Occasionally it is asserted that a word in a clause is placed at the begining or the end because the author is trying to highlight the word.
My question is which holds more weightiness? The front or the back of the clause? Also why would you choose one or the other?
Whatever significant word comes first naturally has salience. Beyond that, it’s always a matter of relative placement, of where a word comes in relation to the other components of the clause or sentence or larger structure. A word in final position packs punch if we’ve been kept waiting for it or if it’s unanticipated.
The greatest difficulty with the definition of a “clause” is recognising when an adverbial (eg. circumstantial) participle is grouped with or separated from the finite verb.
Here are some keywords you can use to find discussions of this topic:
“word order” salience marking functional grammar Prague school
The various schools of functional grammar (M. A. K. Halliday, Simon Dik, Talmy Givon) have attempted to demonstrate that fronting (placing a constituent before the main verb) is a form of salience marking. They make a distinction between salience and focus. Focus constituents may be postponed or fronted. The main verb is the the anchor of the clause and position of other constituents are described relative to the main verb.
I’ve never been overwhelmingly impressed with these arguments. For example, circumstantial participles are not “fronted.” They precede the main verb for reasons unrelated to salience marketing.
They succeed for reasons unrelated to salience too, I might add.
I haven’t noticed yet which period or genre of Greek that mahasacham’s inclined towards, but in any case, here is a New Testament chiasm exemplifying that lack of salience:
And another linear example too: