# Inversion of Verb/Subject



## Engeland

Hoi!

I understand inversion when you ask questions, like;

_Wil je slapen?
Wonen zij in België?_

But in sentences like this:

_Saf heb ik nog nooit horen zeggen _(came across this on the forums)

Why was the subject+verb rotated?

Also when else do I invert?

Thanks ^-^
-Sam


----------



## Peterdg

This is probably the most difficult part of Dutch and also the one that causes most mistakes by non native speakers.

I wish I could explain it, but I can't. So, I went to look in the ANS (Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst) to see if they could provide some easy to manage rule set. Unfortunately, their explanation spans more than 150 pages and I must honestly admit, I don't understand the least bit of their exposé (it's full of grammatical terms I'm not familiar with ("pool", "voor-pv" etc.) and honestly, I don't have the courage to go through the complete work to see what they actually mean with all that terminology).

So, I hope that someone with experience in teaching Dutch to foreigners can jump in: I'm sure they must have a usable rule set.


----------



## matakoweg

Dutch is like German and the Skandinavian languages a so called V-2 language which means that the finite verb should be at the second place in the sentence.
There is much information about it on the internet. English was in the old days also a verb second language but has departed to strict word order.


----------



## bibibiben

You'll find V2 word order explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V2_word_order. 

Applied to the sentence you quoted:



12345Ikhebnog nooit_saf_horen zeggen(= neutral word order)12345_Saf_hebiknog nooithoren zeggen12345Nog nooithebik_saf_horen zeggen12345Horen zeggenhebik_saf_nog nooit

 
As you can see, the finite verb _heb_ is always in second position.

The finite verb will move to the first position in interrogative sentences:


12345Hebiknog nooit_saf_horen zeggen?


----------



## YellowOnline

bibibiben said:


> You'll find V2 word order explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V2_word_order.
> 
> Applied to the sentence you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 12345Ikhebnog nooit_saf_horen zeggen(= neutral word order)12345_Saf_hebiknog nooithoren zeggen12345Nog nooithebik_saf_horen zeggen12345Horen zeggenhebik_saf_nog nooit
> 
> 
> As you can see, the finite verb _heb_ is always in second position.
> 
> The finite verb will move to the first position in interrogative sentences:
> 
> 
> 12345Hebiknog nooit_saf_horen zeggen?



Zeer goeie illustratie


----------



## Engeland

_Bedankt!
_
So I always move the finite verb to the second position in a clause except questions?

Sara bracht de kinderen.
Op Mandaag bracht Sara de kinderen.

Helps a lot c:


----------



## bibibiben

Engeland said:


> _Bedankt!
> _
> So I always move the finite verb to the second position in a clause except questions?
> 
> Sara bracht de kinderen.
> Op Mandaag bracht Sara de kinderen.
> 
> Helps a lot c:



But beware of subordinate clauses, where VF (verb final) order will prevail.

Main clause: Op maandag bracht Sara de kinderen.
Subordinate clause: Ik zei dat Sara op maandag de kinderen bracht.


----------



## Engeland

bibibiben said:


> But beware of subordinate clauses, where VF (verb final) order will prevail.
> 
> Main clause: Op maandag bracht Sara de kinderen.
> Subordinate clause: Ik zei dat Sara op maandag de kinderen bracht.



Thanks ben. Is there any reason why Sara and Op Mandaag are switched, is it optional or just part of grammar?


----------



## bibibiben

Engeland said:


> Thanks ben. Is there any reason why Sara and Op Mandaag are switched, is it optional or just part of grammar?



Word order tends to be a bit less free in subordinate clauses. For example, topicalization is more restricted (just like in English). While it’s possible to topicalize _op maandag _or_ nu _in the main clause:


Op maandagbrachtSarade kinderenNubrengtSarade kinderen

 
It’s much less accepted in the subordinate clause:


?… datop maandagSarade kinderenbracht

 
Or it’s just plain wrong:


… datnuSarade kinderenbrengt

 
When the subject is a personal pronoun topicalization will invariably produce ungrammatical sentences in subordinate clauses:


… datop maandagikde kinderenbracht… datnuikde kinderenbreng

 
When emphasizing *op maandag *(making it new information), it will be possible to put it in initial position (except when the subject is a personal pronoun):


… dat*op maandag*Sarade kinderenbrengt(niet op dinsdag)



But as you can emphasize _op maandag _in other positions as well, I’m inclined to say that it’s always safer to put the definite subject in initial position when you’re dealing with subordinate clauses.

Don’t ask me what to  do with indefinite subjects. You’ll first need to know more about that pesky little word _er_ before you can ask that question …


----------



## marrish

Answering bibibiben's post No 4 I would like to add, together with compliments to the author, that there is another explanation and reason for inverting the order "SOV" as in the example 'Saf heb ik nog nooit horen zeggen'. The normal word order would be as bibibiben said, "Ik heb ...." but in this case, the emphasis is being placed not on the fact that it was "I" who didn't come across this word but on the word itself. By placing it in the first position in this sentence a sense of emphasis is being obtained. Subsequently when a sentence doesn't begin with a personal pronoun or another form of subject (Engeland, marrish etc.), inversion is needed in the same way when one asks questions (that is to say that the verb doesn't have to fly off and land at the end but only switches positions). Of course this "pesky little word" is very important and can be used not only in composite sentences but also in other situations as passive etc. I hope my layman's words are not to far off the mark.


----------



## bibibiben

marrish said:


> Answering bibibiben's post No 4 I would like to add, together with compliments to the author, that there is another explanation and reason for inverting the order "SOV" as in the example 'Saf heb ik nog nooit horen zeggen'. The normal word order would be as bibibiben said, "Ik heb ...." but in this case, the emphasis is being placed not on the fact that it was "I" who didn't come across this word but on the word itself. By placing it in the first position in this sentence a sense of emphasis is being obtained.



Yes, agreed. As I pointed out in post #4, the neutral word order normally starts with the subject (although topicalization can cause an adjunct of time and place to be put in initial position as well). All the other examples in post #4 put the emphasis on the sentence element in first position.



marrish said:


> Subsequently when a sentence doesn't begin with a personal pronoun or another form of subject (Engeland, marrish etc.), inversion is needed in the same way when one asks questions (that is to say that the verb doesn't have to fly off and land at the end but only switches positions). Of course this "pesky little word" is very important and can be used not only in composite sentences but also in other situations as passive etc. I hope my layman's words are not to far off the mark.



I'm not quite sure whether I understood this part. It's true that the finite verb doesn't fly off and land at the end _in main clauses_, no matter how much you juggle with other sentence elements. The finite verb is invariably in second position in declarative main clauses. The subject in a main clause is either in initial position or after the finite verb (most of the time in third position, but there are exceptions).

Things are different with subordinate clauses (or embedded clauses). The finite verb is actually chased from its second position and does land at the end in the subordinate clause. The subject in a subordinate clause can still be put in initial position, but _no longer in a position after the finite verb_. Does this mean that the subject has now been robbed of an alternative position and does it have to be put in initial position all the time? It would be tempting to say yes, but it would be the wrong answer. Definite subjects may very well be put in second position. There are quite a few restrictions, though. So if you want to be on the safe side, just put your definite subject at the head of a subordinate clause. No more headaches. 

Unfortunately, this advice would be wrong when an _indefinite_ subject is part of a subordinate clause. Indefinite subjects don't like to be put in initial position (as they are new information). It's normally placeholder_ er_ that's put in first position. But _er_ has a tendency to disappear when other sentence elements (e.g. adjuncts of time and place) are put in first position, which may confuse the learner. Which is worse, indefinite subjects sometimes do appear in initial position. That's why I'm hesitant to give a simple, no-fail formula and would rather see Engeland study Dutch grammar a bit more in detail.


----------

