wut
Let me explain. I'll use Latin as an example because I don't understand Lithuanian. I've used a similar example before but that thread got deleted. Look at these two sentences:
1.
I sodomized a
foid. (English)
2a.
Pedicavi ego feminam. (Latin)
In English, we rely on word order to convey meaning.
Subject-
verb-
object. If I wrote, "
Sodomized a
foid I," it would make less sense. Note that we use morphemes, such as the word "a", in order to allow the reader to understand that one foid (as opposed to multiple foids) was sodomized. Therefore, English is a more analytic language.
In Latin, we rely on different forms of each word for each sentence to make grammatical sense. In linguistic morphology, this is known as "inflection". If a novice directly translated the Latin sentence, it would become "
Sodomized I a
foid". So how a reader know who is doing the sodomizing?
Well, that is where these word forms come in.
Pedicavi is the first-person singular perfect active indicative of present infinitive
pedicare, so we know that the sentence is written in the active voice and in the past tense.
Ego is in the nominative case, suggesting that it is the subject (that I am the one doing the sodomizing).
Feminam is a singular accusative, so the reader knows it is the direct object (and that only one foid was sodomized, not multiple foids).
That's why word order matters less in Latin, a synthetic language. In fact, the following five Latin sentences convey the same meaning as sentence 2a:
2b.
Pedicavi feminam ego.
2c.
Feminam pedicavi ego.
2d.
Feminam ego pedicavi.
2e.
Ego feminam pedicavi.
2f.
Ego pedicavi feminam.
What I was trying to explain is that when someone's native language is synthetic (e.g. Lithuanian or Latin), and they're writing in an analytic language (e.g. English or mandarin Chinese), they might struggle with certain aspects of word order and sentence structure. That's my hypothesis as to why Napoleon de Geso writes like a genius.
?