs in declarative clauses only when certain types of element are put in front position. Negatives are one very obvious type of element that trigger subject-auxiliary inversion when fronted:

Never had I seen such chaos.
At no stage were they in danger.

"Only" is not negative, but it is semantically close to a negative in that Only John liked it, for example, entails No one other than John liked it..

Note that the inversion is also found with some items that are not similar to negatives:

John enjoyed it and so did Robert.

This fleshes out the interpretation on which "only" modifies the "when"-clause. It says nothing about the other interpretation, which is equally possible.

You're repeating yourself yet again.

The purpose of those examples was to usefully show the range of expressions that can trigger subject-auxiliary inversion.

 

[Phaedrus]

It's true that "only" behaves like a coordinator in certain constructions, where it typically has a meaning similar to "but": I would have gone only/but I was too busy.

But it differs from coordinators in a few ways; for example it cannot appear in multiple coordinations: we can hardly say ? I would have gone [only I was too busy], [only I was not really interested].

And, unlike coordinators, it can only be followed by a finite clause.

For these (and other) reasons, it would be unwise to treat "only" as a member of the coordinator category.

My point was not that only has the status of the central coordinators and and or. My point was that it can coordinate one independent clause with another. In ESL teaching terms, it is one of the FANBOYS, even though it did not make it into the acronym.

In any case, and most importantly, the far more salient interpretation of the OP's example is that "only" is not a coordinator but an adverb, a focusing modifier. This is reinforced by the answer key in the OP's book, which was looking for the inverted "did I". If the authors intended "only" to be analysed as a coordinator, one would expect them to have provided some prior discourse setting the appropriate context.

I interpreted the OP as asking whether the sentence Only when I heard him speak I recognized him is grammatically correct. The OP already knows that the sentence Only when I heard him speak did I recognize him is grammatically correct. My point is that Only when I heard him speak I recognized him is grammatically correct provided Only is parsed as a coordinator, such that the sentence is equivalent to Only I recognized him when I heard him speak.

As to the "more salient interpretation," since there is no context whatsoever, there is no point in searching for a contextually salient interpretation. There is none to be found. The fact that the test-maker has provided an answer key that is not grammatically circumspect is not my problem. There is no grammatical error in the sentence Only when I heard him speak I recognized him provided only is interpreted as a coordinator.

You're repeating yourself yet again.

And I shall keep repeating myself until the naysayers here wake up.