Inwersja

Jak to jest z ta inwersja, przykladowo zdanie:

The pirate ship lay far out to sea.
zmieniamy na:
Far out to sea lay the pirate ship.
czemu nie:
Far out to sea did the pirate ship lay ?

a np zdanie:
He little thought that he would one day see his name in all the headlines.
powinno byc:
Little did he think that...
a nie mozna zrobic:
Little thought he that...

>Jak to jest z ta inwersja, przykladowo zdanie:
>
>The pirate ship lay far out to sea.
>zmieniamy na:
>Far out to sea lay the pirate ship.
>czemu nie:
>Far out to sea did the pirate ship lay

'far out to sea' jest okolicznikiem miejsca; jesli stosujesz inwersje z takim wlasnie okolicznikiem, to nic innego nie robisz, jak tylko przestawiasz caly okolicznik miejsca w miejsce podmiotu, a podmiot w miejsce okolicznika miejsca

>a np zdanie:
>He little thought that he would one day see his name in all the
>headlines.
>powinno byc:
>Little did he think that...
>a nie mozna zrobic:
>Little thought he that...

'little' jest przyslowkiem, stad jego zastosowanie przy inwersji wymaga zmian w orzeczeniu - zamiast formy czasu przeszlego 'thought' mamy forme czasu przeszlego zachowana w operatorze 'did', po ktorej nastepuje podmiot a zaraz po nim czasownik glowny (w formie czasu terazniejszego)

>Far out to sea lay the pirate ship.>czemu nie:>Far out to sea did the pirate ship lay ?>Little did he think that...>a nie mozna zrobic:>Little thought he that...

I guess what you’re asking about is why in one case the inversion doesn’t involve ‘auxiliary’ while it does in another ?
I think the movement of the verbs here should clearly be distinguished in
terms of ‘full’ and ‘partial’ notions.

They tend to use full verb inversion in a literary language (no auxiliary involved ) with adverbials of place and direction (also called by some ‘locative inversions’, but there’s a whole rainbow of preposed phrases
that are also possible in this category like those with fronted NP, VP, PP, AdjP and AdvP) ‘Far out to sea lay the pirate ship’ can be subsumed under PP-locative one.
It’s not obligatory but remember, you can’t just make the whole predicator
to be extraposed just like that (or to dangle at the end of a sentence like …you know what :) it’s always better to tag something on, some advp or pp for example , ‘Far out to sea the pirate ship lay_(let’s say ) seemingly idle but with some preying anxiety.

>Little did he think that...>a nie mozna zrobic:>Little thought he that...

And partial or subject operator(auxiliary comes first) inversion is used
after fronted negative adverbials ( here ‘little’ is used negatively ).
It’s obligatory in most cases unless some of them, for example,
‘not long ago’ or ‘only’ have either positive meaning or temporal respectively, ‘not long ago I turned forty’ , ‘only last week I took out
the garbarge’ ( as recently as last week ..), ‘only later he understood..’

I don’t know if it’s ok but in very general terms I would pin them down
( just for my own convenience and others’ too if it helps) ) as the first one on your list being ‘locative full optional’ with the second one ‘negative
(and restricitive) partial obligatory’ ? but again with keeping in mind
certain caveats respectively.

Thus ended a nice chalk-talk or ‘thus did a nice chalk-talk end’, basically
no difference in meaning . One of those caveats ? :)

Wow! Thank you a lot guys, I didnt expect such a detailed response and effort !