# word order: verbal / nominal sentence (VSO / SVO)



## J.F. de TROYES

Under certain circumstances one can choose in MSA between الجملة الفعيلة    (the verbal sentence ) and    الجملة الاسمية  ( the nominal sentence ). I suppose the second type is often used to emphasize the noun, for example in  headlines .
I'd like to ask two questions :

1- Did Classical arabic use such a structure, I mean without any particle as  إن   ?

2- What about dialects ?  Is the verbal sentence used in spoken Arabic or would it be right to say that it has been replaced by the nominal sentence ?

Thanks to everybody for comments.


----------



## Xence

J.F. de TROYES said:


> 1- Did Classical arabic use such a structure, I mean without any particle as إن ?


Yes. This is simply the nominal sentence مبتدأ وخبر.
Example: سؤالك مهمٌّ .


J.F. de TROYES said:


> 2- What about dialects ? Is the verbal sentence used in spoken Arabic or would it be right to say that it has been replaced by the nominal sentence ?


The verbal sentence is widely used in spoken Arabic. I don't know in which proportion, compared to nominal sentence. Other members may elaborate more on this.

Just an example taken from Algerian dialect: دْخَلْ رَمْضانْ !


----------



## Mahaodeh

J.F. de TROYES said:


> 1- Did Classical arabic use such a structure, I mean without any particle as إن ?



Of course, where did you think we got it from ; the Quran is filled with it; the first aya in the first suura is nominal:

الحمدُ لله رب العالمين


J.F. de TROYES said:


> 2- What about dialects ? Is the verbal sentence used in spoken Arabic or would it be right to say that it has been replaced by the nominal sentence ?



I believe that they are both used euqally, if one is used more than the other then it would probably be the verbal one.


----------



## WadiH

J.F. de TROYES said:


> 2- What about dialects ?  Is the verbal sentence used in spoken Arabic or would it be right to say that it has been replaced by the nominal sentence ?



Both Classical and vernacular Arabic share the same general scheme for word order: that which is more important comes first.  That is why some sentences are nominal and others are verbal.  There's a brief but interesting discussion of this in Clive Holes's _Modern Arabic_.


----------



## Xence

Wadi Hanifa said:


> There's a brief but interesting discussion of this in Clive Holes's _Modern Arabic_.


Interesting discussion, indeed. It can be read here.


----------



## WadiH

Shukran Xence, and to be specific, the discussion I had in mind begins on p. 250.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Xence said:


> Just an example taken from Algerian dialect: دْخَلْ رَمْضانْ !


 Would it be possible to say دْخَلْ رَمْضانْ , even though it sounds weird ?


Wadi Hanifa said:


> There's a brief but interesting discussion of this in Clive Holes's _Modern Arabic_.





Xence said:


> Interesting discussion, indeed. It can be read here.


Thanks for the reference and link to this book that is a real treasure trove ! I'd like to ask what you think of these Clive Holes's comments about word order in nominal sentences : " A contributory influence may be the writer's dialectal background : "urban dialects, such as Cairene and Damascene (...) have S.V.O. as the normal order for all types of messages. Another possible influence may be typically S.V.O. order of European languages, especially English."
By the by I've read this paper headline : 

"  ...اوباما يعايد المسلمين متعهدا  إنهاء حرب العراق "

Is the S.V.O order prefered to V.S.O. so as to highlight Obama's name or is it just " a matter of personal choice " ( Clive Holes's _Modern Arabic_ ) ?


----------



## Mahaodeh

J.F. de TROYES said:


> Would it be possible to say دْخَلْ رَمْضانْ , even though it sounds weird ?


Why would you think it sounds weird?!!!



J.F. de TROYES said:


> By the by I've read this paper headline:
> " ...اوباما يعايد المسلمين متعهدا إنهاء حرب العراق "
> Is the S.V.O order prefered to V.S.O. so as to highlight Obama's name or is it just " a matter of personal choice " ( Clive Holes's _Modern Arabic_ ) ?



I haven't read anything of Holes' book, but I still think I have an answer - modern News Arabic )) defenitly  uses more SVO than standard Arabic does, but it still sometimes depends on other issues than being standard or not, as an example, a translation from English would be SVO regardless of how this would be said by a native, fus7a or not.

In the above case, an issue that may play a role in why SVO is used here may be the fact that Obama needs to be the first word because it's the main focus of the sentence and for journalistic reasons.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Mahaodeh said:


> Why would you think it sounds weird?!!!



I am sorry for this silly remark, as I am in no position to consider an Arabic sentence sounding weird or not. I just wanted to ask you if both word orders V.S. or S.V. are equally possible for this spoken sentence.


----------



## WadiH

Although I'm not the best equipped person around here to answer your question, since nobody else has attempted to do so, I'll give it a go.  Can you please tell me the page number you were referring to?


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Thanks for your post. You can find these comments here page 253.


----------



## WadiH

J.F. de TROYES said:


> I'd like to ask what you think of these Clive Holes's comments about word order in nominal sentences : " A contributory influence may be the writer's dialectal background : "urban dialects, such as Cairene and Damascene (...) have S.V.O. as the normal order for all types of messages. Another possible influence may be typically S.V.O. order of European languages, especially English."



Well, I think Holes is speaking here about "event-oriented" statements of the type that frequently occur in the news media.  I find it odd that that Holes would consider SVO to be "the normal order for all types of messages" in urban dialects, as it doesn't seem to square with what he says elsewhere in that chapter (unless I'm missing something).  In any case, while I think people can be influenced by their dialect when using MSA, my impression (for all it's worth) is that the influence of other people's use of MSA is much greater.

The way I see it, we need to distinguish between a news _headline_, and the actual news _text_.  The headline almost always begins with the subject or at least a noun.  Now, this could be because that's how it's done in European-language media, but I think we can also explain it by the fact that when reading a headline the subject is where the actual news is, i.e. it is the most important part of the sentence.

However, once the news presenter is finished reading the headlines and begins reading the actual news behind the headline, the first sentence will usually begin with a verb.  For example:

عايد الرئيس الأمريكي باراك أباما المسلمين اليوم بمناسبة شهر رمضان
صرح مصدر مسؤول في الحكومة العراقية اليوم
دخلت العملية الإسرائيلية في غزة يومها الثالث
هجمت قوات تابعة لحركة طالبان
قام فخامة رئيس الجمهورية بزيارة إلى ...
أدى انفجار في مدينة كذا وكذا صباح اليوم إلى مقتل 10 وجرح 20
etc.

Here, we've already heard who the news is about when the headlines were read to us (Obama, the Iraqi Government, the Israeli operations, the Taliban forces, the explosion in the city), so now the important part is what these newsmakers actually did, so the sentences begin with the verbs: عايد, صرح, دخلت, هجمت, أدّى.


J.F. de TROYES said:


> By the by I've read this paper headline :
> 
> "  ...اوباما يعايد المسلمين متعهدا  إنهاء حرب العراق "
> 
> Is the S.V.O order prefered to V.S.O. so as to highlight Obama's name or is it just " a matter of personal choice " ( Clive Holes's _Modern Arabic_ ) ?



Based on my explanation above, you should know the answer to this now: it is to highlight Obama's name.  I think the "personal choice" that Holes referred to had to do with sentences in the body of a text.  News headlines will almost always begin with a noun, or at least a "verbal noun" (دخول, هجوم, ارتفاع, لقاء, تفجير, إنقاذ, etc.) if the writer wishes to highlight an act or event.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Thanks a lot for your examples and enlightenments which confirm what I was assuming, but I was rather uncertain.
So I think it's right to say that MSA uses both types of sentence. Could you say the same about spoken Arabic ?


----------



## WadiH

Yes absolutely.  I would say that spoken Arabic retains essentially the same scheme for word order that existed in CA (well, at least the way I speak it ).


----------



## Jabir

[Moderator's Note: Merged with a previous thread]
hello,

is there any occasion (except for sentences like "he is tall", etc) where the structure Subject + Verb + Object is used rather than Verb + Subject + Object?

I found this following sentence in a Arabic lesson:
الاولاد جلسوا في المطعم

Wouldn't جلسوا الاولاد في المطعم sound more natural?

And also the following case: في البيت معلمة or معلمة في البيت sounds more natural?

Thanks!


----------



## Kinan

جلسوا الاولاد في المطعم isn't grammatically correct, it would be:
جلس الاولاد في المطعم
which is more natural to say than الاولاد جلسوا في المطعم, unless the latter is used as an answer to the question أين الاولاد؟
As for your other example, في البيت معلمة is much more natural than معلمة في البيت


----------



## Jabir

thank you, Kinan, but why the verb جلس is singular if  الاولاد is plural? I didn't understand this... 
thank you in advance


----------



## Kinan

I have forgotten most of the grammar rules I studied in school, so maybe someone who still remember can help you.
But جلسوا الاولاد is definitely wrong.


----------



## clevermizo

Jabir said:


> thank you, Kinan, but why the verb جلس is singular if  الاولاد is plural? I didn't understand this...
> thank you in advance



I think this may have been discussed before, but in a VSO-type sentence, the verb only agrees in gender but not in number with the subject that follows it. So, جلس الأولاد and الأولاد جلسوا.


----------



## إسكندراني

Kinan said:


> جلسوا الاولاد في المطعم isn't grammatically correct, it would be:
> جلس الاولاد في المطعم
> which is more natural to say than الاولاد جلسوا في المطعم, unless the latter is used as an answer to the question أين الاولاد؟
> As for your other example, في البيت معلمة is much more natural than معلمة في البيت


معلمة في البيت is not a sentence because the مبتدأ must be definite. It would be المعلمة في البيت the teacher is in the house OR في البيت معلمة in the house is a teacher (which is different).


----------



## Jabir

thank you both, now it's clear to me!
but still the question... except for the X is Y case, there is any other exception where SVO is preferred?


----------



## إسكندراني

Only when the Subject is what you specifically want to emphasise.


----------



## Jabir

oh, thanks
this topic is cleared out


----------



## Kinan

إسكندراني said:


> معلمة في البيت is not a sentence because the مبتدأ must be definite. It would be المعلمة في البيت the teacher is in the house OR في البيت معلمة in the house is a teacher (which is different).



Yes, it sounds unnatural, but I don't think it's incorrect ,this form is used sometimes as titles for movies for example.


----------



## إسكندراني

You mean في البيت معلمة? Yes, I suppose it sounds weird because usually we would finish the sentence; في البيت معلمة ماهرة تدرّس للأولاد منذ الخامسة


----------



## Kinan

No, I meant معلمة في البيت
I heard the form في البيت معلمة many times before.


----------



## إسكندراني

This one is not a sentence because the مبتدأ is always معرفة while معلّمة is نكرة.


----------



## Kinan

Haven't you heard before phrases like دجاجة بيضاء, سماء صافية?
How about a translated title of one of Agatha Cristy's novels called جريمة في القصر


----------



## إسكندراني

None are sentences. They are, as you said, phrases. Similarly مدرسة في البيت is a phrase, not a sentence.


----------



## ilanbg

Kinan said:


> I have forgotten most of the grammar rules I studied in school, so maybe someone who still remember can help you.
> But جلسوا الاولاد is definitely wrong.





clevermizo said:


> I think this may have been discussed before, but in a VSO-type sentence, the verb only agrees in gender but not in number with the subject that follows it. So, جلس الأولاد and الأولاد جلسوا.



To clarify, the opening verb of a verbal sentence must always be singular, regardless of the subject.  In a nounal sentence, the verb must match the subject in both gender and number.


----------



## paieye

[Moderator's Note: Merged with a previous thread]
My Arabic-Studio course on Basic Arabic Grammar says that the standard word-order in Arabic is verb-subject-object.

Does the verb come first only when it is transitive  ?

I ask, because, when I put 'My father works in London' into Google Translate, the Arabic is given as 'والدي يعمل في لندن.-- in other words, subject before verb.


----------



## AndyRoo

I wouldn't rely on Google translate for correct sentences  

Having said that, in this case Google's translation is OK. But you could also say يعمل والدي في لندن , i.e. with the verb first, which is the more common word order.


----------



## paieye

Thank you !


----------



## kalilah wa dimnah

[Moderator's Note: Merged with a previous thread]
I read in a thread on classical Arabic vs MSA that the word order was always verb-first in classical Arabic (except in sentences where there was no verb, of course). So what would be the difference in meaning between جاء عمرو and عمرو جاء in classical Arabic?


----------



## Ashraf Mahmoud

kalilah wa dimnah said:


> What would be the difference in meaning between جاء عمرو and عمرو جاء in classical Arabic?



There is no difference in meaning, in my opinion.


----------



## Ectab

Good question that most learners ignore because their teachers tells them "There is no difference in meaning" which is wrong.
I am studying Japanese, and I think their difference is like the difference between wa and ga in Japanese.
As for Arabic language's own explanation:
we say (even though we don't usually speak MSA\CA) jaa'a 3amru when mostly speaking  of who came while 3amru jaa'a is used when talking about 3amru himself, about what he did, or anything about him, that's why the second can be used even if the subject is not 3amru!
example:
عمرو سافر عمه البارحة
3amru saafara 3ammuhu l-baariHa
Amru's uncle traveled yesterday.
lit: Amru, his uncle traveled yesterday.
it is like making 3amru the topic of the sentence, see..
well, it is still my own opinion according to what I learned of Japanese, and I think I am right.


----------



## cherine

Yes, it's a matter of emphasis. But I don't think many, if anyone, perceive that very subtle difference.


----------



## fdb

To say


kalilah wa dimnah said:


> that the word order was always verb-first in classical Arabic (except in sentences where there was no verb, of course)



is not correct.

In a verbal sentence جملة فعلية the verb comes first and is followed by its agent فاعل. In a nominal sentence جملة اسمية the noun comes first and is called المبتدأ . Very often the best English translation of a nominal sentence is with a passive verb. E.g.:

ضرب عمرو زيدا“Amr hit Zayd”.

زيد ضربه عمرو literally “(As for) Zayd, Amr hit him”; idiomatically: “Zayd was hit by Amr”.


----------



## kalilah wa dimnah

Very useful information!
So if someone said زيد ضرب عمرا it would mean "(As for) Zayd, he hit Amr."
But "ضرب زيد عمرا" would simply mean "Zayd hit Amr."
Is this right?


----------



## fdb

Yes, although in this case the difference is slight (as cherine has mentioned). In modern Arabic dialects the nominal sentence is the norm, so from that perspective the verbal sentence sounds perhaps a bit bookish. But your question was explicitly about Classical Arabic.


----------



## Qureshpor

If we had a sentence of OSV type such as....

اللهَ المسلمونَ یعبدونَ

What kind of sentence would this be?

It is obviously not a Verbal Sentence because it does not begin with a verb. Neither is it a Nominal Sentence as it does not begin with an ism (mubtada2u) that is marfuu3.


----------



## WadiH

Qureshpor said:


> If we had a sentence of OSV type such as....
> 
> اللهَ المسلمونَ یعبدونَ
> 
> What kind of sentence would this be?
> 
> It is obviously not a Verbal Sentence because it does not begin with a verb. Neither is it a Nominal Sentence as it does not begin with an ism (mubtada2u) that is marfuu3.



The closest Qur'anic example I can think of would be إياك نعبد وإياك نستعين.  Seems grammarians treat إياك as مفعول به مقدّم (pre-positioned? object), so we are dealing with a 'verbal sentence'.  I think the same principles would apply to your example.


----------



## Qureshpor

Wadi Hanifa said:


> The closest Qur'anic example I can think of would be إياك نعبد وإياك نستعين.  Seems grammarians treat إياك as مفعول به مقدّم (pre-positioned? object), so we are dealing with a 'verbal sentence'.  I think the same principles would apply to your example.


Thank you Wadi Hanifa. In your example there is no clear subject where as in my sentence it is المسلمون which is placed after the maf3uul bihi and before the fi3l.


----------



## WadiH

fdb said:


> In modern Arabic dialects the nominal sentence is the norm, so from that perspective the verbal sentence sounds perhaps a bit bookish



I hear people say this a lot, but has this been verified in any scientific way (e.g. quantitatively and across multiple dialect types)?  The cannonical VSO structure may be uncommon, but VS-Compliment structures occur very often and they are technically not nominal (e.g. رحنا للبيت, طلعوا العيال من المدرسة, إجا فلان من الدكان, etc.).


----------



## WadiH

Qureshpor said:


> Thank you Wadi Hanifa. In your example there is no clear subject where as in my sentence it is المسلمون which is placed after the maf3uul bihi and before the fi3l.



The subject in the Quranic verse is an 'implied pronoun' (ضمير مستتر تقديره نحن).  So if that counts as a verbal then so should your example _a fortiori._

You could I suppose try to characterize it as nominal, but you will get an odd situation where the verbal phrase that constitutes the object has its own object moved before the subject of the nominal sentence.  Seems pretty complicated and not sure it makes much sense (you're splitting the sub-clause which is supposed to be the object).  It's inconsequential though to be honest.  The result is the same in terms of how you say it.


----------



## Sarah Bundogji

What exactly is the difference between جاء خالد and خالد جاء in terms of MEANING? I know the former is a verbal sentence (جملة فعلية) and the latter a nominal (جملة اسمية).


----------



## Qureshpor

Sarah Bundogji said:


> What exactly is the difference between جاء خالد and خالد جاء in terms of MEANING? I know the former is a verbal sentence (جملة فعلية) and the latter a nominal (جملة اسمية).


For all intent and purposes Sarah, both mean the same thing. However, if you wish to know what the precise difference is, then it is the following.

جاء خالد Khalid came.

 خالد جاء (It was) Khalid (who) came (and NOT Sarah!  )


----------

