Only later she realized - no inversion (2025)

Hello!
In the grammar book "Advanced Grammar in Use" is the following explanation:
If the main verb is not "be" and there is no auxiliary, we use "do", although inversion is not necessary in this case:
Only later did she realize how much damage had been caused. = Only later she realized how much damage had been caused.

I wonder if it is true for "Not only", "Only once", "Not until" and similar expressions. For example:
Not only does the machine wash your clothes, but it also dries them.
Only once did I go to the opera the whole time I was in Italy.
Not until I filled my glass did I notice that it was broken.

Can I

invert them? Like:
Not only the machine washes your clothes, but it also dries them.
Only once I went to the opera the whole time I was in Italy.
Not until I filled my glass I noticed that it was broken.

Is the inversion only necessary for "be"? Could you advise?

i9en said:

Not only does the machine wash your clothes, but it also dries them.
Only once did I go to the opera the whole time I was in Italy.
Not until I filled my glass did I notice that it was broken.

Click to expand...

The machine not only washes your clothes, it also dries them.​

I went to the opera only once the whole time I was in Italy.
I only noticed that my glass was broken when I went to fill it. ​

​

Your other suggestions are not valid constructions.

You haven’t provided an example using “be”, but the point about that is:

The machine is not only costly to buy, it’s also expensive to run. ​

Not only is the machine costly to buy, it’s also expensive to run. ​

NOT: Not only does the machine be expensive… ​

lingobingo, what about this example from the grammar book?
If the main verb is not "be" and there is no auxiliary, we use "do", although inversion is not necessary in this case:
Only later did she realize how much damage had been caused. = Only later she realized how much damage had been caused.

Can it be done specifically with "Only later"? I don't really understand when inversion is

necessary from the statement above if I can't change it with "Not only", "Only once", "Not until", etc.

lingobingo said:

This sentence is wrong:
Only later she realized how much damage had been caused.

Click to expand...

This very sentence is actually from the grammar book. It is not my addition (the other sentences are mine). So I'm not sure if this one is wrong.
It says that both are possible:
Only later did she realize how much damage had been caused. (or Only later she realized ..)
"Advanced Grammar in Use Third Edition" by Martin Hewings p.152
(that's why I was a bit confused)

"Only later she realized how..." sounds wrong to me, too.

"She realized only later how..." sounds correct.

I think your book may be giving Only later she realized as the semantic equivalent of Only later did she realize, not as a correct alternative. In any case the others here are right - it’s not correct usage.

paul

Considering all the replies, it looks like the example from the grammar book is incorrect, or at least weird. I don't think it was about some semantic equivalents. I attached the screenshot, just in case.

Only later she realised how much damage had been caused ​

It is, of course, the word “only” at the beginning that makes the above sentence wrong, since it’s part of a set construction (similar to “not only … [but also]”, which also requires inversion). Without that word it’s fine.

Later she realised how much … ​

She realised, later, how much … ​

Only later did she realise how much … ​

Only afterwards/the next day/at the end of the year/in her dotage did she/would she realise how much … ​

But note also that inversion is not needed in a dummy-it construction with a that-clause:

It was only later [that] she realised how much … ​

i9en said:

Considering all the replies, it looks like the example from the grammar book is incorrect, or at least weird. I don't think it was about some semantic equivalents. I attached the screenshot, just in case.
View attachment 34332

Click to expand...

Yes. Book is in error.

i9en said:

Considering all the replies, it looks like the example from the grammar book is incorrect, or at least weird. I don't think it was about some semantic equivalents. I attached the screenshot, just in case.
View attachment 34332

Click to expand...

I don't think there is an error in your book
This form may sound weird to native speakers, but according to every grammar book, this version is actually correct. I checked in every grammar book that I have in my possession

Amylaza said:

[...]
This form may sound weird to native speakers, but according to every grammar book, this version is actually correct. I checked in every grammar book that I have in my possession

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forums, Amylaza!

Which grammar books show "Only later she realised ..." as correct?

Advanced Grammar in Use (Cambridge)

page 152:

pge 200:

lingobingo said:

Advanced Grammar in Use (Cambridge)

page 152:

Advanced Grammar in Use Book Without Answers

pge 200:

Advanced Grammar in Use Book Without Answers

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the Hewings one mentioned in post 5, isn't it? I haven't got access to my copy at the moment, but I'm pretty sure there are other things in it that I disagree with.

I was wondering which books Amylaza was referring to when s/he said "every grammar book that I have in my possession".

I agree with everyone who says that "Only later she realized" is not normal English.

The normal idiomatic (and non-inverted) form is "It was only later that she realized ..."

EDIT - mentioned also by lingobingo in

'Only once' is an adverb with negative meaning like 'seldom'. Maybe 'only later' also has a negative connotation. The following explanation is from English Grammar Today on Cambridge Dictionary. I agree that other sentences beginning with 'only', like "Only at breakfast do we eat eggs." or "Only in the afternoon do we swim." sound wrong without inversion.

Negative adverbs​

In formal styles, when we use an adverb with negative meaning (e.g. never, seldom, rarely, scarcely, hardly) in front position for emphasis, we invert the subject (s) and auxiliary (aux)/modal verb:

Never [AUX]have

witnessed such cruel behaviour by one child to another. (or We have never witnessed …)

Seldom does one hear a politician say ‘sorry’. (or One seldom hears …)

Expressions beginning with not​

We also invert the subject and verb after not + a prepositional phrase or a clause in initial position

Not for a moment did I think I would be offered the job, so I was amazed when I got it.

Not till I got home did I realise my wallet was missing.

neal41 said:

Maybe 'only later' also has a negative connotation.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course it does. It means the same as

until later.

lingobingo said:

Only afterwards did she/would she realise how much …

Click to expand...

How about "Only afterwards, she realised how much..." (i.e. adding a comma before "she", with no inversion)?
Here is another example:
Only afterwards, I know not to do that, only meet in public places. (The New York Times)

lingobingo said:

Only later she realised how much damage had been caused

Click to expand...

neal41 said:

but "Only later she realized . . ." does not sound wrong or weird to me.

Click to expand...

Roxxxannne said:

All the examples in the screenshot in #8 look good to me, including "Only later she realised ..." .
neal41 seems to agree with me (#18).
Maybe this is another one of those AmE oddities.

Click to expand...

Does it have anything to do with the meaning of "only" whether a sentence with "only + adverbial" used at the beginning should be inverted or not?
(1). Only later did she realise how much damage had been caused: here, the "only" has an "except" sense.
(2). Only later, she realised how much damage had been caused: here, the "only" has a sense of "not earlier than a particular time".
So, they are two different "only"s. What do you think?

natkretep said:

I haven't got access to the NYT as it's a subscription site, so I can only look at what you quoted. We can ignore 'I know not to do that' as it's an interrupting clause. If you do that you'll see the next phrase 'only meet' is a verb phrase. (There is no subject because it is in the imperative.)

Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply.
Here's more context: Companies make lucrative returns from ‘kidnap trade'
He later learned from the real South African police that the kidnappers used the bogus traffic stop to rifle through his possessions and gather intelligence.

The next morning, another driver delivered de Ronde to the site of his "meeting," a local guesthouse that turned into his prison.

"Only afterwards, I know not to do that, only meet in public places," de Ronde said.

His company soon paid a ransom of more than $30,000 (Dh110,184), securing his release after nearly two days of terror. But upon returning home to Rotterdam, de Ronde coped with an unwelcome surprise: cold callers. Companies selling various kidnapping prevention services viewed him as a potential customer.

Anyway, do you also think a sentence must be inverted with "only afterwards" used at its beginning?
a. Only afterwards did he start to look worried.
How about the following non-inverted one?
b. Only afterwards, he started to look worried. (with the "only" meaning "not earlier than")

Without inversion, only takes on a different meaning.

She knew nothing at the time. Only later (not until later) did she realise how much damage had been done.

She was defiant at first, only/but later she realised how much damage had been done.