What are you supposed to invert? The following would be correct:

No doubt the floods will have subsided by now.
No doubt by now the floods will have subsided.

It would be wrong to write "no doubt will have subsided the floods".

Thanks Steve, I'm supposed to invert subject and verb in this exercise.
But as you said - and as my gut instinct told me - "no doubt will..." just does not seem right.

Inversion would go like this:
No doubt will the floods have subsided by now.

Viking, that would not be correct English.

Because you did not think of it? Yes, it would.

No, because it's just wrong.

Sorry, but you are plain wrong. What's your proof other than your gut feeling?

Here are a few examples (from US sites) with the same pattern:

No doubt will the same defense be invoked as a response to this definition entry.
Mark my word they will milk it, as no doubt will the increasingly annoying media.
No doubt will the SQ surpass that of the D-NE20
If another Columbine-level one occurs, no doubt will the parents be on O'Reilly, Hannity, and the rest of Exploitation Theatre
As a result, no doubt will the market volatility persist or even go higher.
UNITA insiders will enjoy a comfortable retirement as no doubt will the MPLA leaders.
No doubt will the men's final be worth watching.

And from UK sites:
No doubt will the Irish golfer attempt to repeat his outstanding performance
No doubt will the children provide Oscar winning performances!

It's optional, it's not common, but perfectly possible - no matter what you say.

>>Mark my word they will milk it, as no doubt will the increasingly annoying media.
UNITA insiders will enjoy a comfortable retirement as no doubt will the MPLA leaders.


Those are the only correct sentences in #7. In them, 'no doubt' could also be set off by commas: '... as, no doubt, will ...'

The other supposed examples and claims in #7 are all wrong. Steve (BE) was right the first time in #1.

'No doubt' does not trigger inversion, because it is essentially an affirmative statement, not a negative one.

Viking, stop talking nonsense. You can't invert subject and verb after "no doubt".

Not least because inversions only happen after negative adverbials; "no doubt" is positive.

But whatever the reason, the version in #3 is not English.

I would not expect otherwise from most "native speakers". Stop talking nonsense yourself. Nobody said that "no doubt" triggers inversion - it's an optional possibility as in some other cases, like "in vain".

Not least because inversions only happen after negative adverbials; "no doubt" is positive.

That's nonsense. For a more complete overview, see here:
http://www.testmagic.com/grammar/explanations...

And Steve (BE) doesn't even know what inversion is (What are you supposed to invert?)) but answers anyway - great.

We are talking about an exercise:
(1) I expect the floods will have subsided by now.
(2) No doubt ...

and I surmise that those who developed it gave it some thought. Inversion can be grammatical and emphatic - the exercise example belongs to the latter category (helas, little do you know about inversion (sic)). Then, the original sentence changes to no doubt will the flood have subsided by now. If Joana wants to complete the exercise correctly, she better stick to my version. Period.

@hm—us: I agree with you in the sense that the two sentences belong to a different pattern. They may have inversion even without the “no doubt”. But I maintain that the others are possible.

No, Viking, it is not an optional possibility, it's wrong. That's what we're all trying to tell you.

If an exercise like that was in someone's textbook, then either the textbook was poorly written, or it was intended to confirm that the student really understands which expressions are used with inversion and which (like this one) are not.

I do not need you telling me. You do not have any arguments but your saying "wrong". I have refuted your claim
Not least because inversions only happen after negative adverbials; "no doubt" is positive.
with the much more varied possibilities given in the link. I realise that most "native speakers" have a poor grasp of grammar and a limited view beyond their personal language horizon – the LEO fora are full of “I don’t say that” when others actually do. No doubt will you be able to find more such inversions - if you care to look. But as long as you keep your simple "wrong" attitude, there is little hope. I, for my part, have given examples and explained the grammar – you came up with the wrong explanation for inversion (only after negative adverbials) and don’t even care to comment.

I won’t continue this discussion unless a substantial explanation is offered. So far, there is none from your side.

>>helas

The English word is 'Alas.'


>>she better stick to my version

Another useful clue to competence.






That's really all the discussion that's needed. If you continue to insist on misleading other forum users, you are behaving like a troll.

A different subject, so I answer.
"stick" is subjunctive. "sticks" would be wrong. Another useful clue to your competence.
Sorry for the French helas.

No, 'stick' is not the subjunctive; it is the infinitive form, used after 'she had better,' which is the standard English equivalent of 'she better.'

It doesn't really matter how often you post, or how many wrong examples and dubious websites you quote. Most forum users are aware that Steve (BE), escoville, and I are all reliable native speakers. Others in that group will also agree with us. If you keep posting deliberate untruths, no one will read your posts.

There is no inversion after "no doubt".

There can be inversion after "as" or "so", explaining "Mark my word they will milk it, as no doubt will the increasingly annoying media".

#13 was a poor attempt to distract from not having arguments. And as to “she better” vs. “she had better”, posting in LEO is not formal writing. Common usage is without “had” as you can easily see with a Google search on US/UK sites:
“she had better stick to” = 24/4 documents (go to the end of the search list)
“she better stick to” = 129/9 documents
(maybe you better go to the new Microsoft Bing which gives more realistic numbers right away)

And why should I trust native speakers without reservation? They all too often come up with quick answers that are wrong or misleading. See this thread related discussion: Komparativ von "vile" where three native speakers insisted on the wrong answer. (Das trifft auch in Fragen der deutschen Sprache auf deutsche Muttersprachler zu, da ist kein Unterschied.) At least, one of them admitted the mistake, with some humor: Viking, we are offering here English as she is spoke.

Most cases of inversion are not part of every day speech. Never would I use it in ordinary conversation. But those who used it in writing, probably for emphasis, must have made a deliberate choice – it’s not something you easily come up with by mistake.

So far, I still go along with those who constructed the exercise, the grammar reference and the examples I can find for the pattern. Then, it’s up to the readers of this forum to consider the evidence and reach a conclusion.

Vee haf vays off making you speak English ze vay vee vant.