Talk:Object–verb–subject word order

Rarest?

There seems to be a lot of contradiction as to what the rarest word order is, either OVS or OSV. This article states OVS is the rarest, while the article Word Order says OSV is the rarest. I have found various (professional-seeming) sources that give one or the other. Which is it? Suggest deleting statement this article of OVS rarity until both articles can be knowledgably coordinated. 198.45.18.38 (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic language can have OVS(look to qoran)typology,for example:nawatan qata' al qittu=a nut(-accusative suffix)cutted the cat(-nominative suffix).نواةً قطعَ القطُ

Humanbyrace (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Japanese language, there are sometimes using OVS in speaking

For example: Ringo-ha tabe-ta-yo? Watashi-ga. (As for the apple, I ate already.)
or: Yaki-Ringo-wo tsukuri-mashi-ta-yo, Watashi-ga-ne. (*I* made baked apple.)

--115.162.182.70 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4th category

What would you call something which is neither of these 3 things but is a related conveyance?

Like for example "the archer shot the deer with an arrow". Archer = Subject, Deer=Object, Verb=Shoot, but what is arrow?

It seems like you could flip these too, like if it was worded "the archer shot an arrow into the deer" then arrow becomes the object and deer becomes the context.

Would this be like an adjective or something? Even though they are nouns? "with an arrow" or "into a deer" seem like nouns being used like adjectives since they reveal details about the verb. Ranze (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the examples you've given, the "context" words are known as Objects of the Preposition used inside of a prepositional phrase. The phrases themselves are considered Adjuncts, and so don't necessarily belong to S, O, or V. Guitarmankev1 ^(TALK) 13:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:VO language which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese

Consider "O jantar pago eu!" as a variant of the plain "Eu pago o jantar."; this is felt as emphatic, but not contrieved in the least. Meaning "I’ll pay for the dinner.", with emphasis on who does the paying:

eu - I
pago - [I] pay for
o jantar - the dinner

This is the same emphasis as in French "Le dîner, c’est moi qui le vais payer!" (o.s.l.t.) as opposed to plain "Je paye le dîner." and to else-emphasizing "Le dîner, je le paye!" (Port.: "O jantar[,] eu pago." — emphasis on what’s being paid) However these French sentences use very different syntax and morphology, while the Portuguese examples make use exclusively of syntagma-swapping (akin to Esperanto "La/ĉi vespermanĝon + pagos/pagu + mi.", also freely swappable for varying emphasis focus). Is this acceptable language use in other Romance languages? Should it be mentioned in the article? Tuvalkin (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]