[housecarpenter]

Technically, `a :: Num` would be declaring, or defining that `a` is of type `Num`. After you see `a :: Num`, you can assume from then on as you're reading the program that `a` has type `Num`; if something is incompatible with that assumption it will result in a compiler error. This is different from `Num a`, which is making the assertion that `a` is of type `Num`, but that assertion may evaluate as true or false. It's similar to how assignment is different from equality, so that most programming languages with C-style syntax make a distinction between `=` and `==`.

There's also the fact that `Num` is technically not a type, but a type class, which is like a level above a type: values are organized into types, and types are organized into classes. Though this is more of a limitation of Haskell: conceptually, type classes are just the types of types, but in practice, the way they're implemented means they can't be treated in a uniform way with ordinary types.

So that's why there's a syntactic distinction between `Num a` and `a :: Num`. As for why `Num` comes before `a`, there's certainly a reasonable argument for making it come after, given that we'd read it in English as "a is a Num". I think the reason it comes before is that it's based on the usual function call syntax, which is `f x` in Haskell (similar to `f(x)` in C-style languages, but without requiring the parentheses). `Num` is kind of like a function you call on a type which returns a boolean.