Out came the sun

[keannu]

When an inversion happens with an adverb in the beginning, why does it have the structure of "Adverb+verb+subject" not "Adverb+subject+verb"? To emphasize the subject of "the sun"?

ex)Out came the sun through the break of clouds.

 

[cheer965]

When an inversion happens with an adverb in the beginning, why does it have the structure of "Adverb+verb+subject" not "Adverb+subject+verb"? To emphasize the subject of "the sun"?

ex)Out came the sun through the break of clouds.

As far as I know, it's an emphasizing form : Adverb (adverbial phrase) + intransitive verb + Subject
Ex: A nice house stands on the hill. --> On the hill stands a nice house.
A big frog is sitting on the grass. --> On the grass is sitting a big frog.

 

[keannu]

I meant why the order is "Ad+V+S" not "Ad+S+V".

 

[cheer965]

I meant why the order is "Ad+V+S" not "Ad+S+V".

It's a structure when you want to emphasize the action ( an intransitive verb )

Of course you can say: On the hill, a nice house stands
Or On the grass, a big frog is sitting.
However, I think when you want to emphasize the adverbial phrases and use them at the beginning of a sentence it's better to use the inversion form : Adverb + intransitive verb + Subject . This type of emphasizing inversion is used with intransitive verbs only. So it's better to say On the grass is sitting a big frog.

 

[keannu]

I already know what you said. I meant not the way it is, but the reason why it is that way. If there's no specific reason, I will give up investigating on that.

 

[bhaisahab]

I already know what you said. I meant not the way it is, but the reason why it is that way. If there's no specific reason, I will give up investigating on that.

English is like that.

 

[Rover_KE]

English is like that.

Correct.

We are able to say the same thing in many different ways for the sake of variety - often with no particular reason in mind.

Does that not apply in Korean, keannu?

Rover

 

[keannu]

I feel exactly the same way you do when I speak or think in Korean. I don't even know how Korean grammar goes, nor do I wish to know about it in detail as I'm already a fluent Korean speaker. Korean is like naturally breathing for me, but English is not.

I'm a humble tutor, and whenever I explain some complicated grammar to my students, if I show some impressive reason or analysis, they can understand and memorize it a lot better than merely reading the lines of grammar books. I don't care about logic a lot as I have accepted a lot of things as they are, but for foreigners who don't have chances to acquire English in a natural environment as native speakers, their learning is quite artificial and dull, so it may be helpful (but not everything, I know you have to take many things without logic) to tell them any impressive logic.

 

[emsr2d2]

Sadly, logic (impressive or otherwise) is frequently conspicuous in its absence in the English language.

 

[BobK]

When an inversion happens with an adverb in the beginning, why does it have the structure of "Adverb+verb+subject" not "Adverb+subject+verb"? To emphasize the subject of "the sun"?

ex)Out came the sun through the* break [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] in the clouds.

:-? Why not? It does and you know it. That's what matters.

b

*PS 'the' is possible, but 'a' would be much more likely