Talk:Agent–object–verb

Inconsistency
There is an inconsistency between the V2 word order page and the Subject Object Verb page. The V2 word order page states, "in otherwise SOV languages, such as German and Dutch, the verb is placed after the object." The Subject Object Verb page (this page) states, "German is basically SVO, but employs SOV in subordinate clauses." Considering only main clauses, is German an SOV or SVO language?

I have placed a copy of this comment on the V2 word order page.


 * I have changed it to the following: "German and Dutch are considered SVO in conventional typology and SOV in generative grammar." Actually we don't have to mention conventional typology if all linguists have agreed that they are SOV languages. - TAKASUGI Shinji 01:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * SVO, unless the sentence contains a modal auxiliary verb, thus: "I drink beer" translates as "Ich trinke Bier" (SVO), while "I have drunk beer" translates as "Ich habe Bier getrunken" (SAuxOV). 惑乱 分からん 12:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In portuguese, "Sam as comeu" is wrong. It would be "Sam comeu-as" which changes everything.


 * I removed portuguese from the list of languages which "are SVO, but use SOV when a pronoun is used as the (direct or indirect) object". This is not a generic characteristic of the portuguese language, although it may occur in brazilian portuguese.Prfigueiredo 23:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

watashi wa hako wo akemasu
Might this better be "watashi wa hako o akemasu"? I'm no expert, but I have been told that "wo" when used as an object-marker is Romanized as "o". But I'm no expert. -- user:Cevlakohn 7 Sept 2006
 * I think it's romanized as "wo", though it's generally pronounced as "o". 惑乱 分からん 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably splitting hairs, but are we supposed to use a particular type of transcription like IPA or just the native Romanizing conventions? The IPA should include the tonal qualities, although I don't know that Japanese is a tonal language. JonathanDailey 04:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Japanese is not. It has a pitch accent, though. 惑乱 分からん 16:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy
I really don't mean any disrespect, but do we really need all those examples of Sam ate oranges in the other languages. It seems very redundant to me to include so many examples of something best represented by changing the word order of an English sentence. This is the English article after all. I in no way mean this from an ethnocentric sense. It's just that all those examples get in the way of (my) coherent reading of the article. Because it is more important that this article talks about the actual topic as opposed to examples and what other languages use this word order, if we needed the examples couldn't we at least move them to the bottom of the page, to show illustration of the concept after the whole thing has been described, as well as moving the language list to the bottom. It makes more relative sense IMHO. I hope that I can actually get a reply, so I can discuss this topic. User:Ixfalia 15:52, 13 February 2007 (PST)

what are they
objects are the main part of the sentence and the object in the follow up of the sentence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.136.50 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

V2 word order in English
The article says that SOV is occasionally employed in English 'under poetic license especially by William Shakespeare'. I'm not an expert, but I had always assumed that V2 word order was once a feature common to several Germanic languages including English and that it was still permissible in the vernacular of Elizabethan English. Does anybody know? Rdr0 20:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

mathematics - sov - postfix notation
maybe some relation with postfix notation can be raised. person thing relation 12 35 + english is infix person relation thing 1 + 25 there has been some people who though same. googling SOV postfix notation gets you there. thanks. btw. prefix(  polish notation -   + 2 3 - sum two three -   printf("subjects", objects) - well there it is a bit recursive for stuff in string " " relates the objects ... ;) ) is easy to parse  unsigned comment added by Cc..aa..ll (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)