# Words Order



## Green3apple

My teacher taught me that in korean sentences do not always follow order, it can be freely arranged differs from english.

앤드류가 집에서 점심을 먹어요 "Andrew eats lunch at home"
앤드류가 점심을 집에서 먹어요 "Andrew lunch home at eats"
집에서 앤드류가 점심을 먹어요 "Home at andrew lunch eats"
집에서 점심을 앤드류가 먹어요 "Home at lunch Andrew eats"
점심을 앤드류가 집에서 먹어요 "Lunch Andrew home at eats"
점심을 집에서 앤드류가 먹어요 "Lunch home at Andrew eats"

and it's all correct sentences as long as "the particle" always mark the subject, noun and place. 
Do all formal sentences will always use these orderless pattern? or there is some sentence with not free order exception? 

Thanks before


----------



## terredepomme

The particles can even be absent.(And they are absent very often, especially in everyday speech)앤드류 집에서 점심 먹어요.Korean tends to emphasize the last elements of a phrase.For example in English: I saw a cat that was sitting on the roof which is painted red.The importance of the elements is descending: Seeing the cat is the most important point, the cat sitting on the roof is the next important detail, and the color of the roof is the least important.But in Korean, it will often go the opposite way:  빨갛게 칠해진 지붕 위에 앉아 있는 고양이를 보았다. "Red paint roof on the sitting cat saw."We often joke that when you're talking with Koreans, you must wait until they finish speaking. This is has an element of truth in it, due to this linguistic tendance.So in the case of your examples, the last element will often be the most emphasized one out of the three.앤드류가 집에서 점심을 먹어요 emphasizes "lunch" than 앤드류가 점심을 집에서 먹어요 which emphasizes "at his house"This extreme latitude of word order sometimes even permits an element to go beyond the verb. For example you could say집에서 점심을 먹어요, 앤드류가.In this case, the abovementioned rule does not apply and 앤드류가 is not the most important point but the least important, since it is out of the phrase and an "added" detail, as if you forgot to mention who is it that is eating lunch at home.


----------



## Green3apple

terredepomme said:


> 집에서 점심을 먹어요, 앤드류가.



okay, to be more clear, let's reverse if the sentence above is the *answer, *what *question* is supposed to match?


----------



## rumistar

Green3apple said:


> okay, to be more clear, let's reverse if the sentence above is the *answer, *what *question* is supposed to match?



In my opinion, um.. it might be this:
*Q: 어디에서 앤드류가 점심을 먹니?
Q. Where *does Andrew eat lunch?
A: 집에서 점심을 먹어요, 앤드류가.
A: At home, Andrew(Andrew can be omitted.)
* Actually most Koreans just answer like this, "집에서요".


----------



## Green3apple

rumistar said:


> In my opinion, um.. it might be this:
> *Q: 어디에서 앤드류가 점심을 먹니?
> Q. Where *does Andrew eat lunch?
> A: 집에서 점심을 먹어요, 앤드류가.
> A: At home, Andrew(Andrew can be omitted.)
> * Actually most Koreans just answer like this, "집에서요".



Hey thanks.

in this case, if "Andrew" can be omitted, we can say that even "Andrew" is not relevant to be mentioned in this sentence cause it has not related with the question. The answer sentence should not need "Andrew" in it anymore cause the question already have it (Andrew), but why *terredepomme* grammaticaly shows that by adding ",Andrew" behind this sentence can be done? 집에서 점심을 먹어요, 앤드류가. There should be more "situational question", shouldn't it? What do you think?


----------



## Superhero1

집에서 점심을 먹어요, 앤드류가. is a rare part of colloquial form, not formal. 

To answer your original question we have typical order in formal sentences: I can't explain exactly but it exists.


앤드류가 집에서 점심을 먹어요. is stable and natural.


----------



## rumistar

My answer was deduced from the sentence you gave me, "집에서 점심을 먹어요, 앤드류가."
I think, in this sentence, the most important part is "집에서".
When we answer the question, we mostly say a important part first.
So I made the question based on "집에서"
In this question 앤드류 isn't important. 
To me, 
집에서 점심을 먹어요, *앤드류가.*
*The blue part* seems to be just added to the answer for repeating the word that already mentioned in the question.
I don't know whether this is just my opinion or not, we don't use that kind of sentence structure.
It can be used, but not often.



Green3apple said:


> There should be more "situational question", shouldn't it? What do you think?



I don't know. Although I tried to make another question, can't make proper one.

* I'm sorry I couldn't understand some part you wrote. Because My English is low.
If you have more questions about this, please ask me (or another person) once again!


----------



## Green3apple

rumistar said:


> My answer was deduced from the sentence you gave me, "집에서 점심을 먹어요, 앤드류가."
> I think, in this sentence, the most important part is "집에서".
> When we answer the question, we mostly say a important part first.
> So I made the question based on "집에서"
> In this question 앤드류 isn't important.
> To me,
> 집에서 점심을 먹어요, *앤드류가.*
> *The blue part* seems to be just added to the answer for repeating the word that already mentioned in the question.
> I don't know whether this is just my opinion or not, we don't use that kind of sentence structure.
> I can be used, but not often.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Although I tried to make another question, can't make proper one.
> 
> * I'm sorry I couldn't understand some part you wrote. Because My English is low.
> If you have more questions about this, please ask me (or another person) once again!



your explanation is just fine, i understand it thoroughly.
so it's clear for this problem, i'll start with another thread with new question then.
*thanks to terredepomme, Superhero1, rumistar*


----------

