While it's true that it's "standard" for the adjective to follow the noun, Latin word order is VERY flexible, and a noun following an adjective is not at all unusual. A quick search of the corpus at http://latin.packhum.org/search reveals that both appear more or less equally.
I suspect that any reply to this broad a question will always be rife with conjecture, but the reason for the convoluted word order is always a combination of the metrical cadence, and the effect that word order has on the listener. It is generally accepted that literature was usually read aloud in ancient Rome - we can even assume that lyrical poetry was (...
I give some real examples taken from medieval latin:
ex his praemissis haec sequitur conclusio (Saint Lawrence of Brindisi)
sequitur ex praemissis ista conclusio (Ockham)
haec / ista conclusio sequitur ex praemissis (Ockham)
ex praedictis praemissis sequitur ista conclusio (Ockham)
conclusio sequitur ex talibus praemissis (Ockham)
sequitur conclusio ex ...
Spevak 2010 writes that the most frequent pattern is Subject Predicative.Noun sum (in Cicero, it's 57%), as opposed to Predicative.Noun Subject sum (3%).
However, since other orderings are possible (see the table below), and
there is no special way to mark the difference between the subject and predicative noun in Latin (both are in Nominativus), context ...
Word order in Latin is fairly free, so neither of those is incorrect.
However, adjectives in Latin tend to follow their nouns. And skimming the L&S entry for meus, most of the attestations have it following the noun. The first word in a Latin phrase also tends to be more emphatic.
So puella mea is more neutral, while mea puella is closer to "my girl". ...
Both word orders are possible.
Word order is flexible in Latin.
It would be wrong to say that the Latin word order is completely free, but it is far more flexible than that of English.
In isolation, without further context, puella mea is the more typical choice.
Latin typically puts adjectives (you could in see mea as an adjective) after the nouns, unlike ...
Joonas Ilmavirta's answer is exactly correct.
I'll just add two things.
First, although word order is relatively free in Latin, the default position, as you rightly believe, is Frater meus unum filium habet. Changing a sentence's word order from the default adds a slight change in emphasis—here, emphasizing the fact that your brother has one son, rather ...
The direct object of an active sentence is typically in accusative, an indirect one in dative.
An object in an active sentence is never nominative.
The verb esse (to be) is active but does not take an object.
When you say that something is something, aliquid aliquid est, both nouns are in nominative.
Marcus dux est. (Marcus is the leader.)
Whether you say fenestra magna or magna fenestra is up to you – both is absolutely fine in Latin.
If you go with fenestra at all, I recommend using the preposition ad, because there is a precedence from Terence (Heautontimorumenos 3,1,72): quantam fenestram ad nequitiam patefeceris “what a great window to licentiousness you will have opened.”
But that is not ...
I would give two main rules for positioning quoque:
It comes right after the word it comments on.
If several people are angry and Iulius is one of them, then Iulius quoque iratus est.
If Iulius has several emotions and anger is one of them, then Iulius iratus quoque est.
This older question may be of interest if you want further details.
It cannot (usually)...
It is certainly not impossible to mimic Yoda's speech style in Latin, though I would say that the effect will be a little more muted.
English is an analytic language with a low morpheme-per-word ratio: it expresses a lot of meaning by word order. Latin, being a synthetic language, does not often rely on word order to prevent ambiguity.
Latin does rely on ...
Brian has given a good answer, but perhaps it can be expanded.
The overriding principle is that -ne should occupy the second place in a clause (or, to put it another way: it is attached to the first word). This is a specific example of a famous phenomenon in ancient Indo-European languages known as Wackernagel’s law, which stipulates that certain clitics ...
I have used Duolingo for other languages, and I've now briefly tested it for Latin.
There are two major issues:
It goes way too fast.
If the course has to be short for practical reasons, I would much rather have it stop early than go fast.
The system is too inflexible at accepting translations in both directions.
I am not sure if you can even reasonably ...
Perhaps there is a more subtle answer, but I will give the naive view: Yes, -ne affects word order because it moves the principal word (usually the verb) to the beginning of the sentence.
More detail about the word-order imposed by -ne is available here: Where to put the enclitic -ne?, the gist of which is that -ne is always at the beginning of the sentence ...
There is no significance to the word order, and both are perfectly acceptable in Latin. In fact, it is only in English translation that there is a difference felt. The genitive in Latin is perfectly at home come before or after the noun.
For example, Lucretius wrote De Rerum Natura while Cicero wrote De Natura Deorum. I'm afraid that's simply all there is ...
Some variations in word arrangement are a matter of style and don't necessarily affect emphasis. Although textbooks may present some ideal arrangement of words and suggest that any deviation causes the words that are out of their 'proper' place to beome emphatic, the reality is much more nuanced.
For example, although lata is separated from silva, the ...
Latin word order is very free, and the predicate — like est or sunt — can go anywhere.
Any of these is valid:
Gallia est in Europa.
Gallia in Europa est.
Est Gallia in Europa.
Est in Europa Gallia.
In Europa Gallia est.
In Europa est Gallia.
The most common choice is Gallia in Europa est (and SOV in general), but the rule — if any — ...
If Latin prose had an "extremely loose word order", which is (generally) not the case, the appropriate linguistic term involved would be "non-configurationality". However, rather than being vaguely classified as a free word order language or as a non-configurational language, Latin has been referred to in the recent literature on Latin syntax as a "discourse ...
Summary: the reason why this sentence seems unusual after translation is only because of the limits of English syntax, not because anything odd in the Latin.
A short form of expression combining two really distinct indirect questions
I do not understand why the commentator read the sentence that way. It is theoretically possible to read the first ...
I think you're still assuming that English-style word order is in some sense natural or default, despite your correct disclaimer that "sentences that appear 'scrambled' in English might not be perceived to be so in Latin". For example, you refer to "moving unam all the way to the end", but of course it hasn't been moved anywhere; its ...
How about praetorium laribus defendendis nostris, or "the body guard for defending our homes"?
The word order in Latin is quite free, so the key problem is to find the words you want to use.
It would be more natural to put nostris before defendendis, but the version I propose is not wrong.
Here are some words that can be used to compile such a name:
The word order is quite free in Latin.
It is typical to put the verb last, but by no means compulsory.
The example sentence you give has a correct word order, but it is not the only correct one.
It would sound a bit more natural to put habet at the end.
The online learning site you link to seems to cut an awful lot of corners short.
It can be a good tool to ...
magna fenestra is fine, but as noted by @Sebastian Koppehel, historia is written history, rather than the historical events themselves which you probably want to refer to.
So I suggest magna ad antiqua fenestra or magna ad antiquitatem fenestra or magna ad vetustatem fenestra.
No, the meaning would not change. Mea culpa and culpa mea both mean “my fault.” There is a tendency that when the possessive comes first, it is emphasized (my fault, not yours), and when it comes second, the noun is emphasized. But the meaning itself is unaffected.
The verse is a hexameter in the classical dactylic metre, internally rhymed (-orum, -orum) and chiastic (with symmetric word order) to add intensity.
The hexameter, which Arturo Graf in 'Art of the Devil' says is added sometimes to the 'Hymn of the Bell,' is designed to provide conclusion and perspective, through contrast with the trochaic verses.
Yes, it does happen.
The esse and the perfect participle need not be anywhere near each other.
For example, Cicero (in Verrem 2.1.16) writes:
In Siciliam sum inquirendi causa profectus.
The verb proficisci is deponent, but it doesn't invalidate the point.
The same freedom is found with other verbs as well (Pro Caecina 84.1):
…sum ex eo loco ...
Latin word order is very flexible but not quite free.
Even in inflected languages you cannot typically change the word order completely freely.
For example, consider: "I want a banana but I don't want an apple".
If you swap the words "banana" and "apple" (they would be in the same form in Latin and many other languages), the meaning is inverted.
The placing ...
I looked into how Caesar uses past participles and est.
His style is considered good and he does not aim for anything particularly convoluted or poetic, so I think he is a good choice for this question.
I searched for all examples of -tus close to est in a corpus, and found the following:
There are many examples of a past participle and an est (although ...
The pronoun id refers to the event, so you can translate Deo id volente as "when/if/because God wants so/it".
The form id is neuter and thus cannot refer to lapis, and it is accusative (instead of the other morphological option, nominative) because it is the object of velle.
It is not unusual to have other words, especially an object, within an ...