# subject verb agreement



## Bilbo Baggins

Hello:
I´m studying the Perfect Active tense. I´ve learned that when the verb is the first element of a sentence the the subject and verb usually agree in gender but the verb is singular regardless of the subject´s number. I have also learned that the subject can precede the verb. In this situation the verb and subject agree in both gender and number. My questions are: How often do subjects precede verbs in Arabic? Is it common? Is there a change in meaning or emphasis when the order is switched?

Thanks!


----------



## Taalib

The subjects precede verbs very commonly in spoken MSA.  In written MSA it depends on the field.  If you stick to very intellectual works that focus on literature, for instance, the order is more often V-S-O.  If you stick to business or politics, in contrast, the order is more often S-V-O.  One instructor many years ago told me to use a very crude metric: the more often you read MSA in fields open to Western influence, the more often you see widespread S-V-O, which some (though not all) classical Arabists consider to be a corruption.  In fact I once read a language analysis that claimed that widespread use of S-V-O is a key difference between MSA and classical Arabic. 

As a Westerner I don't detect much change in meaning when subjects precede verbs; supposedly the emphasis is more on the actor rather than action.  I defer completely to the native Arabic speakers here for their expertise in this matter.


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

Thank you.


----------



## Han86

In the dialects that we speak, I think we begin with the subject more than in the formal language.

For writing, there is a marked difference between a nominal and a verbal sentence. When the sentence says in MSA: 

الأولاد يذهبون إلى المدرسة

It sounds in my head (which, I suppose, is a representative Arabic head): 

THE BOYS go to school 

Whereas يذهب الأولاد إلى المدرسة sonds:

The boys go to school.

At least this is how I feel the difference. 

Ever thought about using 'inna إنّ in front of sentences? this commonly used particle neutralizes the emphatic effect of putting the subject right in the front of the sentence.


----------



## Mahaodeh

I agree with Han.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi all

A common example in the classical literature is to use SVO and VSO in a negative sentence:

ما أنا كتبْتُ الرسالةَ [I was not the one that wrote the letter or _I_ did not write the letter (with emphasis on the "_I"_)]

and 

ما كتبْتُ الرسالةَ [I did not write the letter (with no emphasis on the "I")]

The first sentence means that the letter was written but I did not write it. The second sentence just simply means that I did not write the letter, and it does not imply that a letter was written by someone else.

From this example it is clear that the SVO is used for emphasis.

The explanation that they normally give for how emphasis obtains in SVO is that twice reference is made to the agent (1) as a subject and (2) as the agent of the verb (since every verb has to have an agent). In the VSO reference is only made once to the agent. So in a way the SVO is really SVSO.


----------



## Ali Smith

Han86 said:


> In the dialects that we speak, I think we begin with the subject more than in the formal language.
> 
> For writing, there is a marked difference between a nominal and a verbal sentence. When the sentence says in MSA:
> 
> الأولاد يذهبون إلى المدرسة
> 
> It sounds in my head (which, I suppose, is a representative Arabic head):
> 
> THE BOYS go to school
> 
> Whereas يذهب الأولاد إلى المدرسة sonds:
> 
> The boys go to school.
> 
> At least this is how I feel the difference.
> 
> Ever thought about using 'inna إنّ in front of sentences? this commonly used particle neutralizes the emphatic effect of putting the subject right in the front of the sentence.


My Arabic teacher told me the same thing: ذهب خالد simply means 'Khalid went.', while خالد ذهب means 'KHALID went.' (as opposed to, say, Amr). It emphasizes that it was Khalid who is the فاعل of the فعل and not someone else. He also gave the following example:

رَاوَدَتْهُ الَّتِي هُوَ فِي بَيْتِهَا عَن نَّفْسِهِ وَغَلَّقَتِ الْأَبْوَابَ وَقَالَتْ هَيْتَ لَكَ ۚ قَالَ مَعَاذَ اللَّهِ ۖ إِنَّهُ رَبِّي أَحْسَنَ مَثْوَايَ ۖ إِنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الظَّالِمُونَ (23) وَلَقَدْ هَمَّتْ بِهِ ۖ وَهَمَّ بِهَا لَوْلَا أَن رَّأَىٰ بُرْهَانَ رَبِّهِ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ لِنَصْرِفَ عَنْهُ السُّوءَ وَالْفَحْشَاءَ ۚ إِنَّهُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا الْمُخْلَصِينَ (24) وَاسْتَبَقَا الْبَابَ وَقَدَّتْ قَمِيصَهُ مِن دُبُرٍ وَأَلْفَيَا سَيِّدَهَا لَدَى الْبَابِ ۚ قَالَتْ مَا جَزَاءُ مَنْ أَرَادَ بِأَهْلِكَ سُوءًا إِلَّا أَن يُسْجَنَ أَوْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (25) قَالَ هِيَ رَاوَدَتْنِي عَن نَّفْسِي

He said that if it had been قال راودتني عن نفسي it would simply have meant "He said, 'She tempted me to lie with her.'"
However, with هي before the verb it means "He said, '_She_ tempted me to lie with her! _I_ didn't tempt her to lie with me!'"


----------



## HeavenlyOrder

Yes, and also:

أَنَا رَاوَدتُّهُ عَن نَّفْسِهِ وَإِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ

أَنَا أُنَبِّئُكُم بِتَأْوِيلِهِ فَأَرْسِلُونِ


----------



## Ali Smith

Here's another example of the rule that putting the noun at the beginning imparts exclusivity.

اللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ مَا تَحْمِلُ كُلُّ أُنثَىٰ وَمَا تَغِيضُ الْأَرْحَامُ وَمَا تَزْدَادُ

Only Allah knows what each female carries and the wombs' falling short [of completion] and their exceeding [therein].

So, this verse means the same thing as

ما يعلم إلا الله ما تحمل كل أنثى وما تغيض الأرحام وما تزداد

and

إنما يعلم الله ما تحمل كل أنثى وما تغيض الأرحام وما تزداد.


----------



## zj73

In Modern Standard Arabic putting the subject before the verb does not emphasize anything or indicate exclusivity though.

جاء زيد
زيد جاء

Mean exactly the same thing in MSA.


----------



## WadiH

zj73 said:


> In Modern Standard Arabic putting the subject before the verb does not emphasize anything or indicate exclusivity though.
> 
> جاء زيد
> زيد جاء
> 
> Mean exactly the same thing in MSA.



This is not correct.


----------



## zj73

That's what I was told: there is no difference in meaning, BUT it cannot be denied that it is more usual to put the verb first.


----------



## Mahaodeh

When putting the subject first is a result of lazy translation, I’d say that they mean the same thing, otherwise there would be a high probability that the writer or speaker emphasizing the subject, even if only slightly.

By lazy translation I mean that the translator reads (or interpreter hears) “Zaid came” and automatically translates it as زيد جاء without putting any more thought to it. It’s quite common I would say. It’s not wrong but if the translator thought about the emphasis for a single second, he may opt for جاء زيد instead.


----------



## Ali Smith

I recall reading somewhere that unmarked word order is gradually becoming SVO in MSA. It’s already SVO in some dialects, such as Egyptian (which is by far the most widespread dialect).


----------



## rarabara

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Hello:
> I´m studying the Perfect Active tense. I´ve learned that when the verb is the first element of a sentence the the subject and verb usually agree in gender but the verb is singular regardless of the subject´s number.


hi,
I would add one more question: 

what happens when we would like to negate the past tense form with لم
will the same rule (existing above in the quotation) be applied?

Thanks


----------



## HotIcyDonut

rarabara said:


> hi,
> I would add one more question:
> 
> what happens when we would like to negate the past tense form with لم
> will the same rule (existing above in the quotation) be applied?
> 
> Thanks


لم is always followed by a verb (unless you talk about لِمْ which is a contraction of لماذا/"why?")

You don't say
لم الناس يأتوا
You only say
لم يأت الناس
The verb will always thus be singular.

Want dual or plural verb? Drop the subject altogether, imagine an imaginary pronoun
لم يأتوا
(They) didn't came


----------



## rarabara

HotIcyDonut said:


> The verb will always thus be singular.


hi,
thank you for the reply.
so, you mean regardless of the number of doer (i.e. subject) the verb will always be singular.


----------



## rarabara

HotIcyDonut said:


> (unless you talk about لِمْ which is a contraction of لماذا/"why?")


this is not the thing I was talking about. no relevancy.
Thanks.


----------



## Romeel

rarabara said:


> hi,
> thank you for the reply.
> so, you mean regardless of the number of doer (i.e. subject) the verb will always be singular.


عندما يتقدم الفعل على الفاعل دائما يكون مفردا
When the verb precedes the subject, it is always singular
مثال: 
يريد الشباب الذهاب
يريد الشابان الذهاب
يريد الشاب الذهاب

لكن عندما يتقدم الفاعل يلحق الفعل بالفاعل في الإفراد والمثنى والجمع
But when the subject precedes the verb, the verb follows the subject in the singular, dual or plural 
مثال: 
الشباب يريدون الذهاب
الشابان يريدان الذهاب
الشاب يريد الذهاب


----------



## rarabara

alialikhalid said:


> عندما يتقدم الفعل على الفاعل دائما يكون مفردا
> When the verb precedes the subject, it is always singular
> مثال:
> يريد الشباب الذهاب
> يريد الشابان الذهاب
> يريد الشاب الذهاب
> 
> لكن عندما يتقدم الفاعل يلحق الفعل بالفاعل في الإفراد والمثنى والجمع
> But when the subject precedes the verb, the verb follows the subject in the singular, dual or plural
> مثال:
> الشباب يريدون الذهاب
> الشابان يريدان الذهاب
> الشاب يريد الذهاب


Hi,many thanks for examples. I was just implying the case for negative sentences (negative past tense (with لم  ))
and yes ,the verb should be the first element of sentence but لم should precede it)


----------



## Romeel

لم يرد الشباب الذهاب
لم يرد الشابان الذهاب
لم يرد الشاب الذهاب


لا يريد الشباب الذهاب
لا  يريد الشابان الذهاب
لا يريد الشاب الذهاب


----------

