Fenris_kcf:IMO the most logic word order is VSO*, since the necessarity for the items descents from the first to the last: Every sentence has a verb and sentences that have an direct object must have a subject as well.

[V] „Pluvas.”
[VS] „Kuras li.“
[VSO] „Vidas ni vin.“
[VSO*] „Skribas ŝi literon al mi.“

((Many grammarians assume that there is more "glue" between V and O, then there is between V and S.

Let's start with an infinitive: kapti

You can add a direct object to kapti (e.g. kapti fiŝojn) and you have a complete phrase, like in "Kapti fiŝojn estas mia hobio".
You cannot add a subject to kapti (e.g. *mi kapti).

You can add further adjuncts (what you marked with an asterisk in your last example) to this phrase e.g. "kapti fiŝojn en la maro".
You still cannot add a subject.

The subject comes into play only until you add an inflection to the verb, as in Mi kaptas fiŝojn.

So basically, the direct object is "selected" by the verb itself, while the subject is selected by the inflection. This is also important in case-theory, namely: verbal phrases can assign accusative, but they cannot assign nominative.

So, the direct object is dependant of the verb, while the subject is not. Hence the "order of gluing" is (S(VO)). This is also backed by the fact that only 9% of all languages break (VO) apart by putting S in the middle.
))

nornen:"Kapti fiŝojn estas mia hobio".

Well, sentences with the verb "esti" are special anyway. In terms of predicate logic one meaning would be equivalence.
But i was talking about regular sentences, which represent a proposition and in these you can't have an object but no subject.
Also i was not saying that VSO is the most intuitive one or such. My point was rather theoritacal.

The word order does affect the emphasize of particular elements, however, every word order does convey an emphasis:
SVO - emphasizes the actor that did the verb to the object.
OVS - emphasizes the object that was verbed by the subject.
SOV - emphasizes the actor and the object.
OSV - emphasizes the object and the object.
VSO - emphasizes the action and the subject.
VOS - emphasizes the action and what was affected by it.

This is how I interpret the word order, and although word order does matter with copulas [esti], the formation SVO and OVS really mean the same thing, La floro estas ruĝa. -> Ruĝa estas la floro. Obviously when translated to english they mean *different things.. However, the general relationship is the same, Johano estas viro -> Viro estas Johano. and Johano estas la viro. -> La viro estas Johano.

It is an anglocentric view that the default word order must be SVO, and that the author must be attempting to do something out of the norm if they do so differently.

Please use whatever word order that you please! C:

SciBerC:It is an anglocentric view that the default word order must be SVO, and that the author must be attempting to do something out of the norm if they do so differently.

Please use whatever word order that you please! C:

How good is your knowledge of early Esperanto texts? Almost none of the early Esperanto speakers who influenced Esperanto style were native English speakers, and they used mainly SVO. Zamenhof is a big one. He didn't even speak English well.

Just because English does something a certain way doesn't necessarily make it wrong or anglocentric to do it that way in Esperanto. Word order happens to be an area where Esperanto is pretty similar to English (though not exactly the same), and that has nothing whatsoever to do with influence from English.

oliviakw:Now I've gotten into the habit of putting all my sentences in subject-object-verb order and it is beginning to make much more sense to me than English's
s-v-o sentence structure.

Since you’re still fairly new to the language, the Plena Manlibro de Esperanta Gramatiko (which is written completely in Esperanto) might seem a wee intimidating at first, but if you’re feeling saucy, you can find its detailed account of where the S, the V, and the O all go here.

SciBerC:The word order does affect the emphasize of particular elements, however, every word order does convey an emphasis:
SVO - emphasizes the actor that did the verb to the object.
OVS - emphasizes the object that was verbed by the subject.
SOV - emphasizes the actor and the object.
OSV - emphasizes the object and the object.
VSO - emphasizes the action and the subject.
VOS - emphasizes the action and what was affected by it.

This is how I interpret the word order, and although word order does matter with copulas [esti], the formation SVO and OVS really mean the same thing, La floro estas ruĝa. -> Ruĝa estas la floro. Obviously when translated to english they mean *different things.. However, the general relationship is the same, Johano estas viro -> Viro estas Johano. and Johano estas la viro. -> La viro estas Johano.

It is an anglocentric view that the default word order must be SVO, and that the author must be attempting to do something out of the norm if they do so differently.

Please use whatever word order that you please! C:

Normally emphasis (i.e. topicalization) only takes place when you deviate from the expected word order of any given language.
According to your hypothesis something is always emphasized.

sudanglo:
My guess would be that the most common usage of SOV is where the object is a personal pronoun (perhaps also the subject as well)

I never noticed this, but now that you mention it I would have to agree. I suppose that when using single-syllable subjects and objects the accusative is much more significant of a difference. I would never have problems discerning "Mi lin vidis" from "Min li vidis".

SciBerC:
It is an anglocentric view that the default word order must be SVO, and that the author must be attempting to do something out of the norm if they do so differently.

Please use whatever word order that you please! C:

SVO order is nowhere near Anglocentric. It is used in all the Romance languages, in addition to Finnish, Estonian, Arabic, Berber, Hausa, Javanese, Cambodian/Khmer, Vietnamese, Yoruba, and practically all Creole languages. This last is especially telling, since the grammar of Creoles is the closest thing to Chomsky's "universal grammar" there is in the "real world"....IOW, it's use in Creole languages may suggest that it may be somehow more initially 'obvious' to human psychology

orthohawk:

SciBerC:
It is an anglocentric view that the default word order must be SVO, and that the author must be attempting to do something out of the norm if they do so differently.

Please use whatever word order that you please! C:

SVO order is nowhere near Anglocentric. It is used in all the Romance languages, in addition to Finnish, Estonian, Arabic, Berber, Hausa, Javanese, Cambodian/Khmer, Vietnamese, Yoruba, and practically all Creole languages. This last is especially telling, since the grammar of Creoles is the closest thing to Chomsky's "universal grammar" there is in the "real world"....IOW, it's use in Creole languages may suggest that it may be somehow more initially 'obvious' to human psychology

Very good point, especially the part about the Creole languages.
Taking into consideration that 90% of all languages are either SVO, SOV, VOS or OVS, this also advocates directly against separating the O and V (in any order) by inserting the S in their middle. This seems to be less initially 'obvious' to human psychology (to use your wording).

orthohawk:SVO order is nowhere near Anglocentric. It is used in all the Romance languages, in addition to Finnish, Estonian, Arabic, Berber, Hausa, Javanese, Cambodian/Khmer, Vietnamese, Yoruba, and practically all Creole languages.

I think this is not true. Arabic, as far as I know, very often uses VSO.

And what about questions? In English or French, questions require that subject is moved after the verb (so VSO is a question), but in Italian this does not occur (questions are usually SVO like positive sentences).

Additionally, even in VSO languages and in positive sentences, the sentences where the order is changed and their emphasys value are not the same. For instance, in Italian sentences like "Nobody came" start normally with the verb ("Non è venuto nessuno" ).

I think that free order in Esperanto is very useful and emphasys should not be given too much importance. Esperanto aims to be an easy language, so it must "pay" some small price for adjusting to different native languages. Emphasys may be misrepresented, but the main content is always clear.

Example: "Neniu venis" and "Venis neniu" agree with English and Italian order, respectively. A native English speaker and a native Italian speaker, especially if not very skilled in Esperanto, may associate different emphasys values to the two sentences, but the main meaning is clear for both in both sentences.