Thread: Subject at the end of phrase?

Translating articles or reading Russian books I find very frequently constructions like the following, where the subject goes at the end of the phrase and the instrumental at the beginning. And this not only with стать but with the other verbs that allow these phrases: Nominative - verb - instrumental.

"Напомним, что причиной наводнений и оползней в Бразилии стали сильные тропические ливни".

"Ещё одной страной, пострадавшей от наводнений в январе стала Австралия."

"До сих пор самым разрушительным за всю историю штата считалось наводнение 1974 года".
One, used to say : "John became a Doctor", is rather this "A Doctor became John".
Is a usual way of talking of just in more formal / written speech?
Thank you.

There is a difference between "Ливни стали причиной наводнений" and "Причиной наводнений стали ливни".
The first sentence simply says that heavy rains caused floods. The second one assumes that the reader already knows about the floods and says "It was heavy rains that caused the floods".
The Russian sentence "Доктором стал Джон" does not mean "Doctor became John". It implies that there was more than one person who wanted, or could, or was expected (etc.) to become a doctor, but it was John who became one.

Thanks for your answer.I understand that the beginning of the phrase is kept for the new and that we want to be underlined.
A flood occured yesterday.
Extremely dangerous became the flood (previously mentioned).
Thank you.

Originally Posted by radomir

Thanks for your answer.I understand that the beginning of the phrase is kept for the new and that we want to be underlined.
A flood occured yesterday.
Extremely dangerous became the flood (previously mentioned).
Thank you.

Vice-virsa. The end of the sentence is kept for the new. We did not talk about heavy rains but about the cause of the flood. Main, new and underlined information goes at the END of the sentence in Russian.
The answer to a question is at the end. Кто приезжает завтра?
Завтра приезжает Иван.
- Когда приезжает Иван?
- Иван приезжает завтра.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Vice-virsa.

What you mean is "the other way round". "Vice versa" is for mutuality.

John loves Jane and vice versa = both love each other.

John loves Jane? No, the other way round = Jane loves John, but John does not love Jane.

For Marcus.
I understand that you mean "on the contrary" instead of "vice-versa". Really the question were not the place of "the cause" but that of the effect, the result. the second part, that becomes something (in instrumental), (as in the three examples shown above) what I see once and again in the first place:
"John became the winner" or "The winner (instr.) became John".
Thank you.

Originally Posted by radomir

Thanks for your answer.I understand that the beginning of the phrase is kept for the new and that we want to be underlined.
A flood occured yesterday.
Extremely dangerous became the flood (previously mentioned).
Thank you.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. Can you make up a couple of sample sentences in Russian to illustrate your point? More often than not, we place the theme (topic) of a sentence before the rheme (comment), and it is the rheme that usually contains the new information.

Radomir, is your question about word order or about cases?
Word order is well explained in Comprehensive Russian Grammar. It depends on the question you can make for the sentence.
Что было причиной наводнений?
Причиной наводнения были ливни.
Чем были ливни?
Ливни были причиной наводнения.
Кем стал Джон?
Джон стал доктором.
Кто стал доктором?
Доктором стал Джон.
Do you understand my examples?
bitpicker, thank you.

I'm afraid I haven't understand you throughly.
You say: Firstly the theme (topic), then the rheme (comment), but in the following phrases I see it in the contrary.
"Strong rain (theme) was the cause of flood... (rheme)"
"Напомним, что причиной наводнений и оползней в Бразилии стали сильные тропические ливни".

"Australia (theme) was victim of flood (theme)"
"Ещё одной страной, пострадавшей от наводнений в январе стала Австралия."

"The flood (theme) is considered the more destructive ...(rheme)"
"До сих пор самым разрушительным за всю историю штата считалось наводнение 1974 года".

I think I haven't understood your commentaries appropriately. Isn't it?

The question was abt order of words. Really in short sentences it only sounds curious, in longer sentences... It is like in German when it is said:
"Ich habe.......(page 1)......(page 2)....(page 3) gemacht/geschrieben".
It is clear. Thanks.
There is a joke about a letter that caused the death to everybody who tried to read it. Finally Misses Fletcher (or perhaps Chief Begum) discovered the mistery: The letter, a long one, had nor commas nor colons.

They talked about the cause of the floods (theme). The rheme is "heavy rains".
You have to ask the question of the sentence. The answer will be the rheme. The question is "What was the cause of the floods?" Heavy rains.

Thank you for your explanations.

Originally Posted by Marcus

They talked about the cause of the floods (theme). The rheme is "heavy rains".
You have to ask the question of the sentence. The answer will be the rheme. The question is "What was the cause of the floods?" Heavy rains.

We have found out that "questions" are mostly useless for foreigners. You have to know the answer to ask the right question.

Originally Posted by radomir

Thanks for your answer.I understand that the beginning of the phrase is kept for the new and that we want to be underlined.
A flood occured yesterday.
Extremely dangerous became the flood (previously mentioned).
Thank you.

A flood occurred yesterday. The flood (previously mentioned) was very dangerous (new information).

We left Brasilia yesterday. Why? We were in danger because of a flood (you didn't know about the flood).

They have finally discovered the cause of the flood in Brasilia (we already know about the flood). It was heavy rains (new information).

Thank you.