# Who sees John? / Who(m) does John see?



## Messquito

How do you distinguish sentences like "who sees John" and "who(m) does John see?"
In English, word order plays a big role in this and also the modal verb "does", sometimes, the accusative case of who, whom, could also be a clue, but how about other languages?

In Chinese, word order is the only clue here - it's always S+V+O here.
誰看到強？
Who sees John?
強看到誰？
John sees who(m)?


----------



## 810senior

In Japanese,
*Who sees John:*
_Dare-ga Jhon-o Miru-ka? (more naturally, Dare-ga John-o miteiru-no?/miteimasuka?; lit. who is seeing John?)_
Who(nom.) Jhon(acc.) See-(interrogative)

_Jhon-o Miru-no-wa Dare-ka? (more naturally, John-o miteiru-no-wa darenano?/daredesuka?; lit. who is that [that is] seeing John?)_
Jhon(acc.) seeing(nom.) Who-(interrogative)
lit. Who is that sees John? (the one seeing John is who?)


*Who does John see?*
_John-wa dare-o miru-ka? (more naturally, John-wa dare-o miteiruno?/miteimasuka?; lit. Whom is John seeing?)_
John(nom.) whom(acc.) see-(interrogative)



*note that we have a SOV order, in which the object(accusative) is inserted between subject and verb.


----------



## apmoy70

Greek:

(A) *«Ποιός βλέπει τον Τζον;* [p͡ços ˈvlepi ton ʣ͡on?] --> _who sees John?_
(B) *«Ποιόν βλέπει ο Τζον;* [p͡çon ˈvlepi o ʣ͡on?] --> _who does John see?_
The difference between the two expressions is that in (A) John is in the accusative case and the interrogative pronoun in the nominative, therefore the word order is S-V-O.
In (B) John is in the nominative case and the pronoun in the accusative, therefore the word order is O-V-S.


----------



## amikama

Hebrew:

Who sees John?
מי רואה *את *ג'ון?‏

Whom does John see?
*את *מי רואה ג'ון?‏ (or: *את *מי ג'ון רואה?‏)

את is the definite direct object marker.


----------



## Armas

Finnish:

Who sees John? = _Kuka näkee Johnin? Kuka _"Who" is nominative, _Johnin_ "John" is accusative/genitive.
Whom does John see? = _Kenet John näkee? Kenet_ "Whom" is accusative, _John_ nominative.


----------



## ilocas2

Czech:

Who sees John? - *Kdo* (nominative) *vidí Johna* (accusative)*?*
Whom does John see? - *Koho* (accusative) *vidí John* (nominative)*?*


----------



## Dymn

*Catalan*:

The word order is the same as Czech or Greek but there are no declensions so it can be confusing. Using the proposition _a _"in, to" before the direct object is usually a mistake made by native Spanish speakers but in cases of ambiguity such as this it is allowed:

Who sees John? - _Qui veu al / el John?_
Whom does John see? - _(A)_ _qui veu el John?_

*Spanish*:

In Spanish it is the same as Catalan but with the preposition _a_ being mandatory since the direct object is an animate object.

Who sees John? - _¿Quién ve a John?_
Whom does John see? - _¿A quién ve John?_


----------



## ger4

German:

Who sees John? - _Wer sieht John*?_
Whom does John see? - _Wen sieht John?_
_wer_ = nominative
_wen_ = accusative

* Nouns, pronouns and articles with separate accusative forms take the accusative form here:
Who sees the policeman? - _Wer sieht den Polizisten?_
Whom does the policeman see? - _Wen sieht der Polizist?_

Latvian:

Who sees John? - _Kas redz Džonu?_
Whom does John see? - _Ko redz Džons?_
_kas, Džons_ = nominative
_ko, Džonu_ = accusative

(The word order can vary without changing the meaning of the sentence)


----------



## ilocas2

Diamant7 said:


> The word order is the same as Czech...



just a note - this is not the only possible word order in Czech


----------



## Nino83

In Italian it's the same:
_Chi ha visto Giovanni_? => Who saw John? Who did John see?


Diamant7 said:


> the preposition _a_ being mandatory since the direct object is an animate object


It is similar in Sicilian:
_*A* cu vitti Giuanni?_ => Who did John see?
_Cu vitti *a* Giuanni?_ => Who saw John?

But, differently from Spanish, there is no _leísmo_.
*U* (direct object) _vitti *a* Giuanni_ vs. _*ci*_ (indirect object)_ dissi *a* Giuanni_

Sometimes some Italian speakers south of Rome use the personal _a_ of animate objects when speaking Italian.
_*A* chi ha visto Giovanni?_ => Who did John see?
_Chi ha visto *a* Giovanni?_ => Who saw John?


----------



## Ectab

Arabic:

من يرى جون
man yaraa john(a)
Who sees John?

من يرى جون
man yaraa john(u)
whom does John see?

in pausa the -u(nominative) and -a(accusative) are not pronounced so both sentences would sound the same, but we would say for sentence 2:
من الذي يراه جون
man alladhee yaraahu john(u)?
who is the one whom John sees? or more literraly: who is the one whom John sees him?

and sentence 1:
من الذي يرى جون
man alladhee yaraa john(a)
who is the one who sees John?


----------



## Awwal12

Messquito said:


> How do you distinguish sentences like "who sees John" and "who(m) does John see?"


In *Russian* - basically with use of grammatical cases, of course. 
Кто видит Джона? "kto (nom.) vidit dzhona (acc.)" - Who sees John?
Кого видит Джон? "kogo (acc.) vidit dzhon (nom.)" - Who does John see?
The word order may be different (with subtle differences in meaning), but by default it's the interrogative pronoun first and the verb second.


----------



## jazyk

In Portuguese:

Who sees John? - Quem vê (o) John? - _O_ is the masculine definite article.

Who(m) does John see? (A) quem vê (o) John?/(A) quem (o) John vê? - _A_ here is a preposition that introduces the direct object in a few situations (very few).


----------



## ThomasK

Holger2014 said:


> German:
> 
> Who sees John? - _Wer sieht John*?_
> Whom does John see? - _Wen sieht John?_
> _wer_ = nominative
> _wen_ = accusative


In Dutch you could not distinguish the two sentences strictly speaking: "Wie ziet John?"

Without context it is strictly speaking ambiguous. yet, I think one could say that we generally consider the first of the sentence to be the subject. It would be quite unidiomatic to say "Jou zie ik", except when emphasized strongly, as in an exchange: "WHO do you see" - "YOU I see". It is equally awkward in English, I think...


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Diamant7 said:


> *Catalan*:
> 
> The word order is the same as Czech or Greek but there are no declensions so it can be confusing. Using the proposition _a _"in, to" before the direct object is usually a mistake made by native Spanish speakers but in cases of ambiguity such as this it is allowed:
> 
> Who sees John? - _Qui veu al / el John?_
> Whom does John see? - _(A)_ _qui veu el John?_
> 
> *Spanish*:
> 
> In Spanish it is the same as Catalan but with the preposition _a_ being mandatory since the direct object is an animate object.
> 
> Who sees John? - _¿Quién ve a John?_
> Whom does John see? - _¿A quién ve John?_




In Sardinian it's like in Spanish, with the use the "A"

Who sees John? - _¿Quién ve a John? -> (literal translation) Quìe bìdet a Juanne? -  (more correct translation) Quìe lu 'ìdet a Juanne? _
Whom does John see? - _¿A quién ve John? -> (literal translation) A quìe bìdet Juanne? - (more correct, with gerundive) A quìe est bidende Juanne?_


----------



## Rallino

In Turkish, grammatical cases are different.

Who sees John? = John'u kim görüyor?
Whom does John see? = John kimi görüyor?

The word order can change without a change in the meaning.


----------



## ilocas2

Upper Sorbian:

Who sees John? - *Štó* (nom.) *widźi Johna* (acc.)*?*
Whom does John see? - *Koho* (acc.) *widźi John* (nom.)*?*


----------



## franknagy

Hungarian:
Who see John? - Ki lát*ja* John*t*?
Whom does John see? - Ki*t* lát John?

The direct object always marked with *-t*.
Remind the difference on the verb:
"Lát*ja" is* used for determined objects, "lát" with null suffix is used for undetermined objeets.


----------



## Nawaq

*Who see John?* _Qui (est-ce qui) voit John ?_
*Whom does John see?* _Qui John voit-il ? Qui est-ce que John voit ?_

(French)


----------



## elroy

Palestinian Arabic:

مين بشوف جون؟ [lit. who sees John] - This is ambiguous and could mean either.

مين جون بشوف؟ [lit. who John sees] - "Who does John see?"
جون بشوف مين؟ [lit. John sees who] - "Who does John see?"
جون مين بشوف؟ [lit. John who sees] - "Who does John see?"
بشوف مين جون؟ [lit. sees who John] - "Who does John see?"


----------



## ilocas2

standard Croatian (not colloquial):

Who sees John? - *Tko* (nom.)* vidi Johna* (acc.)*?*
Whom does John see? - *Koga* (acc.)* vidi John* (nom.)*?*


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

In Swedish, it's completely ambiguous and cannot be resolved without context, as the word order cannot be changed at your whim, V2 word order complicates things:

Who sees John? = Vem ser John?
Whom does John see? = Vem ser John?

You can always reconstruct the question with a relative subclause, in which case the subclause will contain a standard SVO order:

Vem är det som John ser? (=Who is it that John sees?)
Vem är det som ser John? (=Who is it that sees John?)

Swedish has different pronouns for subjects and objects, so if we exchange John for he or him, the problem is also solved:

Who sees him? = Vem ser honom?
Whom does he see? Vem ser han?


----------



## spindlemoss

In Welsh, if a verb is made is periphrastically then the distinction is clear:

Pwy sy'n gweld John? [who (which-)is-PARTICLE seeing John] "Who sees John?"

Pwy mae John yn ei weld? [who is John PARTICLE his seeing] "Who does John see?"

The first sentence uses the sy form of "is" because pwy "who" is an emphasised subject. The second sentence uses the mae form of "is" because pwy isn't a subject. Ei "his" (or here "him") in the second sentence refers back to pwy - more literally "Who does John see him?".

If a verb is made with inflections, then then ambiguity may arise:

Pwy welodd John? [who saw John] "Who saw John?/Who did John see?"

However if an object begins with a mutatable consonant, then the distinction is preserved as objects of inflected verbs take soft mutations:

Pwy welodd dwy ferch? [who saw two girl] "Who did two girls see?"

Pwy welodd ddwy ferch? [who saw two girl] "Who saw two girls?"


----------



## Testing1234567

Not much surprise in Cantonese:

邊個見到約翰？ = Who sees John?
約翰見到邊個？ = Whom does John see?

Context:

Nobody seems to have complained about the lack of context in the given sentence, which makes them difficult to translate. In my sentences, the best translation would be "who can find (i.e. locate) John?"


----------

