I have noticed that the majority of Esperantists use a generally English word order in normal speech: subject-verb-object, adjectives always come before nouns, etc.

Now, I have a tendency to not follow this rigidly. Often I want to put the object before the verb, or even before the subject (Mi vidis lin becomes Mi lin vidis or even Lin mi vidis); or I will place the adjective after the modified noun"Cxu vi acxetis auxton?" "Jes, auxton novan!". This isn't because I want to appear "mojoso" or anything; I'm simply under the influence of Russian and the Romance languages and sometimes find it more natural to express myself in this way.

My question is: how would you react to this language use? Would you find it particularly confusing, or irritating? I know it is acceptable lauxfundamente, but the fact that very few Esperantists regularly depart from the standard word order, even when their native languages use something different, gives me pause.

Tempodivalse:My question is: how would you react to this language use? Would you find it particularly confusing, or irritating? I know it is acceptable lauxfundamente, but the fact that very few Esperantists regularly depart from the standard word order, even when their native languages use something different, gives me pause.

It wouldn't bother me, but I'm not obsessed with everything being "simple".

I'm more curious about how the various word orders would be understood, presumably a difference in emphasis:

Mi vidis lin. (presumably this is the "unmarked" word order)
Mi lin vidis.
Lin mi vidis.
Lin vidis mi.
Vidis mi lin.
Vidis lin mi.

I have read several documents of some length by Věra Barandovská-Frank in which she frequently uses word orders other than SVO in her Esperanto. As a native English speaker, I needed some time to get used to her style, but I got through it. That is in writing. I doubt that I would do as well dealing with spoken material like that.

It's not so unusual as you may think, have a look at the empirical based work, including a dissertation, of Wim Jansen (Amsterdam) on word order in Esperanto, which is much more than SVO.

I use non-standard word order all the time. It is a common way to add emphasis or clarity. However, you lose the ability to use word order to add nuance if you regularly use a non-standard order. I think this is why most people stick to the standard for the most part (regardless of native language), because it preserves your ability to call the listener's attention to something by using something other than the standard. If you consistently use a very non-standard order, the assumption would not be "oh, he is used to the Russian order" but "oh, he seems to be emphasizing...every... second...word.... in his sentence... uh... this is weird".

In other words "Mi aĉetis novan aŭton" has a neutral emphasis, but "Mi aĉetis aŭton novan" seems to be emphasizing the newness (perhaps this is the first new car you have purchased, after many used cars in the past?).

We can also vary the order to avoid use of a passive voice. In English we might say "The book was written by Ludwig Zamenhof". But in Esperanto, a common alternative is "La libron skribis Ludoviko Zamenhof".

FWIW when I was a beginner I was enthusiastic about the flexible word order and I 'mixed it up' all the time. Then I grew out of that, and I think most people do. And now I still do 'mix it up' a lot, but my changes have meaning behind them, and I am doing it in an intentional way, not based on English or on any other language I speak, but for the addition of nuance, style, and emphasis.

That Esperanto has in many cases a standard word order, but can often allow a deviation from the standard order, is a plus point.

As Erinja points out, it means that non standard orders can be used for emphasis.

In songs or poetry however the deviations may lose any emphatic or focusing quality, since they are often clearly there to allow rhyme or a certain rhythm.

To me mi aĉetis aŭton novan sounds like a line from a song.

Mi aĉetis aŭton novan
fulme rapid-movan
kaj ŝoforis tra la urbo
kiel demona turbo.

Also, sometimes, relocating the adjective may avoid a certain clumsiness in the phrase and improve comprehensibility.

Compare:

1. Ni organizis pli grandan ol tiu de la antaŭa jaro kongreson
2. Ni organizis kongreson pli grandan ol tiu de la antaŭa jaro.

I don't think that in reading I would misunderstand you,but in speech I may be more likely to misunderstand the sentence if the accusative is not pronounced enough. I have an audiobook version of The Esperanto Teacher that I listen to in my car (with not very good speakers), and sometimes I have a hard time discerning the use of the accusative when there is a lot of road noise. In the lessons teaching the difference between "birdo flugas en la domo" and "birdo flugas en la domon", this was quite a pain, and I frequently had to replay the phrases.

I feel that standard word order may also act as a redundancy with the accusative in normal speech, reducing the likelihood of a misunderstanding. Constant use of an alternate word order could become burdensome to your listeners. That being said, I feel that changing the order of the adjective and the noun is much less important than the other possibilities.