Most of my good thinking is done like this. Walking around the house talking out loud to myself about a topic without knowing where it's going. Over the years I've trained myself to try and speak more and more in this mode and I find it has good outcomes. It's not how it works but to myself I call it "putting my brain in analog mode". I also try to write like this for all my first passes. I also found it works for drawing, I will start drawing a random line and see where the hand takes me. I believe there's a term for art done in this way but I can't recall it now. I think Michael Scott was on to something.
My native language is Dutch, not German, but the word order restrictions are similar. But note that these word orders apply to subsentences: units of subject, object and verb, with additional stuff like prepositional phrases around it. Nothing at all is strict about how you combine these subsentences together into an argument: if this, then that, but maybe such, and perhaps so, thus something else — at least in informal speech.
You are getting -- I think -- reflexively downvoted, but I genuinely think you are onto something. German grammar has strict word order rules as opposed to say Polish, where syntax is much more permissive ( for that one aspect of it ). I wonder to what extent native language changes how brain functions over the course of one's life.
> The Brits often assume that Germans have no sense of humour. In truth, writes comedian Stewart Lee, it's a language problem. The peculiarities of German sentence construction simply rule out the lazy set-ups that British comics rely on ...
Nah, spoken German can handle that just fine. Spoken German has different rules from written German (and, of course, people have quite a bit more tolerance for minor breaks of grammatical rules in ad-hoc spoken language anyway.)
To give an example: a bog standard German sentence puts the verb in second place. Everything else is fairly flexible, eg you can either put object or subject first (unlike in written English, where the place of the subject is much more constrained).
Now, when you have a subordinate clause, written German puts the finite at the end. Like "Barbara besuchte das Restaurant, weil sie Hunger hatte."
In spoken German, you can get away with "Barbara besucht das Restaurant, weil.. sie hatte ja Hunger." Especially if you pause to think at the place marked by the two dots.
> In spoken German, you can get away with "Barbara besucht das Restaurant, weil.. sie hatte ja Hunger." Especially if you pause to think at the place marked by the two dots.
Native German speaker: When I hear such a wrong placing of the finite verb in a subclause, I immediately think that the respective speaker is either uneducated (when the person is a native speaker) or (if the person is a foreign speaker) had a really bad German teacher who did not correct this mistake.
Thus: No, don't do this. Speak the sentence as you would write it.
I suspect your memory is correcting things. As an experiment, you can try to record some spontaneous speech and really carefully listen to that.
(It's also crazy how many 'uhm' and 'äh' are in there, but you barely remember them just a few seconds later.)
Compare also the tenses in written Germany vs spoken German. Spoken German essentially only has two tenses: 'Perfekt' (perfect) and 'Präsenz' (present)
Written German: Gestern kaufte ich ein. Spoken German: Gestern habe ich eingekauft. (Though there's also the variant "Gestern war ich einkaufen." which doesn't really exist in written German.)
Written German: Mergen werde ich in den Urlaub fahren. Spoken German: Morgen fahre ich in den Urlaub.
You can occasionally hear more tenses in spoken German, but these two account for the majority of uses.
> When I hear such a wrong placing of the finite verb in a subclause, I immediately think that the respective speaker is either uneducated [...]
Yes, there's a huge class component involved here; some of these rules can be used as a shibboleth for social class. Btw for something similar in English compare http://fine.me.uk/Emonds/
This is actually a very practical way of creating stories - set up the stage and see what the characters go about doing. The writer needs to be aware of the larger stage in order to keep the reader interested in understanding what’s actually going on and why.
I remember Stephen King writing in his book On Writing that he once deviated from this approach (Maximum Overdrive, perhaps?) and it really didn't go well. At the time, I thought creating characters, a scenario, and setting and then seeing what happened was nuts, but it's essentially how D&D works (albeit in a group setting) and that's always fun.