I hope this question will become clear by the following example:

When I state "Mother's Cooking," As a native English speaker, to me the sentence fragment is read kind of "in order" so to speak, each word being read in the order it is presented for me to understand the sentence.

However, when this sentence fragment is translated to Chinese, it becomes:

妈妈 做 的 菜
māma zuò de cài

Which I literally translate to:

"Mother's cooking of Dish"

and in practice I begin to learn to look for the phrase after "de" then "go back" to the "māma zuò" to figure out the whole sentence. Does this make sense? I have to go to the end of the sentence and then refer back to the part "in front" of it so to speak?

What is going on here, and is this perceived as such by native speakers? Do all native speakers feel like their language flows linearly ? I think I read somewhere that some languages start their sentences with the verbs at the front of the sentence (Arabic?)

I'm hoping that a linguist will be able to explain to me what phenomenon I'm experiencing.

Thanks in advance!

Source for sentence/grammar

Lately, I've noticed that during small group discussions in professional settings, especially in virtual meetings, I have a tendency to contribute additional thoughts after someone else shares something. My colleagues are often quiet which leads to awkward silences between topics, and I feel that for the discussion to flow smoothly, there needs to be some form of response or reciprocity to what was said. So, I often take on the role of expanding upon others' points, even if what I say doesn't add much. I should note that, I myself am an introvert through and through, but these awkward silences still make me uncomfortable and it's kind of annoying to see a mute icon pop up when it's supposed to be an active conversation. I suppose this is a habit that carried over from my days of hosting Bible studies many years ago, where active participation was hard to come by. People don't often share, but when they do, it helps to have someone acknowledge it - in my opinion, at least. I similarly engage like this in D&D where, in roleplaying scenarios, I'd use my character to fill in the empty spaces of conversation between other players and the DM, even if it's just a simple response that wasn't explicitly necessary.

My question is: do people, including yourself, appreciate it when someone responds or adds to their point in this manner? I struggle to discern whether I'm actually facilitating the conversation or hogging it in an annoying way. I'm open to feedback or hearing from your experiences.

TW: Violence and language.

Just the other night I heard a native dude got capped, white nationalist on the other end, but nobody heard much after that. No news, no cops, no justice no peace, and people wonder why we are calling to defund the police. Come to find out that dude had drugs, it was a meth deal gone bad.

Ain't need to worry about it son, just ignore it and move on...

Hold the fucking phone, why does it matter? You tellin’ me that dudes life ain't worth the crime blotter, an obit or some sort of after the fact reaction?

But he had drugs man, shit happens...

^{Man I hear this shit from privileged folk all the time but to hear it come from the streets...} This dude didn’t matter because he had a problem, this human deduced to drugs and addiction, no longer my problem. I would say he’s just now a statistic but I’m not even sure if he’s that. This town is god damn silent on injustices and violent crime at that. 4 stabbings and 1 shooting, stuff that stokes fear, nobody goes near. Meanwhile all the townsfolk just cry about the homeless problem and drink their bougie beer.

Dude you need to settle down you didn’t even know him…

Motherfucker don’t tell me to settle down, don’t tell me it don’t matter because I didn’t even know him. How many white kids get shot in schools every day to get their obit, their memorial, their presidential postmortem? How about the victims in the towers? We went to fucking war over that shit, why did they matter? How can all lives matter when this dude over here lying on a slab can’t seem to become any sort of subject matter?

Man that’s just how it is…

No shut the fuck up, that’s not how it is. I refuse to accept an existence in this world where a life ain't worth the bullet that ended it. Don’t hide behind your cynicism and whataboutism because you just can’t be arsed to offer up any sort of emotional reactionism. That dude...

Dude…

No, you listen to me while I remind you what the hell humanity and empathy are. That dude had a family and friends, just like you, he had a life and a history and so much ahead of him too. He had ninety nine point nine percent the same genes as you yet you can’t seem to empathize that that could have been you.

Dude then go fucking do something.

One thing I'm uncertain about Tildes is how informative its posts are meant to be. I've been keeping myself from posting hype threads about upcoming movies (Dune, Ride Your Wave, etc.).
What type of balance is tildes trying to strike? I'm in favor of shitposting, but against images, since I think text encourages the type of discussion I'm looking for a community. So I'd like to see copypasta, but I'm not sure what the general consensus is.

Edit: I'm looking less for general examples than some sort of hard and clear rule. I'm seeing comments which disagree somewhat and leave ambiguities, but I believe the criteria should be better laid out.

On my way to work this morning, I saw a bumper sticker on a truck in front of me. It said "Ecology is not a religion", my first thought was this guy is an idiot, etc. etc. Then I began dismantling the entire bumper sticker in my head while I drove. "Of course ecology isn't a religion, it is a science! -ology denotes a field of study!" I don't know why, I guess to reassure myself the world wasn't falling to pieces. This brought up a question that often crosses my mind but I've never had an answer for: How do you discuss open minded topics with close minded people?

This doesn't necessarily have to focus on ecology and environmental issues, any "controversial" issue that one side might become completely close minded to could qualify. Homosexuality, gender identity, gun rights, and privacy all come to mind. If you spend any amount of time on Internet forums and boards, you've come across someone like this. No matter how much scientific fact, evidence and truth you show them, they simply deny it. They cherry pick what you presented to make their point, they pull the fake news card, etc. How does one deal with this?

In my mind, I don't think there is any way one can deal with it. How do you reason with someone who is explicitly rejecting reason? I'm not asking "how do you change their mind?", doing such a thing is quite difficult and shouldn't be the primary goal of a debate (though it could be a byproduct of a healthy debate). I don't like to attribute one's opinions on some topic to their entire personality. Just because I disagree with them doesn't make them bad, nor I to them. Sometimes, this is a hard pill to swallow. How do you a) converse or debate with these people with an end product being improved mindsets on both sides, and b) swallow the proverbial pill?

In the end, we all need to talk to each other, or else we end up in 2018 where the sitting president rejects scientific fact, politicians are being elected on planks of homophobia, racism, and denial of science, and intolerance is the new norm it seems.

Tildes is still in the process of being built and there's been much discussion on what kinds of content and posts we'd like to see here. Users have also been outspoken about the content and posts that they think should be discouraged. With this in mind, I thought it might be interesting for us to have a conversation about how to engage in a civil conversation with someone with whom you disagree, and what kinds of behaviors make a discussion worthwhile.

Here are a few links to get us started.

• A Better Way to Argue by Jay Heinrichs
• One Civil Conversation Please from schoolofthought.org
• The Danger of a Single Story a TED Talk by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
• 10 Ways to Have a Better Conversation a TED Talk by Celeste Headlee

So what do you think? How should we communicate with each other in order to really make Tildes a great place to engage with one another? Do you have any conversation tricks or rules that have been successful in your own lives? I'd love to hear your thoughts.