Wikipedia tells us that the order should be place–manner–time. However, this webpage tells that it should be manner–Place–Time. Which one is correct?

I have one sentence in two different orders:

  • No child should grow up in poverty in America in the 21st century.
  • No child should grow up in America in poverty in the 21st century.
  • 6
    I do not think this is a rigid rule. Adverbs and adverbial phrases can often be moved around; and a sentence with a lot of them reads better when they are clustered together at the end. So, for example, I should write: "In the 21st century no child in America should grow up in poverty".
    – user19148
    Sep 16, 2012 at 18:31
  • 1
    I think both sentences read badly, and that in a bad sentence the order of things is unimportant. Answers to The Royal Order of Adverbs suggest a few rewriting methods. Sep 16, 2012 at 18:56
  • My English master said "Time-Manner-Place" and most sentences read well in that order. Some don't, though. Carlo's version is best.
    – Andrew Leach
    Sep 16, 2012 at 19:20
  • @jwpat7: what do you think of "In the 21st century no child in America should grow up in poverty". Does this construction sound more natural for a native speaker?
    – user19148
    Sep 16, 2012 at 19:21
  • Carlo, I too consider your version is the best. Thanks.
    – Yousui
    Sep 16, 2012 at 19:33

3 Answers 3


In British English the standard word order for adverbs in end-position is manner-place-time(easy to remember as the initial letters are in alphabetical order m-p-t). However, to avoid too many adverbs in end-position and for emphasis I would suggest to put the adverb of time in front-position. This sounds much more fluent - although I must admit I'm German myself ;)

  • 1
    Minor observation "I would suggest putting the adverb" is correct. To my ears "I would suggest to put" sounds wrong and jarring. Not what the OP asked, but a useful note. In general non-native speakers seem to use infinitives too much. Dec 23, 2014 at 20:40

Adverbs of time do go last, something both your references agree on. For adverbs of place and manner, I believe there is not a general order that is usually followed in English. Consider this Google Ngram showing that stay at home alone beats stay alone at home, but not overwhelmingly. So this example weakly supports the place, manner order.

enter image description here

On the other hand, stay late at work beats stay at work late, but again not overwhelmingly. This is weak evidence for manner, place.

enter image description here

For the OP's question, my opinion is that "in poverty" should come first, because for this example, it is a more important adverbial clause than "in America".

  • Not sure what you consider “overwhelming”; the first has more than a 4:1 ratio at the right edge, although you can get that up to 9:1 if you diddle it a bit. The second one looks about like 4½ to 1, but again can be diddled up to 6:1. More diddling examples here.
    – tchrist
    Sep 17, 2012 at 0:28
  • 1
    For overwhelming, I was thinking of a ratio like the ratio you get when you compare "big white" and "white big". This is close to 100 to 1. Sep 17, 2012 at 0:49
  • 3
    The sentence "No child should grow up in America in poverty in the 21st century" runs the risk of derailing listeners. You get halfway through and it sounds like you're saying no child should have to grow up in America.
    – octern
    Sep 17, 2012 at 1:01

Although 2 years have passed since your question, I have just found in a grammar book of mine that the right order is Manner-Place-Time. If the verb of the sentence is a verb of motion then the order changes to : Place-Manner-Time. For instance, "he goes to his office by bus at nine o'clock."

  • 3
    Welcome to EL&U. If you are new to StackExchange, I strongly encourage you to take the site tour and to review the help cener. Your answer would be improved by indicating, at a minimum, which grammar book, with an excerpt, as it has already been demonstrated that both orders are in use.
    – choster
    May 9, 2015 at 18:20
  • Yes, mentioning the book would be really interesting. But the already demonstrated things are not relevant. Another book can say other things, and it's the interesting part.
    – Quidam
    Nov 4, 2019 at 4:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.