Is “so little is clear” in “So little is clear that Castro’s departure took on the quality of a test...” an inversion?

Question

There was the following passage in Time magazine’s (December 1, 2016) article that came under the title, “How Castro will be Trump’s first foreign policy test”:>North Korea has both an erratic leader and nuclear weapons. Russia juggles a shrinking economy, an aggressive military and expanding role in the Middle East. China is bracing for threatened trade war, and Europe wonders if the transatlantic alliance that maintained peace for seven decades is about to be open to negotiation. **So little is clear that** Castro’s departure took on the quality of test case for the incoming leader of the new world.I wonder what is the subject of “being little clear.” Is the subject of “so little clear” that “Castro’s death can be a test case for President-elect,” or unsettled situation of the world depicted in the preceding passage to “So little is clear.” I’m struggling to judge which of ①“so … that …,” or ⓶ an inversion of “formal subject ＋that ” construction does the last line come under.

Answer 1

The phrase, “so little is clear,” elides (removes) an important word; namely, the noun “stuff.” When the word “stuff” is put back into the phrase, we get an independent clause: “So little stuff is clear.”

The main noun of this clause is “stuff,” and the main verb is the copula “is.” The root of the clause is “Stuff is.” If we add the subject complement, we get “Stuff is clear.” And if we add the adjective “little” (making it modify the main noun “stuff”), plus the adverb “so” (making it modify the adjective “little”), we get the full clause: “So little stuff is clear.” And then—for whatever reason—we English speakers elide (remove) the main noun “stuff.”

The next part of the sentence is a long subordinate clause: “that Castro’s departure took on the quality of a test case for the incoming leader of the new world.” This subordinate clause, arguably functioning as an adverb, modifies the (main) clause, “So little [stuff] is clear.”

How does it modify the main clause? It adds what happens as a result of the main clause. We can rephrase the full sentence like this: “Because so little is clear, Castro’s departure took on the quality of a test case for the incoming leader of the new world.” In other words, the effect of stuff being so unclear is the fact that “Castro’s departure took on the quality of test case for ....”

So what is the subject of the sentence? It is the main noun of the main clause, plus any words, phrases, or clauses that modify it. Thus: “So little [stuff]”—the elided main noun “stuff,” plus the adjective “little” and the adverb “so.”

I really hope this helps!