it's just a structure that's not based upon the use of a direct object pronoun
in technical english (seldom seen except in 19th century novels & "legalese"), object pronouns are often avoided to prevent any ambiguity. For example, the pronoun "it" is often used in a manner that can be construed ambiguously... this is less noticeable in personal conversation because we have contexts and inflections to help sort out which object the pronoun "it" refers to. However, in written text, the inflection is not present, and one may not be familiar with the topic on which he/she is reading; so context in such cases would be lacking.
"Your solution does not a good solution make." , in a context following, say, a conversation about Jokes, could be miscontrued if a pronoun were used.
ie. Your solution does not make a good one. <--- a good joke, or a good solution?
the juxtaposition of the verb "make" from the middle to the end of the sentence can be done correctly because the Direct Object is the basically same as the Subject (solution). The only difference lies in the modifiers used: "Your solution" vs. "good solution". Since it is the "solution" that is performing the action "to make" (or not "to make"), then the main verb can follow the second occurance of "solution".
although the phrase "...does not a good solution..." sounds odd, it is correct in this sense: It is responding to a (surpressed) question "Does my solution make a good solution?"; the answer being "(No,) your solution does not a good solution make."
anywho, that's my take on it. Your post does a good question make!
i never really paid any attention to this stuff in English, because it came naturally. but when studying French it became important to know the labels of each component of a sentence, so that i could clearly note the differing sentence structures between the languages (so as not to confuse them).
Hayabusarider is also mostly correct: the English language was heavily influenced by French during the French occupation/rule of the region... er, a looong time ago. The languages of the two major tribes on the Isles (the Anglos & the Saxons) were kept largely intact among the country folk/peasantry, but the language used in the government & in "society" was almost entirely French. That's why the modern English language has so many fancy big words used in Law, Art, etc. that are the same as in French, but most of our common words are more gutteral/Germanic.
(Fancy e.g.: judicial, renaissance, government.) (Plain e.g.: Ox, axe, grain.) There are better examples, and some clever direct comparisons, but i'm not really "on" right now, so they're not coming to mind... i suppose like "cuisine" vs. "cooking".
Anyway, the structure of the French language was also imposed & took root, especially in the language used by the upper-eschelons. So 19th century English literature has those funny phrasings and sentence structures. It's not uncommon for such novels to switch to a brief conversation in French without any sort of translation offered, because a member of "society" was expected during those times, thru their education, to be able to at least read French (eg. C. Bronte's Jane Eyre). So, while the sentence structure IS borrowed from another language, you have to keep in mind that the integration happened so long ago that the result effectively became the English language... the one we sometimes call Old English (tho i'm not so sure that's accurate). So it's really a leftover from a previous version of the SAME language when we use these structures that seem so odd to us.
This stuff may account for the way the Amish talk. But I dunno what's up with the rest of their customs, yo.
Facebook
Twitter