I have found 2 sentences in a law book, but I cannot figure out what grammar rules are used in them. Please advise.
- 1.) In no state, however, are there [what rule, why such order of the words?] specific guidelines as to what constitutes participation in another business . . .
The above sentence is not a question, so why is there subject-auxiliary verb inversion?
In the following example, why is there no subject?
- 2.) Between these two extremes, however, is a compromise view. [no subject? What rule is this?], which seems . . .
Best Answer
The first sentence is an example of negative inversion: after a negating, adverbial word or phrase, the subject and auxiliary (here the verb "to be") are often reversed in order:
Similarly:
The main reason to use this inversion is for formality; rarely is it used in everyday speech.
There are exceptions to this rule and times when it is optional. See Negative inversion for a good overview.
In your second sentence, "there", which would act as a subject, is simply omitted:
"There" in this case is the existential there - it is not an actual subject, though it can stand in for one. In your example sentence, it is simply not necessary.
Similarly:
Again, this is not common in everyday speech, and is usually used in formal circumstances or storytelling.