Not until did he arrive home he found he'd left it in the restaurant.
Not until he arrived home did he find he'd left it in the restaurant.
tdol said:
Not until did he arrive home he found he'd left it in the restaurant.
Not until he arrived home did he find he'd left it in the restaurant.
nicolas said:Why do we put auxiliary verb "did" there?
Not until he arrived home did he find he'd left it in the restaurant.
( the 2nd sentence is correct, isn't it? )
nicolas said:When would we put auxiliary verb in that position? When and Why?
Not until he had arrived home did he find he had left....
he drove all the way home, then after he got home (inside the house)
What's the different between "Not until he had arrived home ... " and "until he had arrived home ..."?
If we say
"I'll stay here until 9:00 pm." --- The action (stay) will continue to 9:00 pm
"I'll stay here not until 9:00 pm" --- The action (stay) will not continue to 9:00 pm
So how to explain "not until he had arrived home did he find he had left ..."?
Why did he already get home and inside the house?
The action (he find he had left the item at the restaurant) will not continue to he had arrived home.
So before he arrived home, he should know he left sth at the restaurant ?
nicolas said:I think I have understanded this sentence more.
Casiopea said:Yes. The 2nd part, "did he find he'd left..." is OK.![]()
he did (in fact) find.... (did refers to 'it's a fact'; used for emphasis)
nicolas said:When would we put auxiliary verb in that position? When and Why?
did he (in fact) find.... (did is moved to the verb position)
Not until X verb Y
X = he had arrived home
Y = he find he had left the key....
If we add a verb, then 'did' becomes ungrammatical:
It was not until he had arrived home did he find.... Ungrammatical
![]()
By the way, the original sentence is not grammatical to me. I prefer:
Not until he had arrived home did he find he had left....
![]()
Frances said:I don't agree that the DID is there purely for emphasis. The original sentence cannot be written with the DID simply omitted.
The sentence could also be rewritten in the following order:
Until he arrived home, he did not find he'd left it in the restaurant.
Here it is clear that the DID is required because of the NOT.
Casiopea said:Yes. The 2nd part, "did he find he'd left..." is OK.![]()
he did (in fact) find.... (did refers to 'it's a fact'; used for emphasis)
nicolas said:When would we put auxiliary verb in that position? When and Why?
did he (in fact) find.... (did is moved to the verb position)
Not until X verb Y
X = he had arrived home
Y = he find he had left the key....
If we add a verb, then 'did' becomes ungrammatical:
It was not until he had arrived home did he find.... Ungrammatical
![]()
By the way, the original sentence is not grammatical to me. I prefer:
Not until he had arrived home did he find he had left....
![]()
I don't agree that the DID is there purely for emphasis. The original sentence cannot be written with the DID simply omitted.
The sentence could also be rewritten in the following order:
Until he arrived home, he did not find he'd left it in the restaurant.
Here it is clear that the DID is required because of the NOT.
Can I asked this:
The refugees continued to feel unsafe until they had crossed the border.
So how can we rewrite it with "Not until"?