The actuality of the present thesis

Degrees of synthesis
In order to demonstrate the "continuum" nature of the isolating–synthetic–polysynthetic classification, some examples are shown below:
More isolating
Modern Chinese (Mandarin) lacks inflectional morphology almost entirely, and most words consist of either one or two syllable morphemes, especially two due to the very numerous compound words. This makes it noticeably more isolating than many other languages, even slightly more so than English.
Polysynthetic Mohawk: Wash a kotya'tawitsherahetkvhta'se means "He ruined her dress" (strictly, 'He made the-thing-that-one-puts-on-one's body ugly for her'). This one inflected verb in this case expresses the idea that would be conveyed in various words in a more analytic language such as English.
Oligosynthetic
Oligosynthetic languages are a theoretical notion created by Benjamin Whorf with no known examples existing in natural languages. Such languages would be functionally synthetic, but make use of a very limited array of morphemes (perhaps just a few hundred). Whorf proposed that Nahuatl was oligosynthetic, but this has since been discounted by most linguists.
Chapter II. Word order typology of languages
II.1.Possible word orders
In linguistics, word order typology is the study of the order of the syntactic constituents of a language, and how different languages can employ different orders. Correlations between orders found in different syntactic sub-domains are also of interest. The primary word orders that are of interest are the constituent order of a clause – the relative order of subject, object, and verb; the order of modifiers (adjectives, numerals, demonstratives, possessives, and adjuncts) in a noun phrase; and the order of adverbials.
Some languages use relatively restrictive word order, often relying on the order of constituents to convey important grammatical information. Others—often those that convey grammatical information through inflection—allow more flexibility, which can be used to encode pragmatic information such as topicalisation or focus. Most languages, however, have a preferred word order.
Most nominative–accusative languages—which have a major word class of nouns and clauses that include subject and object—define constituent word order in terms of the finite verb (V) and its arguments, the subject (S), and object (O).
There are six theoretically possible basic word orders for the transitive sentence: subject–verb–object (SVO), subject–object–verb (SOV), verb–subject–object (VSO), verb–object–subject (VOS), object–subject–verb (OSV) and object–verb–subject (OVS). The overwhelming majority of the world's languages are either SVO or SOV, with a much smaller but still significant portion using VSO word order. The remaining three arrangements are exceptionally rare, with VOS being slightly more common than OSV, and OVS being significantly more rare than the two preceding orders.
Typologies are useful in these ways: 1)provides valuable grammar information on the language(s) we're studying, 2)helps to classify languages that don't fit neatly into traditional classifications, 3)provides historical data that can be used to make cross-linguistic generalizations that understand and to reconstruct proto "mother" languages.
For our class, word order studies has a third purpose: to help us to appreciate both the diversity and the universality of languages of the world. The differences among languages, especially compared to English, are striking. But by looking at word order across languages, we are also able to come up with universal rules that help to explain how languages function.
There are six logical possibilities. S = Subject, O = Object, V = Verb

SVO	the dog	Ate	my homework.
SOV	the dog	my homework	ate.
VSO	Ate	the dog	my homework.
VOS	Ate	my homework	the dog.
OVS	my homework	Ate	the dog.
OSV	my homework	the dog	ate.