> But how common is it to have the former without the latter? Most languages I read about have either both or neither.
Many language seem to have at least a somewhat flexible ordering of constituents. It may often depend on emphasis, information structure, etc. German for example can be quite flexible in that regard, and the effects this has on information structure are rather subtle (however, the verb always has to go in the second position, so it's not totally free). There are probably languages where it's even more free, but I don't have any examples off the top of my head. By contrast, there are languages where word order is very rigid (even in English, while you can rearrange constituents up to a point, it's not nearly as common as in German, and I would argue that it can often sound slightly archaic)
archaic might have been a bad choice of words, although it probably depends on the exact sentence. I do think it sounds more formal, though, I think I'd be less likely to hear your first sentence in everyday conversation. Then again, I'm not a native speaker of English.
My native-speaker intuition tells me the opposite — I’m probably more likely to use such constructions in colloquial speech than in formal written text. My second sentence does seem more formal to me though.
Many language seem to have at least a somewhat flexible ordering of constituents. It may often depend on emphasis, information structure, etc. German for example can be quite flexible in that regard, and the effects this has on information structure are rather subtle (however, the verb always has to go in the second position, so it's not totally free). There are probably languages where it's even more free, but I don't have any examples off the top of my head. By contrast, there are languages where word order is very rigid (even in English, while you can rearrange constituents up to a point, it's not nearly as common as in German, and I would argue that it can often sound slightly archaic)