Talk:Subject–auxiliary inversion

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

English Language Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Languages other than English

Should connect this with verb inversion in languages other than English... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Is that fine:?

"Only if the weather is good, will we go away."

-- Ewa 19:51, 26 February 2008 83.29.241.198

I guess, but probably the comma should be omitted... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

Victor, your recent additions to the introduction are good. In particular, I agree that the old formulation incorrectly implied that subject-auxiliary inversion does not occur in other (related) languages, when of course it does. --Tjo3ya (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we agree about something, anyway. I think we need to treat this article as the one that focuses on English (since the specificity of its title is appropriate only to English, as far as I know), and ensure that the other one - Inversion (linguistics) - treats the subject in general, without having everything dominated a priori by English. Victor Yus (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, I mostly agree here, and the comment is mostly consistent with my intent for the two articles. I can support expanding this article so that it contains separate sections for the various types of subject-auxiliary inversion, e.g. yes/no-questions, constituent questions, negative inversion, than-inversion, so-inversion, etc.

The part on negative inversion can be brief, since I am currently drafting a full length article on negative inversion, which you can take a look at here. Negative inversion is a fascinating phenomenon, since it really is not clear when it should and should not occur.

One thing that is crucial to me is that any additions/changes to this article and to the others that I have worked on and patrol is that the examples be set off. This is important, since it reduces the density of the text and makes the article more accessible to a wider audience.

Concerning the article on inversion, I am indeed in favor of expanding it so that it accommodates data from other languages. But again, I really think that for these Wikipedia articles to be accessible to a wide audience, the discussion should begin mainly with English data when possible. The discussion of English data provides the necessary orientation so that the reader will be in a stronger position to understand the data from other languages. --Tjo3ya (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]