On 27/10/2015 08:00, MorphemeAddict wrote: > Because Latin moved words around a lot, e.g., separating > governed from governing. In verse, yes - but poets have a tendency in any language to stretch the language to its limits )and sometimes beyond). In prose Latin was normally SOV, especially so in subordinate clauses. In main clauses the topic may get fronted and focus may be shifted to the end. In rhetoric, things like antithesis, prosodic rhythm etc played some part also. But in the English "Tom heard and saw the dog", we have two verbs with the same subject and both governing the same object. As B.R. George observed yesterday, it's just a "conjunction of verbs." Latin and, I suspect, most other languages, can do this also, just like English. More interestingly, what languages can't? But as I wrote yesterday the 'natural' Classical* Latin would be: Thomas canem auditum vidit - with no conjunction of verbs and with _auditum_ coming right next to the noun _canem_. * Medieval Latin word often reflected the L1 of the writer :) > It's just an impression I have, without evidence to > support it with. Video. -- Ray ================================== http://www.carolandray.plus.com ================================== "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigenen Kosten denkt, wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun." [J.G. Hamann, 1760] "A mind that thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language".