No. The first could easily be misinterpreted as "And at no time did they take action" which means the exact opposite.And in no time did they take action.
And in no time, they took action.
Are both sentences good English? Thank you in advance.
It's possible that they say that in India. I've never heard this usage.Thanks a lot, Raymott.
After I read your reply, I searched the Internet, and found that Standard English and Indian Usage--Vocabulary and Grammar by J. Sethi has a sentence like this: In no time did they vacate the house (=They vacated the house in no time). Could it be possible that this inversion is regional usage?
It's possible that they say that in India. I've never heard this usage.
In no time was the president aware of what was happening.
Is this sentence correct?
Does it mean that president was aware of what was happening very soon?
If it does then, I think , there should be no inversion structure.
(I'd say "at no time" not "in no time" but that doesn't change the negation implied.)
That must be a regional usage. "In no time" is a common phrase used to mean "Very soon, without delay." - "He answered my post in no time (immediately)".It means the opposite. It means the president was never aware. There existed no time in which the president was aware. (I'd say "at no time" not "in no time" but that doesn't change the negation implied.)
"At no time" means 'never'. The following clause is invertedAnd what is the difference between in no time and at no time?