# word order - possessor / possessed



## ger4

Hello,

I would like to know which word order is generally preferred to express a "possessor-possessed" relationship in different languages. Is the "possessor" named first followed by the "thing possessed" or vice-versa?

It is probably impossible to give a general answer, as some languages (such as English and German) seem to have a "mixed system", so I thought I'll just give some examples: 

a. John's house 
b. the climate of Siberia 
c. the capital of the United States of America 

Thanks in advance!

--- 
German: 
a. _Johns Haus_ (informal: _das Haus von John_)  
b. _das Klima Sibiriens_ (informal: _das Klima von Sibirien_)
c. _die Hauptstadt der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika _ 

Latvian:
a. _Džona māja_ 
b. _Sibīrijas klimats_ 
c. _Amerikas Savienotās Valstis galvaspilsēta_


----------



## momai

Hi,
In Arabic it is very much straightforward,the thing possessed comes mostly if not always first then followed by the possessor.
a. baytu yohanna
b. Taqsu saybiria
c. 'aaSimatu al-wilayati al-mutaHidati al-'amrikiya
In your example c ,we usually use the word America as an adjective in Arabic and not as a noun as in German and English.


----------



## 810senior

Hello, in Japanese we always let the possessor come first at the sentence; there's no exception as far as I'm aware.

a. ジョン(John)の(of)家(house)
b. シベリア(Siberia)の(of)気候(climate)
c. アメリカ(America)合衆国(the United States)の(of)首都(capital)


----------



## Nawaq

*French *

a. la maison de John 
b. le climat de la Sibérie 
c. la capitale des Etats-Unis d'Amérique


----------



## Messquito

810senior said:


> Hello, in Japanese we always let the possessor come first at the sentence; there's no exception as far as I'm aware.
> a. ジョン(John)の(of)家(house)
> b. シベリア(Siberia)の(of)気候(climate)
> c. アメリカ(America)合衆国(the United States)の(of)首都(capital)


Chinese is pretty much the same as Japanese on this. In both languages, the modifier always precedes the modified term, (adj. precedes noun, adv. precedes verb, etc.) with no exceptions. (Except dialectical, for example, 你走先 (You go first.) is pretty common in some areas.)

In this case, the possessor serves to modify the possessed, giving it a quality (=belong to the possessor), so here the possessor always precedes the possessed. The possessor is suffixed by 的 to make it a modifier. 的 here works the same as Japanese の.

a. 約翰的家 John's house.
b. 西伯利亞的氣候 the climate of Siberia
c. 美利堅合眾國的首都 the capital of the United States of America

There are cases where we simply drop the 的 (約翰家、美國首都), but I can't come up with a rule to it.


----------



## 810senior

At least I found that the Chinese language also leaves 的 out in 美利坚[的]合众国(美利堅合眾國, literal translation of USA) like we Japanese do in it.


----------



## apmoy70

Modern Greek:

a1. *«Το σπίτι του Γιάννη»* [to ˈspiti tu ˈʝani] = _the house of the-John's_
a2. *«Του Γιάννη το σπίτι»* [tu ˈʝani to ˈspiti] = _of the-john's the house_

*«Το»* [to] = neut. definite article in the sing. nominative case.
*«Σπίτι»* [ˈspiti] (neut.) = MoGr colloquial name of house, aphetic of Byz.Gr. *«ὁσπίτιον» ospítion* (neut.) --> _house, household, accomodation_ < Lat. *hospitium* --> _lodgings, inn, guest-chamber_.
*«Του»* [tu] = masc. definite article in the sing. genitive case (_of-the_).
*«Γιάννη»* [ˈʝani] = masc. genitive of the MoGr familiar name *«Γιάννης»* [ˈʝanis] (masc. nom.) < Koine masc. name *«Ἰωάννης» Ĭōánnēs* (_John_).

Classical Greek:

a1. *«Ὁ οἶκος τοῦ Ἰωάννου» hó oî̯kŏs toû Ĭōánnou* = _the house of-the John's_ (as you can see adheres to the pattern of MoGr a1).
a2. *«Τοῦ Ἰωάννου ὁ οἶκος» toû Ĭōánnou hó oî̯kŏs* = _of the-john's the house_ (pattern MoGr a2).
a3. *«Ὁ τοῦ Ἰωάννου οἶκος» hó toû Ĭōánnou oî̯kŏs* = _the of the-John's house_ (unfortunately MoGr can no longer follow this pattern, it's too archaic, even by Katharevousa standards it's considered "old school").

*«Ὁ» hó* = masc. definite article in the sing. nominative case.
*«Oἶκος» oîkŏs* (masc. nom. sing.) = Classical Gr. name of house, dwelling of any kind, abode, room, home, household, native land (PIE *ueiḱ-/*uoiḱ- _house_ cf Skt. विश् (víś), _settlement, dwelling-place_, Lat. vīcus, small civilian settlement > Eng. vicinity, Proto-Slavic *vьsь, _village_ > Cz./Svk. ves, Pol. wieś, OCS вьсь > BCS вас/vas, Slo. vas).

Identical constructions for (b) & (c):

b1. *«Το κλίμα της Σιβηρίας»* [to ˈklima tis siviˈɾi.as] = _the climate of-the Siberia's_.
b2. *«Της Σιβηρίας το κλίμα»* [tis siviˈɾi.as to ˈklima] = _of-the Siberia's the climate_.

*«Της»* [tis] = fem. definite article in the sing. genitive case (_of-the_).
*«Σιβηρίας»* [siviˈɾi.as] = fem. genitive of the MoGr feminine name *«Σιβηρία»* [siviɾi.a] < the Russian geographical region *Сибирь*.
*«Κλίμα»* [ˈklima] = MoGr neut. noun, name of climate, an inherited word from the Koine language: *«κλῖμα» klîmă* (neut.) --> i_nclination, slope of ground, propensity_. In Hellenistic times, the name came to describe the climate also, as scientists back then believed that the differences in climate from region to region or the change of weather, happen due to the different inclination of earth's surface (PIE *ḱlei̯- _to lean_ cf Lat. clīnāre, Proto-Germanic *hlainijaną > Ger. lehnen, Eng. lean).

c1. *«Η πρωτεύουσα των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών Αμερικής»* [i proˈtevusa ton inoˈmenon politiˈon ameɾiˈcis] = _the capital (city is usually omitted) of-the United's States' of-America's_.
c2. *«Των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών Αμερικής η πρωτεύουσα»* [ton inoˈmenon politiˈon ameɾiˈcis i proˈtevusa] = _of-the United's States' of-America's the capital_.

*«Η»* = fem. definite article in the sing. nominative case.
*«Πρωτεύουσα»* [proˈtevusa] (fem.) = MoGr adj. (the primate, capital) < Classical Gr fem. present tense participle *«πρωτεύουσα» prōteú̯ousā* of Classical v. *«πρωτεύω» prōteú̯ō*.
*«Των»* [ton] = fem. definite article in the pl. genitive case.
*«Ηνωμένων»* [inoˈmenon] = fem. genitive pl. of the Classical perfect tense mediopassive fem. participle *«ἡνωμένη» hēnōménē* (she has been united) of Classical v. *«ἑνόω/ἑνῶ» hĕnóō* (uncontractred)/*hĕnô* (contracted).
*«Πολιτειών»* [politiˈon] = fem. genitive pl. of the MoGr fem. name *«πολιτεία»* [poliˈti.a] (state, nation, government, city/town) < Classical fem. noun *«πολιτεία» pŏlĭteí̯ā*.
*«Αμερικής»* [ameɾiˈcis] = fem. gen. sing. of the MoGr fem. noun *«Αμερική»* [ameɾiˈci] (America).


----------



## Dymn

Catalan and Spanish, like (all?) other Romance languages, follow the order possessed-possessor:

*Catalan*:

a. la casa d'en John
b. el clima de Sibèria
c. la capital dels Estats Units d'Amèrica

*Spanish*:

a. la casa de John
b. el clima de Siberia
c. la capital de los Estados Unidos de América

In personal possessives it depends on definiteness:

ca: 
a. el meu amic ("my friend")
b. un amic meu ("a friend of mine")

es: 
d. mi amigo
e. un amigo mío


----------



## Sardokan1.0

*Sardinian : *

a. John's house -> Sa domo de John
b. the climate of Siberia -> Su clima de sa Siberia
c. the capital of the United States of America -> Sa capitale de sos Istados Unidos de America

While possessives works more or less like in Catalan

a. My friend -> S'amigu meu
b. A friend of mine -> Un'amigu meu

my friend -> s'amigu meu
your friend -> s'amigu tou
his/her friend -> s'amigu sou
our friend -> s'amigu nostru
your friend -> s'amigu (b)ostru
their friend -> s'amigu issóro (Lat. "Ipsorum")


----------



## ger4

Many thanks for all the replies!

[1] possessor [2] possessed: Latvian, Japanese, Chinese and (correct me if I'm wrong) most or all Uralic and Turkic languages, Mongolian and Korean
[1] possessed [2] possessor: Arabic, French, Catalan, Spanish, Sardinian (all Romance languages?) as well as (I think) Kurdish and Persian
Both word orders possible: English, German, Greek, Dutch (?) and Scandinavian (in Danish and Swedish there seems to be a tendency to name the possessor first, as in _Sveriges Radio_ (lit. 'Sweden's Radio'), _Dagens Nyheter_ (lit. 'the day's news')...
Thanks Diamant7 (#8) for the note on possessives*. I think many languages are similar to Catalan and Spanish in this respect:

[1] possessive adjective [2] definite noun
[1] indefinite noun [2] possessive adjective
* Compare this thread: Definite, indefinite possessive


----------



## Armas

In Finnish the possessor is first.

a. _Johnin talo_ (John's house)
b._ Siperian ilmasto_ (Siberia's climate)
c. _Amerikan Yhdysvaltojen pääkaupunki_ (America's United States's capital)

In poetry the possessed can be first.

_Porsaita äidin oomme kaikki _"Piglets mother's we are all" (We all are mother's piglets), from a children's song...


----------



## Dymn

@Holger2014 , it might not be accurate enough but I think this map could be interesting.


----------



## ger4

Diamant7 said:


> @Holger2014 , it might not be accurate enough but I think this map could be interesting.


Thanks a lot!


----------



## Red Arrow

In Dutch:

a. Johns huis 
b. tet klimaat van Siberië 
c. de hoofstad van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika


----------



## franknagy

In Hungarian the possessor is always the first, and the possesed thing or person is obligatory hold a suffix referring to the person of the possessor.
Kutya = dog.
[Az én] kutyám = my dog.
A kapitány kutyája= The captain's dog.
_In case of chained posesive structures the intermediate possessors get a suffix to._
A kapitány kutyájá_nak_ a póráza= The leash of the captain's dog.
Őfelsége hajója kapitánya kutyájá_nak_ a póráza. The leash of the dog of the captain of her Majesty's ship.


----------



## ThomasK

Holger2014 said:


> Hello,
> -
> Dutch:
> a. _Johns huis/ het huis van John_)
> b. _het klimaat van Siberië/ (less common) Siberiës klimaat [only with persons, it seems to me, or to places referring to people_
> c. _de hoofdstad van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika _



So fairly flexible. I suppose you don't use a "preposed" genitive-case form for objects, do you? _Des Tisches Bein_ ???


----------



## ger4

franknagy said:


> _In case of chained posesive structures the intermediate possessors get a suffix to._
> A kapitány kutyájá_nak_ a póráza= The leash of the captain's dog.
> Őfelsége hajója kapitánya kutyájá_nak_ a póráza. The leash of the dog of the captain of her Majesty's ship.


That's interesting, thanks. 


ThomasK said:


> So fairly flexible. I suppose you don't use a "preposed" genitive-case form for objects, do you? _Des Tisches Bein_ ???


I think the German pattern is similar to the Dutch one: possessor-possessed is mainly used with proper names (more rarely with place names), although a few centuries ago it occurred much more frequently (it can still be found in poetry, religious texts etc., e.g. _meines Fußes Leuchte_ = lit. 'the light of my foot').


----------



## amikama

Hebrew: possessed always before possessor.

a. John's house
b. the climate of Siberia
c. the capital of the United States of America


a. הבית של ג'ון / ביתו של ג'ון / בית ג'ון
b. האקלים של סיבריה / אקלים סיבריה
c. עיר הבירה של ארצות הברית של אמריקה / בירתה של ארצות הברית של אמריקה / בירת ארצות הברית של אמריקה
(של = of)


----------



## Rani_Author

In Indonesian, the word orders below are translated with the same orders. From the things possessed are followed by the possessors.
a. John's house (rumahnya John)
b. The climate of Siberia (Iklim Siberia)
c. The capital of the United States of America (Ibukota Amerika Serikat)

If the word orders in English are separated by " 's ", then they would use "-nya" to be agglutinated in each thing possessed in indonesian. If the word orders in English are separated by "of", then they don't need "-nya" in indonesian.

In personal possessives, they are also the same. Just the possessive adjectives and possessive pronouns are different:

a. My friend: temanku/ teman saya.
b. A friend of mine? => No. It isn't too proper in Indonesian. Because, that friend isn't really possessed. It would work in these words: A book of mine: Buku milik saya.
c. Your book: bukumu (impolite)/ buku Anda (polite)/ buku kalian (plural). A book of yours: buku milik kamu (impolite)/ buku milik Anda (polite)/ buku milik kalian (plural).
d. His/her book: bukunya. A book of his/ hers: buku miliknya.
d. Our book: buku kami (excluding audience)/ buku kita (including audience). A book of ours: buku milik kami (excluding audience)/ buku milik kita (including audience).
e. Their book: buku mereka. A book of theirs: buku milik mereka.

In Tetun, the official language of East Timor, they could be written with two ways. They could be the possessors first or the things possessed first. If the possessors are written first, then they should use the conjuction of "nia" between the possessors and the things possessed. If the things possessed are written first, then they should use the conjuction of "nian" in the end of the word orders.
a. John's house (John nia uma/ uma John nian)
b. The climate of Siberia (Siberia nia klima/ klima Siberia nian)
c. The capital of the United States of America (Estadus Unidus nia sidade-inan/ sidade-inan Estadus Unidus nian)

In personal possessives, they are also the same. Just the possessive adjectives and possessive pronouns are different:

a. My friend: ha'u-nia kolega/ a friend of mine: kolega ha'u nian. A book of mine: livru ha'u-nian.
c. Your book: o-nia livru (impolite)/ Ita-nia livru (rather polite)/ Ita Boot-nia livru (polite)/ imi-nia livru (plural). A book of yours: livru o-nian (impolite)/ livru Ita-nian (rather polite)/ livru Ita Boot-nian (polite)/ livru imi-nian (plural).
d. His/her book: ninia livru. A book of his/ hers: livru ninian.
d. Our book: ami-nia livru (excluding audience)/ ita-nia livru (including audience). A book of ours: livru ami-nian (excluding audience)/ livru ita-nian (including audience).
e. Their book: sira-nia livru. A book of theirs: livru sira-nian.


----------



## Nino83

in this page there is a map


----------



## Gavril

There might be some exceptions, but as far as I know, Armenian word order is thoroughgoingly possessor+possessed:

[Latin transcriptions of Armenian writing are in parentheses]

Հովհաննեսին տունը (_Hovhannesin tunə_)
“John’s house”

Սիբիրի կլիման (_Sibiri kliman_)
“the climate of Siberia”

ԱՄՆիՆ մայրաքաղաքը (_AMNin mairakaghakə_)
“the capital of the USA”

The phrase Ամերիկայի Միացյալ Նահանգներ (_Amerikayi Miatsyal Nahangner_) "United States of America" follows the same pattern as the others.


----------



## spindlemoss

In Welsh the possessor always follows the possessed:

*tŷ John* = John's house
*hinsawdd Siberia* = the climate of Siberia
*prifddinas Unol Daleithiau America* = the capital of the United States of America

The Celtic languages share a trait with many Semitic languages (Arabic, Hebrew etc.) in that only the final noun can take the definite article, so:

*hinsawdd ardal* = the climate of an area, an area's climate
*hinsawdd yr ardal* = the climate of the area, the area's climate
but never **yr hinsawdd yr ardal
*
so ****hinsawdd* *ardal* *mynyddoedd* *gogledd yr Alpau* = the climate of the area of the mountains of the north of the Alps


----------



## ger4

Thanks a lot for all the replies!

Possessor - possessed:
Armenian #21
Chinese #5
Danish #1
Finnish #11
Hungarian #15
Japanese #3
Latvian #1
Swedish #1

Possessed - possessor:
Arabic #2
Catalan #8
French #4
Hebrew #18
Indonesian #19
Sardinian #9
Spanish #8
Welsh #22

Both orders possible:
Dutch #14
English #1
German #1
Greek (Modern / Class.) #7
Tetun #19

The maps posted in #12 and #20  give the impression that neighbouring but not closely related languages often follow a similar pattern (or is it just a coincidence?)


----------



## Nino83

Holger2014 said:


> The maps posted in #12 and #20 give the impression that neighbouring but not closely related languages often follow a similar pattern (or is it just a coincidence?)


It's not a coincidence, because often these languages are related.
Western Indo-European (plus Persian) have SVO word order, prepositions and noun-genitive order, while Eastern Indo-European (Hindi and other ones) have SOV, postpositions and genitive-noun order.
Semitic languages have noun-genitive order.
Western Niger-Congo, Khoisan languages have genitive-noun order, Bantu languages have noun-genitive.
In Asia, Austronesian languages and the related Thai and Vientamese have noun-genitive order while Altaic (SOV) and Sino-Tibetan have genitive-noun order (Altaic, like Turkish and Japanese, and Sinitic, like Mandarin and Cantonese, have also relative clause-noun order without relative pronouns). Also the languages of the Americas have a prevalent genitive-noun order.
Dravidian languages have genitive-noun order.

Most of the times the languages of the same family follow the same pattern (see, for example, Tajik, sorrounded by Turkic languages, that retains the noun-genitive order). The main difference is that of the IE languages of India, but it could be due to the SOV word order and the use of postpositions (that favour a genitive-noun order), and the Baltic languages.


----------



## Rani_Author

Nino83 said:


> It's not a coincidence, because often these languages are related.
> Western Indo-European (plus Persian) have SVO word order, prepositions and noun-genitive order, while Eastern Indo-European (Hindi and other ones) have SOV, postpositions and genitive-noun order.
> Semitic languages have noun-genitive order.
> Western Niger-Congo, Khoisan languages have genitive-noun order, Bantu languages have noun-genitive.
> In Asia, Austronesian languages and the related Thai and Vientamese have noun-genitive order while Altaic (SOV) and Sino-Tibetan have genitive-noun order (Altaic, like Turkish and Japanese, and Sinitic, like Mandarin and Cantonese, have also relative clause-noun order without relative pronouns). Also the languages of the Americas have a prevalent genitive-noun order.
> Dravidian languages have genitive-noun order.
> 
> Most of the times the languages of the same family follow the same pattern (see, for example, Tajik, sorrounded by Turkic languages, that retains the noun-genitive order). The main difference is that of the IE languages of India, but it could be due to the SOV word order and the use of postpositions (that favour a genitive-noun order), and the Baltic languages.



Che perfetta spiegazione, caro Nino!  Grazie di cuore per questo.


----------



## ger4

Yes, _molte grazie_ for these detailed explanations and for broadening the topic (word order is of course just part of the general structure of a language).

Even though it is obvious that related languages tend to have similar structures, there is a detail that strikes me. Comparing some languages spoken in northern and eastern Europe with regard to the predominant word order, it seems the further you go eastwards, the patterns SOV and possessor-possessed _gradually_ become more dominant, almost regardless of the respective language family:

English: almost always SVO, possessed - possessor (sometimes: possessor - possessed)
Dutch, German: generally SVO, possessed - possessor (rarely: possessor - possessed) 
Swedish: generally SVO, possessor - possessed (sometimes: possessed - possessor)
Lithuanian, Latvian (Baltic): generally SVO, possessor - possessed
Finnish, Estonian (Uralic): generally SVO, possessor - possessed
Mari, Udmurt (Uralic): SOV, possessor - possessed
Tatar (Turkic): SOV, possessor - possessed


----------



## Nino83

Holger2014 said:


> it seems the further you go eastwards, the patterns SOV and possessor-possessed _gradually_ become more dominant


First of all, we should say that the relation between SOV and possessor-possessed is a tendency (not a rule).


> SOV is assumed to have been the predominant and unmarked word order in most of theoldest attested Indo-European languages (Faarlund 1983:155; 1990a:22), aswell as in the Proto-Germanic languages (Lehmann 1972; Hopper 1975).13Ancient Nordic seems to have been in aposition (at least the beginning) of a change from SOV to SVO (Faarlund 1983; 1990a),14whileModern Scandinavian, as mentioned, is clearly SVO. From this point of view, it would be mostsurprising if the Old Norse corpus exhibited onlysentences with SVO surface word order. And infact it does not.


https://ntnu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:123834/FULLTEXT01
In this work it is said that 1/3 of Old Norse sentences had a SOV word order.
En ekki mun eg þenna mann séð hafa
But not will  I   this    man  seen have
‘But I believe I have not seen this man.’
In Old English and in Mordern German and Dutch, there is a SOV word order in subordinate clauses.

In Latin the unmarked word order was SOV, and it had a genitive-noun order, for example:
*Servorum magna turba* *Romanorum praedia* colebat
*The great mass of servants* cultivated *the plots of the Romans*.
⚡Presentazione Annamaria De Simone 1 La struttura della frase latina: Lordine delle parole (Ordo verborum)

Indo-European language in Europe was a mixed type, i.e it had (probably) an unmarked SOV word order but at the same time it had prepositions (not postpositions).
On the other hand, Sanskrit had many postpositions (and then, Hindi).

So, probably, they could be remnants of the older situation.
For example, you can compare these following orders: demonstrative-noun (dem-N) adjective-noun (adj-N)  genitive-noun (gen-N) and relative clause-noun (rel-N):
Turkish, Japanese, Chinese: *dem-N adj-N gen-N, rel-N *
Swedish, Hindi: *dem-N adj-N gen-N N-rel *
Germanic: *dem-N adj-N N-gen N-rel *
Romance: *dem-N N-adj N-gen N-rel *
Swahili, Thai, Vietnamese, Indonesian: *N-dem N-adj N-gen N-rel* 

In general, languages with SVO and prepositions have the noun on the left and those with SOV and postpositions have the noun on the right.
But it is not always so. For example Chinese is SVO, has both prepositions and postpositions but the noun is on the right. Swedish is SVO while Hindi is SOV.
German and Dutch have both orders, SVO (V2) in independent clauses and SOV in dependent clauses.
Romance languages evolved towards a SVO word order but, unlike Bantu, Austronesian and related languages (like Thai and Vietnamese), retained a dem-N order.



Rani_Author said:


> Che perfetta spiegazione, caro Nino!  Grazie di cuore per questo.


Di niente. Grazie a te!


----------



## 123xyz

In Macedonian, the order is generally possessed-possessor, the latter being expressed in an oblique phrase with "на":

куќата - the house
куќата на Мартин - Martin's house, lit. the house of Martin

Since Macedonian is non-configurational at the level of the clause as well as within many subclausal phrasal structures, one could also put the oblique phrase in front of the possessed, getting "на Мартин куќата", especially if the possessor needs to be emphasised (these pragmatic considerations are really quite complicated and depend on the specific context; in fact, this possessor-possessed order could emphasize the possessed in certain cases), or one wants to have the possessed at the end in order to modify it with something such as a relative clause. 

Meanwhile, one can also form possessive adjectives from names which would come before the possessor, e.g. Мартиновата куќа, paralleling the structure of "Martin's house" in English, but such possessive adjectives are poetic and do not really work well with all names.


----------



## spindlemoss

Nino83 said:


> Western Indo-European (plus Persian) have SVO word order, prepositions and noun-genitive order...



Just a heads-up: (western Indo-European) Celtic languages usually have VSO order. (But that makes them even more favourable towards prepositions, noun+genitive etc. as far as I know!)


----------



## Rallino

In Turkish, the order is Possessor-Possessed. The possessor is in genitive and the possessed takes the 3rd person possessive ending (his/her/its) as extra. 

John's house = John'un ev*i* (John[GEN] House-*His*)
The climate of Siberia = Sibirya'nın iklim*i* (Siberia[GEN] climate-*Its*)
The capital of the United States of America = Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nin başkent*i* (America[NOM] United States[GEN] capital-*Its*)

The genitive ending is omitted if the possessor is indefinite:

Evin anahtar*ı* = The key of the house (House[GEN] key-*Its*)
Ev anahtar*ı* = The house key (House[NOM] key-*Its*)


----------



## Awwal12

In Russian the universally applicable way to express possession is the genitive case of the possessor, and in that case the possessor is strongly expected to preceed the possessed (the only exception I can now imagine are verses, where they supposedly MAY be reversed).
дом мамы "dom mamy" - lit. house of-mom (i.e. mom's house)
дом Ивана "dom Ivana" - lit. house of-Ivan
климат Сибири "klimat Sibiri" - lit. climate of-Siberia (note that "possession" here is not quite literal; we are speaking of some adherent features instead, but the structure remains the same)

However in some situations (exactly, with nouns of the 1st declension paradigm) the possessive adjective may be used instead, and, as any adjective, it normally precedes the noun which represents the possessed object:
мамин дом "mamin dom" - lit. mom's (adj.) house
They are also limited to possession in the literal sense; in case of, say, Syberia, you would also use an adjective, but a relative one (and the relative adjectives are more or less universally applicable):
сибирский климат "sibirskiy klimat" - lit. Syberian climate


----------

