Should there be inversion?

Question

Nach dem Aufstehen esse ich ein leckeres Frühstück.

The thing is: I'm a bit concerned about "esse ich". Should it be so, or one doesn't need inversion here. And why?

Answer 1

German is not a SVO-language (SVO = subject - verb - object) like English, although SVO ist the most common word order for German statement sentences. German is a V2-language, which means verb at position 2.

In contrast to English, German makes use of grammatical cases (four of them in German) to identify the grammatical function of a part of speech. In English you use word order to identify which part of speech is subject and which is object.

To give you an example, take this English sentence and let's translate it into German:

The hunter shoots the rabbit.

There are two ways to translate this into German:

1. Der Jäger erschießt den Hasen.
2. Den Hasen erschießt der Jäger.

Note, that »der Jäger« in both sentences is in nominative case, while in both sentences »den Hasen« is accusative case. Since the subject always has to be in nominative case, it is absolutely clear, that in both sentences »der Jäger« is the subject, i.e. the one who pulls the trigger, while »den Hasen« is the object of the shooting in both sentences. (And both sentences are active voice, like the English sentence.)

Both sentences mean exactly the same, just in #2 there is an extra focus on the fact that is is a rabbit (not a deer or a pheasant or something else) who is killed.

So in #1 the word order is SVO (like in English, which also is the most used word order in German), but in #2 it is OVS, which is ok in German too. Important is only, that the verb is in position 2.

You can't build an OVS sentence in English, because you don't have cases to identify subject and object. The sentence ...

The rabbit shoots the hunter.

... still would be interpreted as a SVO-sentence with the meaning that the rabbit holds the gun, pulls the trigger and kills the hunter, which of course is not the same meaning as the original sentence. (But if you want, you can let the rabbit pull the trigger in German too: »Der Hase erschießt den Jäger« or even »Den Jäger erschießt der Hase«)

---

Lets take another example (your example):

In english:

I eat a delicious breakfast.

• I
  In position 1 and therefore the subject.
• eat
  verb at position 2.
• a delicious breakfast
  Object at position 3

In German this can be:

1. Ich esse ein leckeres Frühstück.
2. Ein leckeres Frühstück esse ich.

In both sentences:

• ich
  a part of speech in nominative case, therefore the subject.
• esse
  verb at position 2
• ein leckeres Frühstück
  a part of speech in accusative case and therefore an object.

But you also can add a prepositional object like »nach dem Aufstehen«, and you can even place it at position 1. You just have to take care, that the verb stays at position 2.

• Derived from »Ich esse ein leckeres Frühstück«:

  1. Ich esse ein leckeres Frühstück nach dem Aufstehen.
  2. Ich esse nach dem Aufstehen ein leckeres Frühstück.
  3. Nach dem Aufstehen esse ich ein leckeres Frühstück.

• Derived from »Ein leckeres Frühstück esse ich«:

  4. Ein leckeres Frühstück esse ich nach dem Aufstehen.
  5. Ein leckeres Frühstück esse nach dem Aufstehen ich.
  6. Nach dem Aufstehen esse ein leckeres Frühstück ich.

The sentences #1 - #4 are all absolutely correct and high quality standard German. Just #5 and #6 are wrong, but the reasons why they are wrong (or at least very bad style) are a little bit more complicated.
_{It is, because the V2-word-order is in fact a re-arranged version of a SOV-word-order (like in Japanese or Turkish); for details read the paragraph Transformationsgrammatik in the German Wikipedia article about V2-word-order. For this reason the subject can not stand after the accusative object if both of them come after the verb.
One more word about the verb: In German the verb often ist separated or comes with an auxiliary verb. In this cases only the finite part (the part that inflects together with the subject) stands in position 2, the infinite parts (the not inflected parts) remain at the last position in respect of the V2's derivation from the SOV word oder.}

(here is the end of my answer to your question)

---

addendum:

There is even another trick that you can do in German if the subject is in 3^rd person (i.e. neither "I" nor "you"). In this case you can put all parts of speech behind the verb, which would leave position 1 empty. But it can't stay empty. To fill it you can use the expletive pronoun »es«. This »es« has no semantic meaning and don't refer to anything. It is there just for the only reason to have something to fill position 1.

I replace ich (1^st person) with Hubert (3^rd person). This gives this already known possibilities (if the subject is in 3^rd person also the verb has to be in 3^rd person, i.e »esse« has to turn into »isst«):

1. Hubert isst ein leckeres Frühstück nach dem Aufstehen.
2. Hubert isst nach dem Aufstehen ein leckeres Frühstück.
3. Nach dem Aufstehen isst Hubert ein leckeres Frühstück.
4. Ein leckeres Frühstück isst Hubert nach dem Aufstehen.

But as announced, you can put all parts of speech behind the verb if you use »es« to fill position 1:

5. Es isst Hubert ein leckeres Frühstück nach dem Aufstehen.
6. Es isst Hubert nach dem Aufstehen ein leckeres Frühstück.
7. Es isst nach dem Aufstehen Hubert ein leckeres Frühstück.

This is a little bit outdated and is not very common in modern german, but you still find this construction in sentences like:

Es fährt ein Zug nach Nirgendwo. (Title of a German song from 1972)
Es ziehen Wolken übers Meer.
Es sitzen viele Leute im Café.

This usage of the expletive pronoun »es« is different from (but still related to) the usage in a construction that also exists in English:

Es regnet. - It is raining.
Es ist kalt. - It is cold.

This es/it also is an expletive pronoun, but in the last two examples sentences it is the subject of the sentence, i.e. it has a defined grammatical function. But in the sentence »Es ziehen Wolken übers Meer« the word »Wolken« (clouds) is the subject, and the only function of »es« is to have just anything before the verb, so that the verb can stand on position 2.

Answer 2

These are the six ways to arrange those four parts of the sentence.

• nach dem Aufstehen
• esse
• ich
• ein leckeres Frühstück

Nach dem Aufstehen esse ich ein leckeres Frühstück.

Nach dem Aufstehen esse ein leckeres Frühstück ich. (valid, but very uncommon)

Ein leckeres Frühstück esse ich nach dem Aufstehen.

Ein leckeres Frühstück esse nach dem Aufstehen ich. (valid, but very uncommon)

Ich esse ein leckeres Frühstück nach dem Aufstehen.

Ich esse nach dem Aufstehen ein leckeres Frühstück.

See the pattern? The finite verb has to be in second position.

The difference between the four common arrangements is emphasis. Beginning of the sentence gets most emphasis, then end of the sentence. Parts inbetween are of lesser importance (besides the finite verb, of course).

Answer 3

I would avoid inversion as a term in German, it is an inversion with respect with another language(s). Inversion would mean that there exist a preferred order, which in German there is not. It's rather just keeping the position of the verb in the second place (not second word) in the sentence. It'd be also valid to begin with "Ein leckeres Frühstück esse ich..." or "Ich esse ..." if you want to emphasize that you do something different to what people said before.