# Why question words, WHs need to be followed by a verb?



## pickyx

Why as question words, who? why? when? where? They need to be followed by a verb?Example:who are you? why not Who you are?


----------



## theagx

Because that's how questions are formed in English. It's similar in other languages. French has "Qui *etes vous*?" (Who* are you*?) but "Je sais qui_ vous etes_" (I know who you are). Spanish has "¿Cómo *hiciste (tú)* eso?" (How *did you* do that?) but (Él) vió como _(tú) hiciste_ eso (He saw how _you did_ it).

Without the WH-interrogative, you can sometimes, informally just use a rising intonation: "You went without telling me?", "They uploaded the files already?", "Powerpoint is now available on smartphones?". It seems to be more for seeking confirmation though. It can seem harsh at times, somewhat rhetorical, and like you expecting a specific answer.


----------



## ahvalj

The Germanic languages developed a rule that the verb in the main clause should occupy the second place (except in simple interrogative questions: _will you do this?_). It is still actual for all the languages of this group but English (_yesterday_ _I saw him _vs. _gestern sah ich ihn_), however even English preserves this in the interrogative sentences after question words.


----------



## Nino83

pickyx said:


> Why as question words, who? why? when? where? They need to be followed by a verb?Example:who are you? why not Who you are?



Not always. For example when you have a direct object. 

"Which book did John buy?" 



theagx said:


> Spanish has "¿Cómo *hiciste (tú)* eso?" (How *did you* do that?) but (Él) vió como _(tú) hiciste_ eso (He saw how _you did_ it).



In Romance languages the situation is a bit more flexible. 

The subject can be placed at the end, and it is the normal position in Spanish and in Italian, even if there is a direct object.
"¿Qué libro compró Juan?", "Che libro ha comprato Giovanni?" 
While in French and Portuguese, if there is a direct object, the subject is (can be) placed before the verb. 
"Quel livre Jean a(-t-il) acheté?", "Que livro o João comprou?"


----------



## francisgranada

> They need to be followed by a verb?


I think rather the pronoun _who _replaces the subject, as it becomes more emphasized and the verb basically remains in the same position as in the declarative sentences:
You are Peter. Who are you?
He is Peter. Who is Peter? Who is he?


----------



## merquiades

I think the strict word order  Question word + verb + subject? /  Question word + auxiliary + subject + verb? / Verb + subject + object?  developed in formal language so it is entirely clear first of all that it is a question not a declarative sentence, and second what is the subject and what is the object.  It probably came about when cases ceased to exist and word order became important to decipher meaning.

What time is it?  (here time is linked to the what and are inseparable?)
Who is Peter?
Is Peter president?
Is the President Peter?
Is he Peter?  Is Peter him?  Is it him?
Do you know him?  Does he know you?
Change word order and communication breaks down.

In informal language the word order is broken sometimes but the information is passed on by emphasis is speech.

Peter's WHO?
The president is PETER??
It's WHAT time?  Four?
You eat spinach?
You really drank an americano??


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Not always. For example when you have a direct object.
> 
> "Which book did John buy?"


The verb still occupies 2nd position; _which book _is a single noun phrase.


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> I think rather the pronoun _who _replaces the subject, as it becomes more emphasized and the verb basically remains in the same position as in the declarative sentences:
> You are Peter. Who are you?
> He is Peter. Who is Peter? Who is he?


No, the subject is in 3rd position. It is _Who are those people_ and_ Who art thou_ and not _Who *is those people? _or _Who *is thou?_


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> No, the subject is in 3rd position. It is _Who are those people_ and_ Who art thou_ and not _Who *is those people? _or _Who *is thou?_


Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. I wanted to say that the pronoun _who _occupies the place of the subject (that of the declarative sentence) and not that it becomes the subject. 

In other words, the reason for this word order is given rather by the emphasis of _who _(that's why the 1st position) and not by the necessity to put the verb after the interrogative pronoun.


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> In other words, the reason for this word order is given rather by the emphasis of _who _(that's why the 1st position) and not by the necessity to put the verb after the interrogative pronoun.


Yes, that is quite regular in Germanic languages that the emphasized part moves to first position which pushes the subject into 3rd position to maintain V2 word order. Modern English interrogative sentences still follow V2 word order (except for _yes/no_ questions that are verb-initial), as ahvalj correctly wrote.


----------



## francisgranada

For comparison, in Hungarian there are two "regular" possibilities.  In the interrogative sentence the verb remains on the same position as it is in the declarative sentence (the 3rd or 2nd, respectively) as well:  

Te Péter vagy. (lit. _Thou Peter art_) > Te ki vagy? (lit. _Thou who art?_) 
Te vagy Péter. (lit. _Thou art Peter_) > Ki vagy te? (lit. _Who art thou?_)

P.S. 1
Interestingly, these two cases are not fully "symmetrical" in the sense that in the 1st example the pronoun "ki" (_who_) is on the position of "Peter" while in the 2nd example it's on the position of "te" (_thou_). It would be interesting to know why? Perhaps the interrogative pronoun _generally _tends to be near the beginning of the sentence (because of the emphasis). 

P.S. 2 
If we ommit the personal pronoun _te _(as it is not compulsory) then we have only one possibility, but the verb still remains "on its place":
Péter vagy. (lit. _Peter art_) > Ki vagy? (lit. _Who art?_)

This is not the case, for example, in the Romance languages, where the word order  changes:
Eres Pedro. (lit. _Art Peter_) >  Quién eres? (lit. _Who art?_)


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> The Germanic languages developed a rule that the verb in the main clause should occupy the second place (*except in simple interrogative questions: will you do this?*). It is still actual for all the languages of this group but English (_yesterday_ _I saw him _vs. _gestern sah ich ihn_), however even English preserves this in the interrogative sentences after question words.


What is left to explain are those _yes/no_ questions (_Are you hungry?_) and _either-or_ questions (_Is he Italian or French?_) which are seemingly V1.

Germanic had a_ wh_-particle with the meaning_ which of the two_; OE _hƿæðer_ (ModE _whether_), OHG _(h)uuedar_, ON _hvaðarr_, Gothic_ ƕaþar_. It was used in _either-or_ questions, in English until the 15th century, e.g. in _Wheþer erte þou in payn or in ioy? = Are you in pain or in joy?_ _Yes/no_ questions essentially just special cases of either-or questions (_is it so or not?_). This means, _yes/no_ questions and _either-or_ questions were originally also _wh_-particle questions with V2 words order. The _wh_-particle is just dropped. This dropping of _hƿæðer_ occurred already in OE. The process was completed only in modE.


----------



## sumelic

Francisgranada, I don't know any Hungarian (actually I have just started to learn), but in your examples it looks like the pattern is to have "ki" always come directly before the verb. I don't know if that is a coincidence, or maybe the "ki" is more closely "connected" to the verb than the "te" because it is required and not optional. How does that explanation sound?

berndf, that bit about either-or questions originally having "whether" at the start is very interesting. I still can't quite see how it would work for simple yes-no questions though; did people used to have to say "Whether art thou hungry or not"? Could people leave the "or not" implied and say "Whether art thou hungry"? Or do we have evidence of another wh- particle besides "whether" that was used specifically in yes-no types of questions?


----------



## berndf

sumelic said:


> berndf, that bit about either-or questions originally having "whether" at the start is very interesting. I still can't quite see how it would work for simple yes-no questions though; did people used to have to say "Whether art thou hungry or not"? Could people leave the "or not" implied and say "Whether art thou hungry"? Or do we have evidence of another wh- particle besides "whether" that was used specifically in yes-no types of questions?


You slightly misunderstood what I wrote. The "or not" semantics is implicit in the word _hƿæðer_. The OE question _Art thou hungry_? would be _Hƿæðer bist þu hungrig?_ But also in Old English the bare form without _hƿæðer, _i.e _Bist þu hungrig? _in our example_, _was already the norm. But the occurrence of such _yes/no_ question introduced by a _wh-_particle indicates how this word order for _yes/no_ questions with the finite verb in first position has probably evolved, viz. out of _either/or_ questions like the Middle English example I quoted before (#12).

An attested example: _Hƿæðer ic mote lybban oðþæt ic hine geseo?_ (_may I live until I see him?_ Literally: _Whether I may live until-that I him see_) asks Ælfric in the Homilies.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Isn't it so that inversion used in questions is not a consequence of the V2 rule, but a separate phenomenon? Inverted questions function also in other languages, that don't use the V2 rule (for example Finnish), and as you also said "English is an exception to the V2 rule in Germanic languages".
Generally I would divide the languages into three gropups according to the way "yes/no" questions are formulated: 
1. With an interrogative  particle at the beginning (Polish "czy"). 
2. With an interrogative  particle addes at the end of a phrase or sentence (Finnish "-ko", Japanese "-ka*", Russian -li, Chinese -ma*)
3. Languages without a question particle at all (Germanic languages).

In the first group inversion is not necessary and is usually not used.
In the second group inversion is often combined with the interrogative  particle.
In the third group inversion is usually used to make questions. English has an "add-in" auxiliary verb "do" to form questions.

As far as I know "-ka" and "-ma" are used also with other questions than "yes/no" type.


----------



## Nino83

I would add a fourth group. 

4. Romance languages 

In yes/no questions there is no inversion (French has 3 types of word order in interrogative sentences). 
With inaccusative verbs the inversion is the natural position in yes/no questions. (è arrivato Giovanni? llegó Juan? chegou o João?) 
When there is an interrogative adverb/adjective + intransitive verb, the inversion is the natural position. (quando è arrivato/ha lavorato Giovanni? cúando llegó/trabajó Juan? quando chegou/trabalhou o João?). It is the commonest position also in Italian and Spanish with transitive verbs (che libro ha comprato Giovanni? que libro compró Juan) while in European Portuguese two positions are common (que livro comprou o João? que livro o João comprou?) when the direct object is a noun while when the direct object is not a noun, the inversion is the normal position (che ha comprato Giovanni? que compró Juan? o que comprou o João?). 

This is valid for European Potuguese (in Brazilian Portuguese it is "quando o João chegou/trabalhou?" and "que livro o João comprou?/o que João comprou?").


----------



## Ben Jamin

Nino83 said:


> I would add a fourth group.
> 
> 4. Romance languages
> 
> In yes/no questions there is no inversion (French has 3 types of word order in interrogative sentences).
> With inaccusative verbs the inversion is the natural position in yes/no questions. (è arrivato Giovanni? llegó Juan? chegou o João?)
> When there is an interrogative adverb/adjective + intransitive verb, the inversion is the natural position. (quando è arrivato/ha lavorato Giovanni? cúando llegó/trabajó Juan? quando chegou/trabalhou o João?). It is the commonest position also in Italian and Spanish with transitive verbs (che libro ha comprato Giovanni? que libro compró Juan) while in European Portuguese two positions are common (que livro comprou o João? que livro o João comprou?) when the direct object is a noun while when the direct object is not a noun, the inversion is the normal position (che ha comprato Giovanni? que compró Juan? o que comprou o João?).
> 
> This is valid for European Potuguese (in Brazilian Portuguese it is "quando o João chegou/trabalhou?" and "que livro o João comprou?/o que João comprou?").


I would rather put them as a subgroup of group 3. English (no V2) and the rest of Germanic languages (V2) would form an other subgroup, and we could add more subgroups succesively to place other languages in them. The common denominator: no interrogative particle for yes/no questions. (I don't count the French "Est-ce que .." as an interrogative particle, even if it has a similar function).


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> Isn't it so that inversion used in questions is not a consequence of the V2 rule, but a separate phenomenon?


Until now I see no reason to do so although I admit that the evidence for the origin of V1 question to be a dropped particle is quite indirect. Nevertheless, maintenance of V2 syntax is a perfectly obvious explanation for questions with initial _wh-_ particle and I find it not very convincing to look for a completely different explanation for _yes/no_ questions.



Ben Jamin said:


> "English is an exception to the V2 rule in Germanic languages".


Word order in interrogative sentences as we know it today, with or without _wh-_ particle, is significantly older than the loss of V2 syntax in declarative sentences in English. So, this peculiarity of modern English is completely irrelevant for this question.
----
A different point: It may be interesting to compare V1 word order in question with the similar issue in imperative sentences with subject pronouns or subjunctive sentences that function as imperative equivalents, as in _Don’t you be late!_ (English) or _Verspäten Sie sich nicht!_ (German). These sentences follow very old paradigms and I would be surprised, if this similarity were completely accidental. I am not sure what to make of this. The older samples become, the more frequently imperatives with _nu_ (=_now_) in the pre-field (Old Icelandic: _Nù ger þù svo mannlega... = Now act thou so manly..._): OHG translations of Latin texts we frequently find this introduction (in late OHG also moved after the verb) where there is no apparent reason for this _nu_ in the original. This suggest a strong idiomatic connection of imperatives with this adverb.


----------



## francisgranada

sumelic said:


> Francisgranada, I don't know any Hungarian (actually I have just started to learn), but in your examples it looks like the pattern is to have "ki" always come directly before the verb. I don't know if that is a coincidence, or maybe the "ki" is more closely "connected" to the verb than the "te" because it is required and not optional. How does that explanation sound?


Your explanation doesn't sound bad at all, as e.g. *_ki te vagy?_ is surely wrong. However, I don't know whether this is the reason or rather the consequence, as also in case of the declarative sentence "Te Péter vagy", some combinations sound unnatural, e.g. "Péter te vagy" or "Vagy te Péter".


----------



## bloop123

Couldn't you say that the use of do/does + noun or est-ce que to be inversion aswell for yes/no questions. They don't seem like an exception because tecnically there is an inversion, just not with a verb with a strong sematic weighting and est-ce que being a fixed expression but with the inversion of 'ce' . In this case wouldn't the default question formation for English and French be through inversion? Other than asking the question through saying the statement with a sharp change intonation that is

Even English question tags incorperate inversion

isn't it?
didn't + noun/pronoun

I guess that isn't true for French though with n'est pas...

It has always felt that French questions are so similar to English in that regard. Do you think there was a Germanic influence? I read French used to have v2 word order. Did any other romance language share this feature?


----------



## berndf

bloop123 said:


> Do you think there was a Germanic influence?


Yes, I do (Old Frankish).


----------



## merquiades

bloop123 said:


> Couldn't you say that the use of do/does + noun or est-ce que to be inversion aswell for yes/no questions. They don't seem like an exception because tecnically there is an inversion, just not with a verb with a strong sematic weighting and est-ce que being a fixed expression but with the inversion of 'ce' . In this case wouldn't the default question formation for English and French be through inversion? Other than asking the question through saying the statement with a sharp change intonation that is
> 
> Even English question tags incorperate inversion
> 
> isn't it?
> didn't + noun/pronoun
> 
> I guess that isn't true for French though with n'est pas...
> 
> It has always felt that French questions are so similar to English in that regard. Do you think there was a Germanic influence? I read French used to have v2 word order. Did any other romance language share this feature?



Contemporary spoken French has a strong preference for a different type of inversion:  the question word is put at the end.

Tu viens quand?..........rather than Quand est-ce que tu viens?..........but Quand viens-tu? remains the written norm.
Il est quelle heure?                      
Tu viens d'où toi?
Ils sont qui?


----------



## bloop123

merquiades said:


> Contemporary spoken French has a strong preference for a different type of inversion:  the question word is put at the end.
> 
> Tu viens quand?..........rather than Quand est-ce que tu viens?..........but Quand viens-tu? remains the written norm.
> Il est quelle heure?
> Tu viens d'où toi?
> Ils sont qui?



Like English, it's just not as common

It's often used to express shock/disbelief/annoyance at a previous statement

I'm going out with Brad Pitt

You're going out with who?

I'm moving to Antarctica 

You're moving where?

daughter to mother

'I'm going out, gunna come back 2am'

Mother 

'You're coming back, when?'

As in you're dreaming


----------



## Nino83

bloop123 said:


> Couldn't you say that the use of do/does + noun or est-ce que to be inversion aswell for yes/no questions. They don't seem like an exception because tecnically there is an inversion, just not with a verb with a strong sematic weighting and est-ce que being a fixed expression but with the inversion of 'ce' . In this case wouldn't the default question formation for English and French be through inversion?



I think that: 

a) for the French "formal/written" construction (i.e "avez-vous compris?") there is a German influence 

b) the French "est-ce que" is a Romance feature (e.g "quand *est-ce que *Jean est arrivé?"). 
For example, we have: 
"quando è arrivato Giovanni?", "cúando llegó Juan?", "quando chegou o João?" 
"quando *è che* Giovanni è arrivato?", "cúando *es que* Juan llegó?", "quando *é que* o João chegou?" 

As you can see, also in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese when the "est-ce que" construction is used, the subject is placed before the verb. Obviously in French this construction is used also in yes/no questions.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> I think that:
> 
> a) for the French "formal/written" construction (i.e "avez-vous compris?") there is a German influence
> 
> b) the French "est-ce que" is a Romance feature (e.g "quand *est-ce que *Jean est arrivé?").
> For example, we have:
> "quando è arrivato Giovanni?", "cúando llegó Juan?", "quando chegou o João?"
> "quando *è che* Giovanni è arrivato?", "cúando *es que* Juan llegó?", "quando *é que* o João chegou?"
> 
> As you can see, also in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese when the "est-ce que" construction is used, the subject is placed before the verb. Obviously in French this construction is used also in yes/no questions.


Can we agree on this: _*est*-ce *que*_ is a Romance feature; combined with the loaned feature _*est-ce* que_.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> Can we agree on this: _*est*-ce *que*_ is a Romance feature; combined with the loaned feature _*est-ce* que_.





Yes, to be more precise. 
French is not a pro-drop language, so the _ce _is required.


----------



## bloop123

The difference though is that in Italian/Spanish/Portughese there is no mandatory dummy subject. So è che, es que and é que don't show an inversion while 'est-ce que' does. This is also shown in just about any question where the subject is a pronoun. When an Italian wants to use a pronoun, often they just put it at the end of question, which is more flexible than in French and English, where there is little room for a large displacement between the verb and the subject


----------



## Nino83

bloop123 said:


> The difference though is that in Italian/Spanish/Portughese there is no mandatory dummy subject. So è che, es que and é que don't show an inversion while 'est-ce que' does.



I was referreing to the real subject (Giovanni/Jean/Juan/João) of the sentence. 
When the "è che" is not used, the (real) subject of the sentence is placed after the verb while when it is used, the (real) subject is placed before the verb. 
There is the same movement in French ("quand arrive Jean?", "quand est-ce que Jean arrive?"). 

I hope it's more clear, now.


----------



## bloop123

Ho capito!


----------



## bloop123

I thought it could be interesting to compare inversion in indirect questions between English/Italian/French/German + any more if you wish. English seems to make a distinction in allowing inversion with 'to be' but not other verbs, while Italian requires the inversion.

Non so quanti anni hanno i tuoi


Non so quanti anni i tuoi hanno*


I don't know how old your parents are


I don't know how old are your parents


Non so dove abitano i tuoi


Non so dove i tuoi abitano*


I don't know where your parents live


I don't know where live your parents*


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> I was referreing to the real subject (Giovanni/Jean/Juan/João) of the sentence.
> When the "è che" is not used, the (real) subject of the sentence is placed after the verb while when it is used, the (real) subject is placed before the verb.
> There is the same movement in French ("quand arrive Jean?", "quand est-ce que Jean arrive?").
> 
> I hope it's more clear, now.



With a double subject in the formal written version:  Quand Jean arrive-t-il?

This site seems to give all the intricacies of French interrogations of all types if anyone is interested.


----------



## Nino83

merquiades said:


> With a double subject in the formal written version:  Quand Jean arrive-t-il?
> 
> This site seems to give all the intricacies of French interrogations of all types if anyone is interested.



From a grammar book: "Où est allé ton frère?" 

As far as I know, when there is no (direct, indirect, prepositional) object the double subject is not mandatory. Am I right? 



bloop123 said:


> I thought it could be interesting to compare inversion in indirect questions between English/Italian/French/German + any more if you wish. English seems to make a distinction in allowing inversion with 'to be' but not other verbs, while Italian requires the inversion.



I don't know how it works in German, but I found sentences like "no se cuanto cuesta la cuota interna de la faultad de derecho", "quero comprar na Amazon mas não sei quanto custa o frete" (Spanish and Portuguese).


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> I don't know how it works in German, ....


In German you have this overriding rule that the finite verb moves all the way to the end in a subordinate clause.
_Er fragte sich, *ob* er seinem Sohn, den er mehrere Jahre nicht mehr gesehen hatte, obgleich er sich ihm immer aus innigste verbunden fühlte, zu dieser wunderschönen, das Herz erquickende Jahreszeit, die sich jetzt aber schon bald dem Ende zuneigen wollte, in seinem Urlaubsort, an dem dieser sich für gewöhnlich in diesem Monat aufzuhalten pflegte, einen unangekündigten Besuch abstatten *solle*.
_


----------



## bo-marco

bloop123 said:


> It has always felt that French questions are so similar to English in that regard. Do you think there was a Germanic influence? I read French used to have v2 word order. Did any other romance language share this feature?



*Emilian *(romance language, no germanic influence):

(Tè) at magn quèl (you eat something)
Magn-at quèl (tè)? (do you eat something?)
_tɛ at maɲ kwɛl - 'maɲat kwɛl tɛ?_

(Loor) I bévan dal vèn (They drink wine)
Bév'n-I dal vèn (loor)? / Bév'n-I (loor) dal vèn? (Do they drink wine?)
_lo:r i 'bevan dal vɛŋ - 'bevni dal vɛŋ lo:r?_

(Lò) 'l è staa in Germàgna (He has been in Germany)
è'l staa in Germàgna (lò)? / è'l staa (lò) in Germàgna? (Has he been in Germany?)
_lɔ lɛ sta: iŋ ʤer'maɲa - ɛl sta: iŋ ʤer'maɲa lɔ?_

At least one subject is always mandatory. A second subject is also permitted.


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> Until now I see no reason to do so although I admit that the evidence for the origin of V1 question to be a dropped particle is quite indirect. Nevertheless, maintenance of V2 syntax is a perfectly obvious explanation for questions with initial _wh-_ particle and I find it not very convincing to look for a completely different explanation for _yes/no_ questions.
> 
> Word order in interrogative sentences as we know it today, with or without _wh-_ particle, is significantly older than the loss of V2 syntax in declarative sentences in English. So, this peculiarity of modern English is completely irrelevant for this question.
> ----
> A different point: It may be interesting to compare V1 word order in question with the similar issue in imperative sentences with subject pronouns or subjunctive sentences that function as imperative equivalents, as in _Don’t you be late!_ (English) or _Verspäten Sie sich nicht!_ (German). These sentences follow very old paradigms and I would be surprised, if this similarity were completely accidental. I am not sure what to make of this. The older samples become, the more frequently imperatives with _nu_ (=_now_) in the pre-field (Old Icelandic: _Nù ger þù svo mannlega... = Now act thou so manly..._): OHG translations of Latin texts we frequently find this introduction (in late OHG also moved after the verb) where there is no apparent reason for this _nu_ in the original. This suggest a strong idiomatic connection of imperatives with this adverb.



Inversion is used in many non Germanic languages to form questions, and they don't show the V2 feature.
For example:
Finnish: On*ko* sinullä polkupyörä? (Do you have a bicycle?)
Russian: Есть-*ли* у вас велосипед? (Yest-*li* u vas velosipyed?) (one of many ways to form a question, rather bookish).
Here *-ko* and *-li* are question suffixes.

Besides, in inversion used in questions the verb comes first.

In Norwegian, a typical V2 language* the verb opens the yes/no question:
Har du en sykkel? 


So, in what has the V2 system, which means that the verb has always come as the second part of the sentence, to do with inversion in questions?

*Affirmative sentences in Norwegian:
Jeg *har* en sykkel. (I have a bicycle)
Nå *har* jeg en sykkel. (Now have I a bicycle)


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> Inversion is used in many non Germanic languages to form questions, and they don't show the V2 feature.
> For example:
> Finnish: On*ko* sinullä polkupyörä? (Do you have a bicycle?)


There is no "inversion" as there is no prescribed word order that could be "inverted". In questions different parts (subject, verb or whatever) can be first, depending on topicality.


Ben Jamin said:


> So, in what has the V2 system, which means that the verb has always come as the second part of the sentence, to do with inversion in questions?


This question puzzles me a bit. You can disagree with the argument as presented in #12 & #14 (I have already agreed that the historical evidence is rather circumstantial), but I think it is sufficiently clear.


----------



## Nino83

bo-marco said:


> *Emilian *(romance language, no germanic influence)



Emilian is a Gallo-Romance language (Gallo-Italic subgroup). 
Gallo-Italic group (piemontese, ligure, lombardo, emiliano romagnolo) is grammatically very similar to French, because they are not pro-drop languages (while Occitan languages, i.e Occitan and Catalan, are pro-drop).


----------



## francisgranada

Ben Jamin said:


> ... Finnish: On*ko* sinullä polkupyörä? (Do you have a bicycle?)


This is ok also in Hungarian: "Van neked kerékpárod?". But the word orders "Neked van kerékpárod?" and "Neked kerékpárod van?" are also possible.  In Finnish "Sinulla on(ko) polkupyörä?" or "Sinulla polkupyörä on(ko)?" are not possible?


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> This is ok also in Hungarian: "Van neked kerékpárod?". But the word orders "Neked van kerékpárod?" and "Neked kerékpárod van?" are also possible. In Finnish "Sinulla on(ko) polkupyörä?" or "Sinulla polkupyörä on(ko)?" are not possible?


I don't speak Finnish but to my knowledge, word order in_ -ko/-kö_ questions is governed by topicality. I.e. you move the part to the front that expresses the particular aspect your question is about (_are *you* well?_ in contrast to _is *he* well?_ ~ _are you *well*?_ in contrast to _are you *ill*?_ ~_ *are* you well?_ in contrast to _are you *not* well? _or _*were* you well?_).

The _-ko/-kö_ is not linked to the verb (as in your examples) but is suffixed to the fronted element whatever it may be.


----------



## Ben Jamin

francisgranada said:


> This is ok also in Hungarian: "Van neked kerékpárod?". But the word orders "Neked van kerékpárod?" and "Neked kerékpárod van?" are also possible.  In Finnish "Sinulla on(ko) polkupyörä?" or "Sinulla polkupyörä on(ko)?" are not possible?


I am not an expert on Finnish, but I've never heard this word order, so I suppose that they are not possible.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> I am not an expert on Finnish, but I've never heard this word order, so I suppose that they are not possible.


Samples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_grammar#Forming_questions


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> There is no "inversion" as there is no prescribed word order that could be "inverted". In questions different parts (subject, verb or whatever) can be first, depending on topicality.



I meant inversion in relation to the word order of an affirmative sentence: from subject-predicate-object to predicate-subject-object.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> I meant inversion in relation to the word order of an affirmative sentence: from subject-predicate-object to predicate-subject-object.


The affirmative sentence can also be anything, including verb-initial. Verb-initiallity does not characterize questions.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> ... I.e. you move the part to the front that expresses the particular aspect your question is about (_are *you* well?_ in contrast to _is *he* well?_ ~ _are you *well*?_ in contrast to _are you *ill*?_ ~_ *are* you well?_ in contrast to _are you *not* well? _or _*were* you well?_).


Yes, this is true also in Hungarian. 


> The _-ko/-kö is not linked to the verb (as in your examples) but is suffixed to the fronted element whatever it may be._


Ok, now it's clear as the question suffix -e in Hungarian is used in a different way (it's linked to the verb, e.g. _van-e_ in my examples, and has rather the meaning of "whether" than introducing a question).


----------



## francisgranada

Ben Jamin said:


> I meant inversion in relation to the word order of an affirmative sentence: from subject-predicate-object to predicate-subject-object.


This is _partially _true in your example, e.g. in Hungarian:
Question: *Van *neked kerékpárod? (lit. *Is* to-you bicycle?)
"Neutral" answer: Nekem *van *kerérkpárom. (lit. To-me *is* bicycle)

But:
Question: (Te) *iszol *vizet? (lit. Thou *drinkst *water?)
"Neutral" answer: (Én) *iszom *vizet (lit. I *drink *water).

Of course, different word orders are possible as well in both the questions and answers. However, the first example is a bit atypical because of the construction "to me is" instead of "I have", where _neked _(sinulla) is not in  nominative case, i.e. grammatically it doesn't hehave as subject.


----------



## myšlenka

Ben Jamin said:


> Generally I would divide the languages into three gropups according to the way "yes/no" questions are formulated:
> 1. With an interrogative  particle at the beginning (Polish "czy").
> 2. With an interrogative  particle addes at the end of a phrase or sentence (Finnish "-ko", Japanese "-ka*", Russian -li, Chinese -ma*)
> 3. Languages without a question particle at all (Germanic languages).
> 
> In the first group inversion is not necessary and is usually not used.
> In the second group inversion is often combined with the interrogative  particle.
> In the third group inversion is usually used to make questions. English has an "add-in" auxiliary verb "do" to form questions.


I think the generally accepted typology for yes-no questions is as follows (they can of course be combined):
1) Interrogative particle
2) Intonation
3) Change in word order

 Apart from group 3, any predictions concerning syntactic properties are highly dubious.


----------



## Gavril

berndf said:


> The affirmative sentence can also be anything,  including verb-initial. Verb-initiallity does not characterize  questions.



While other word orders are possible, SVO is the typical order for  declarative sentences in Finnish and VSO for yes/no questions:



> To make a neutral polar question [=_ yes/no question_] from a declarative, the verb is fronted and decorated with -kO (Hämäläinen (1990)).  This is contrary to  the typical Finnish word order, which is SVO.



(source)

(The spelling "-kO" is used here to indicate that the interrogative suffix is -_ko_ before a back-vowel stem and -_kö_ before a front-vowel stem.)


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> The affirmative sentence can also be anything, including verb-initial. Verb-initiallity does not characterize questions.


 You are right in general, but not concerning particular langauges.  No Englishman will make an affirmative sentence like this: *Have you a bicycle.*


----------



## berndf

It has indeed nothing to do with English. The statement you quoted was about Finnish.


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> It has indeed nothing to do with English. The statement you quoted was about Finnish.



No, my post #35 was about all languages.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> berndf said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has indeed nothing to do with English. The statement you quoted was about Finnish.
> 
> 
> 
> No, my post #35 was about all languages.
Click to expand...

*My* statement you quoted was clearly about Finnish. I am still not prepared to jump from a handful of insufficiently analysed examples to conclusions about _all languages_.

The situation in Finnish (and in Hungarian) seems to be that different word orders are possible in both declarative and interrogative sentences and that fronting is related to topicality or focus. It seems further to be the case that subject first is neutral in declarative and verb first in interrogative sentences. The obvious hypothesis to be derived from this example would be to say that subject prominence is neutral in declarative and verb prominence in interrogative sentences. In itself, this would be an interesting hypothesis worthy of being discussed further.

In Germanic languages on the other hand, the verb position is governed my much stricter rules. It is much more than just "neutral" word order. In questions with _wh_-particles, V2 word order is fully intact. Only _yes/no _questions need to be explained. However circumstantial evidence for a derivation of V1 word order in _yes/no _question from V2 word order in questions with _wh_-particles might be, I find it still much more obvious than any reference to "neutral" or even merely "possible" word orders in selected languages from very different groups.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> ...The situation in Finnish (and in Hungarian) seems to be that different word orders are possible in both declarative and interrogative sentences and that fronting is related to topicality or focus. It seems further to be the case that subject first is neutral in declarative and verb first in interrogative sentences. The obvious hypothesis to be derived from this example would be to say that subject prominence is neutral in declarative and verb prominence in interrogative sentences.


It is a bit difficult to say which word order is really neutral. Perhaps we could say wich is statistically the most common or which reflects most of the situations.  

In Hungarian, according to my example "(Te) iszol vizet?" (post #45) it seems, that the word order doesn't change if the answerer simply wants to confirm the question. (The examples with the verb "to have" are not the best because in Finnish and Hungarian the "to me" construction is used instead). However, the declarative sentence/answer can have a different word order as well, independently on the word order of the question. Two examples where the subject is explicitely present:

I.
Péter otthon van?  - lit. Peter at-home is?
(Igen), Péter otthon van. - lit. (Yes), Peter at-home is.

Otthon van Péter? - lit. At-home is Peter?
(Igen), otthon van Péter. - lit. (Yes), at-home is Peter.

Péter van otthon? - lit. Peter is at home?
(Igen), Péter van otthon. - lit. (Yes), Peter is at-home.

Otthon Péter van? - lit. At-home Peter is?
(Igen), Otthon Péter van. - lit. (Yes), at-home Peter is.

etc...

II.
Péter olvas? - lit. Peter reads?
(Igen), Péter olvas. - lit. (Yes), Peter reads.

Olvas Péter? - Reads Peter?
1. (Igen), Péter olvas. - lit. (Yes), Peter reads.
2. (Igen), olvas Péter. - lit. (Yes), reads Peter.

Interestingly, in this case the 2nd possibility is rather atypical (if there is no other context, of course). By the way, the most natural answer would be "Olvas." without repeating the subject. 

As conclusion, I don't think the hypothesis mentioned by you is appliable for the Hungarian. If yes , then rather statistically than _de principio_. But surely a deeper analyisis should be made to get an exact answer.


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> If yes , then rather statistically than _de principio_.


Yes absolutely. The hypothesis would be that in some languages, not Finnish and not Hungarian, these slight "preferences" might have condensed into rules. I am not saying it was so. Just formulating a possible counter hypothesis to the V2 hypothesis. Essentially to explain why I still prefer the V2 hypothesis, exactly because the counter hypothesis is so weak.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> Yes absolutely. The hypothesis would be that in some languages, not Finnish and not Hungarian, these slight "preferences" might have condensed into rules. I am not saying it was so. Just formulating a possible counter hypothesis to the V2 hypothesis. Essentially to explain why I still prefer the V2 hypothesis, exactly because the counter hypothesis is so weak.


Ok, now I understand better your standpoint. I've tried to analise a bit more the "typical" position of the verb in Hungarian sentences. The result  is that it's position is always related to topicality or focus (or importance or whatever we call it). This is valid both for the declarative and interrogative sentences (at least I cannot see any relevant difference). For consequence, the interrogativeness of the sentences itself does not _a priori_ lead to change of the word order. 

From the statistical point of view, the verb may _theorically _occupy more frequently the first position in the interrogative sentences with regard to the declarative ones for the following reasons: 
1. the frequent occurence of "to have"-like sentences (which is "misleading", but statistically perhaps relevant)
2. the possible more frequent focus on the verb when _asking_ comparing with _declatrations/constatations_
3. the presence of _other elements_ (adverbs, particles, object, etc ...) in the sentence may  change the focus, _eo ipso_ the word order (perhaps, this is the case of the Finnish particle _-ko/kö_).
4. other ... ))

Whether the reasons mentioned in the above points do really reflect enough the statistical reality - I don't know. However, even if so, I find them intuitively quite weak to confirm the second part of the hypotesis "subject prominence is neutral in declarative and verb prominence in interrogative sentences". I.e. I can't see an evident verb prominence in the interrogative sentences. 

P.S. In more complex sentences, not only the 1st vs. 2nd position is relevant, but the 2nd vs. 3rd (or even 1st+2nd vs. 3rd) etc ... as well. Plus, in the spoken language, the intonation may compete or even override the word order in some cases. (This makes the situation more complicated)


----------



## Gavril

I can only speak from my own experience here, but I read Finnish texts  on a regular basis, and I rarely see a declarative sentence in  which the verb is not preceded by the subject, object, or an adverbial phrase:

_Mies __tuli eilen _"The man arrived yesterday" (subject first)
_Eilen tuli mies_ "Yesterday a man arrived" (adverb first)_
Puun __kaatoi __mies_ "A man chopped down the tree" (object first)

If the verb begins the sentence with nothing preceding it, this usually means  that the sentence is contradictory (or in some way complementary) of a  previous sentence. This is more common in conversation than in writing:

A: _Mies ei lähtenyt._ "The man did not leave."
B: _Lähti hän!_ "Yes, he did leave!"

On the basis of this, I would say that V2 order in Finnish declarative sentences and V1 order in interrogatives are more than slight preferences: they are the dominant patterns, even if slightly less dominant than in Germanic (where the personal verb marking is more ambiguous, at least in the surviving languages, making word order a more significant factor).


----------



## francisgranada

Gavril said:


> I can only speak from my own experience here, but I read Finnish texts  on a regular basis, and I rarely see a declarative sentence in  which the verb is not preceded by the subject, object, or an adverbial phrase:


In the *declarative sentences* this may be statistically true also in Hungarian. However I think the reason is not a tendency but rather the fact that the subject is more often "focused" than the verb. 

For example "Peter is coming/Peter comes":

_Péter jön_ - lit. Peter comes
(_Jön Péter!_ grosso modo corresponds to your explanation about _Lähti hän!_)

But if we add e.g. "is" (=also) to the sentence then both the versions are common:
_Péter is jön - _ lit. Peter also comes_
Jön Péter is - _ lit. Comes Peter also

In the *interrogative sentence* e.g. "Is Peter coming?/Does Peter come?", I'd say that both V2 and V1 are common:
(I don't exclude that V1 may be statistically more frequent, but again: I can see no tendency)
_
Péter jön? _- lit. Peter comes?_
Jön Péter? _- lit. Comes Peter?_
_
The same when adding "is" (=also): _
__Péter is jön? -  _lit. Peter also comes?
_Jön Péter is? - _lit. Comes Peter also?

_
**********
_For comparison, how would you say the above Hungarian examples in Finnish?

(I didn't use your example with _Mies __tuli eilen _because the verb "to arrive" has a separable prefix in Hungarian which leads to even more possible combinations of the word order)


----------



## Gavril

francisgranada said:


> In the *declarative sentences* this may be statistically true also in Hungarian. However I think the reason is not a tendency but rather the fact that the subject is more often "focused" than the verb.




How are you defining a tendency here? If there were such a tendency, wouldn't it reflect precisely these facts about the focus of the subject?




> For comparison, how would you say the above Hungarian examples in Finnish?


_
Péter jön_ - lit. Peter comes_ - Petteri tulee_

_Jön Péter!_ -  lit. Peter comes_ - Tulee Petteri!_

_Péter is jön _- lit. Peter also comes - _Myös Petteri tulee _("Peter is also coming")

_Jön Péter is _- lit. Comes Peter also_ - Myös tulee Petteri. _("Peter is also coming" -- this suggests that "Peter" is newer information)

The word order _Tulee myös Petteri _is also possible, but I am not sure how common it is unless there is an adverbial expression preceding _tulee_.

_Péter jön?_ - lit. Peter comes? -_Petterikö tulee?_ ("Peter is coming?")

_Jön Péter?_ - lit. Comes Peter?_ - __Tuleeko Petteri?_ ("Is Peter coming?")

_Péter is jön?_ -  lit. Peter also comes?_ - Petterikö myös tulee?_ ("Peter is also coming?")

Jön Péter is? - lit. Comes Peter also?_ - __Tuleeko myös Petteri?_ ("Is Peter also coming?")




> (I didn't use your example with _Mies tuli eilen_ because  the verb "to arrive" has a separable prefix in Hungarian which leads to  even more possible combinations of the word order)



Finnish _tulla_ normally means "to come" as well, but it can also mean "arrive". I used "arrive" as a translation here because it makes the (otherwise very short) English sentences sound more complete.


----------



## francisgranada

Gavril said:


> How are you defining a tendency here?


I meant a tendency towards "grammatical/formal preference" or a tendency to stabilize the position of the verb.



> Jön Péter is - lit. Comes Peter also - Myös tulee Petteri. ("Peter is also coming" -- this suggests that "Peter" is newer information)


This is true also in Hungarian. 

According to your answer, there is a perfect correspondance between the Hungarian and the Finnish word order in our simple examples. The only differences I've noticed are the position of "is/_myös_" (in Hungarian it always follows the noun/expression to which it's related, so "is Peter", "is jön" are not possible) and the particle _-ko/kö._


----------



## Gavril

francisgranada said:


> I meant a tendency towards "grammatical/formal preference" or a tendency to stabilize the position of the verb.
> 
> This is true also in Hungarian.
> 
> According to your answer, there is a perfect correspondance between the Hungarian and the Finnish word order in our simple examples. The only differences I've noticed are the position of "is/_myös_" (in Hungarian it always follows the noun/expression to which it's related, so "is Peter", "is jön" are not possible) and the particle _-ko/kö._



There is also a near-perfect correspondence between these word-orders and the word order in (e.g.) English, except that some of the word orders are now considered archaic: namely, adverb-verb word order (_Then came Peter_ ...) and simple verb-subject inversion in questions (_Came Peter there?_).

The only word order in these examples that has no analogue in Germanic languages (that I know of, but I'm not an expert) is simple V1 word-order (_Tulee Petteri_), which, in Finnish at least, seems to be very contextually restricted.


----------

