This reference puts it best:
This is a comma splice, a faulty sentence construction in which a
comma tries to hold together two independent clauses all by itself:
the comma needs a coordinating conjunction to help out, and the word
then simply doesn't work that way.
A practical piece of advice for remembering coordinating conjunctions from the same site:
It may help you remember coordinating conjunctions by recalling that
they all have fewer than four letters. Also, remember the acronym
FANBOYS: For-And-Nor-But-Or-Yet-So. Be careful of the words then and now; neither is a coordinating conjunction, so what we say about
coordinating conjunctions' roles in a sentence and punctuation does
not apply to those two words.
So, to answer the question -- no, the sentence needs to read:
Go to google.com, enter miserable failure, and then click I'm
Feeling Lucky.
No, it is not valid (well, natural) English to say or to write:
It would be understood, but it doesn’t sound at all right. It would mark you as a non-native speaker.
The closest to what you are talking about would be the very archaic and/or poetic-sounding full inversion:
I suppose you could say that if you really wanted to, but it sounds completely affected. It really stands out. It’s not normal speech, although neither is it “illegal” as your first one nearly is. Maybe you could use something like this for the very rare and special occasion:
- No, “certain” is very most definitely something that I am not!
That doesn’t sound normal either, but it might be used to draw attention to the first word. Regular speech would simply be:
or sometimes,
- No, I’m not sure, either.
Or if someone else had just said that they weren’t sure, then you could respond with and of:
- No, I’m not, either.
- I’m not, either.
- Neither am I.
Notice the inversion in the last one.
Notice also how unlike in German, you cannot in English use “too” or “also” in the negative: you must use “not . . . either”, or less commonly “neither” followed by subject–verb inversion (that is, verb–subject). This last point I mention because is a very common mistake that native speakers of German often make in English, and some possible answers to your question might lead you down the wrong path.
Best Answer
(1) and (3) are equally grammatical, but (2) is ungrammatical. Order is a ditransitive verb, which means it can be followed by an indirect and a direct object as in (1), but it is possible to replace the direct object with a prepositional phrase, as in (3).