"Older natural languages have richer lexical structures (such as inflexions for noun number and case) and therefore rely less on word order. For example, in Latin the statements Puer dedit cani escam and Escam dedit puer cani both mean ``The boy gave the dog the food''. Indeed, the more usual word order would be reverse Polish, with the verb coming last: Puer cani escam dedit.
This flexibility is possible because Latin uses inflexion, not position, to denote lexical roles. The lack of a suffix denotes that the boy (puer) is the subject; the -i ending indicates that the dog (cani) is the indirect object; whilst the -am ending indicates that the food (escam) is the direct object.
To say ``The food gave the boy the dog'', one might write: Puero canem esca dedit. Here, the -o ending denotes that the boy is now the indirect object, the -em ending indicates that the dog has become the direct object, whilst the -a ending indicates that the food is the subject."
This flexibility is possible because Latin uses inflexion, not position, to denote lexical roles. The lack of a suffix denotes that the boy (puer) is the subject; the -i ending indicates that the dog (cani) is the indirect object; whilst the -am ending indicates that the food (escam) is the direct object.
To say ``The food gave the boy the dog'', one might write: Puero canem esca dedit. Here, the -o ending denotes that the boy is now the indirect object, the -em ending indicates that the dog has become the direct object, whilst the -a ending indicates that the food is the subject."
Which made me think of the scene in Life of Brian in which the centurion (John Cleese) impersonates a stern Latin teacher. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8