Questions and Answers
Copyright © September 2009 by Tienzen (JehTween) Gong
After the inception of the PreBabel site on July 14, 2009, it has caught many people's interest. An indepth discussion on the PreBabel took place at "conlanger bulletin board." Many great questions and critiques were discussed there. The following is a brief summary of those discussions.
Page 1:
 Day one  Summary of questions and critiques
 Day two  Is a universal language possible?
 Day three  What are the criteria for a universal language?
 Day four  The history of finding the universal language root word set
 Day five  The choices of roots for the universal language
 Day six  Theoretical framework of a universal language
 Day seven  Test procedure for validating a universal language
 Day eight  The fuzzy logic and the PreBabel root word set
 Day nine  Are all natural languages isomorphic among one another?
 Day ten  PreBabel root word set is invented, not discovered
Page 2:
 Day eleven  Private Language Thesis (PLT) and the types of language
 Day twelve  Can any language be without verbs?
 Day thirteen  The regression encoding procedure (REP) for PreBabel
 Day fourteen  The attractor theorem and a universal language
 Day fifteen  The innate meaning of a word token (of PreBabel) vs its semantic meaning
 Day sixteen  Is English a universal language?
 Day seventeen  A premise must be testable
 Day eighteen  The method of handling any chaotic system, such as the system of natural languages
 Day nineteen  Via PreBabel to learn any second language is to learn two instead of one, then, why do it?
 Day twenty  A true Emperor cannot be discredited by any disbelieving person
Page 3:
 Day twentyone  Is Esperanto a universal language?
 Day twentytwo  The strategy of constructing a universal language
 Day twentythree  Should PreBabel words be intuitive? And, the PreBabel a, b and c.
 Day twentyfour  Can PreBabel (language x) be learned easier than the language x itself?

Day twentyfive  About "words and concepts of one language are grouped differently in another language.
 Day twentysix  The PreBabel process is as easy as 1, 2 and 3.
 Day twentyseven  How and when can PreBabel (Proper) emerge?
 Day twentyeight  more about intuitiveness.
 Day twentynine  about memory anchors on learning a language.
 Day thirty  about tests for PreBabel.
Page 4:
 Day thirtyone  about PreBabel (Chinese).
 Day thirtytwo  the debut of PreBabel (Chinese) at AP Annual Conference 2007 (CollegeBoard).
 Day thirtythree  traditional Chinese etymology vs PreBabel (Chinese).
 Day thirtyfour  the first constructed language, the Lii character set.
 Day thirtyfive  phonological reconstruction vs PreBabel (Chinese).
 Day thirtysix  more about the construction of the Lii character set.
 Day thirtyseven  Published works on PreBabel (Chinese).
 Day thirtyeight  more of traditional Chinese etymology vs PreBabel (Chinese).
 Day thirtynine  PreBabel methodology I  equivalent transformation.
 Day forty  Types of conlang and more on traditional Chinese etymology vs PreBabel (Chinese).
Page 5:
 Day fortyone  PreBabel epistemology: the Occam's razor.
 Day fortytwo  axiomatic domain, theory and system
 Day fortythree  about SapirWhorf hypothesis
 Day fortyfour  About the differences among languages
 Day fortyfive  Reasons being in the dark
 Day fortysix  about large and complex system
 Day fortyseven  A constructed linguistic universe (I)
 Day fortyeight  about China's language policy
 Day fortynine  Construced linguistic universe (II)
 Day fifty  Constructed linguistic universe (III)
Page 6:
 Day fiftyone  Constructed linguistic universe (IV)
 Day fiftytwo  Constructed linguistic universe (V)
 Day fiftythree  Constructed linguistic universe (VI)
 Day fiftyfour  Constructed linguistic universe (VII)
 Day fiftyfive  Summary of constructed linguistic universe
 Day fiftysix  Discovering the PreBabel principle
 Day fiftyseven  Benefits of PreBabel
 Day fiftyeight  the PreBabel procedures
 Day fiftynine  about Chinese Etymology
 Day sixty  Can the parts be larger than the whole?
Page 7:
 Day sixtyone  SapirWhorf Hypothesis revisited
 Day sixtytwo  The two step PreBabel procedures
 Day sixtythree  Can linguistics be justified with math laws?
 Day sixtyfour  About heavily inflecting or agglutinating languages
 Day sixtyfive  Can any theory be based on only two highly atypical examples?
 Day sixtysix  Can PreBabel encompass the Martian language?
 Day sixtysevenCan the word Ēj be dissected and decoded with the PreBabel root set?
 Day sixtyeight  Comparison the PreBabel (Chinese) with some old school ways
 Day sixtynine  Comparison (II)
 Day seventy  Comparison (III)
Page 8:
 Day seventyone  Comparison (IV)
 Day seventytwo  Comparison (V)
 Day seventythree  SapirWhorf Hypothesis again
 Day seventyfour  the "center of gravity" for new linguistics
 Day seventyfive  the reviews and the material facts on PreBabel (Chinese)
 Day seventysix  Is PreBabel just an oligosynthetic written Lojban?
 Day seventyseven  About the flexibility of language
 Day seventyeight  About the universal grammar
 Day seventynine  The "Large Complex System Principle" (LCSP) & the Martian Language Thesis
 Day eighty  The three tiers of axiomatic system hierarchy
Page 9:
 Day eightyone  Universal grammar  the total freedom
 Day eightytwo  Spider Web Principle and the Minimum Complexity Theorem
 Day eightythree  Life system is the Totality
 Day eightyfour  SULT is a language continuum
Day one 
I must thank you all for giving me your views on "my work." I have summarized your comments or critiques into four categories.
 A universal language is impossible,
 theoretically impossible
 Ave94  Why there can be no universal language:
 notoriouswhitemoth  There is no such thing as a universal languageexcept possibly mathematics. This is just yet another auxlang, and a rather carelessly and presumptuously constructed one at that, by the look of it
 Practically impossible or useless
 Thakowsaizmu  Universal languages in this vein are usually doomed from the get go. You cannot be one hundred percent nonsubjective when creating these words.
 notoriouswhitemoth  every grammar is uniquehow can all grammars be compatible when they use characteristics that are mutually exclusive?
 sangi39  Basically, this seems to be a (failed) attempt at saying all spoken languages can be learnt through a series of mnemnonic devices, of which very few are even "basic" in this attempt, regardless of the fact that the mnemnonic devices would increase the length of the learning method.
 sangi39  in English, a language with around 1,000,000 words (which a universal language may have to translate probably a few tensofthousands if we take into account irregularly used vocabulary and synonyms). So if we were to take the number 100,000 and set this as the number of words the universal language contained and 300 as the number of basic roots, the universal language would have 90,000 tworoot combinations, but most of these combinations would likely be vague, nonsensical or even better interpreted as incomplete phrases, using your proposed root system.
 ford  So, you still have the 'I told you so' issue of what sounds apply to what meanings. In this sense, most words are arbitrary and there is no way around that. There has to be consensus on what sounds mean what for anyone to communicate with anyone, and the assignations are always going to be highly arbitrary.
 Ave94  Even if you could get billions of people to speak the same language, it wouldn't last. Soon it would diverge into separate dialects, then mutually unintelligible languages. After all the work teaching everyone the language, you'd have to start all over again.
 The PB root word set is flawed.
 vreizhig  This is nonsense. I look at your list of roots, and the simplest symbols you have are reserved for a bunch of mystical mumbojumbo about spirits and heaven and energy and preexistence. Towards the end of the list, you have "roots" which are actually compounds, such as "place of human danger."
 brank  tienzen, all the issues of "universal language" aside, I think there are some fundamental problems with your proposed roots. ... These (just an example) are all quite obviously compounds, not roots,
 porpleafreet  wtf man, he made no jokes in that post, and you're still avoiding the problem of compounding, and have not yet stated why you have so many absurd and useless roots in your language.
 porpleafreet  Five individual roots for different hands and positions of them is quite odd.
 ford  As far as having a language based around the idea of 'roots' you cannot have multiple types of energy... there would be one root meaning 'energy'. These litter Tienzen's list. Random, unnecessary 'roots' in his rather haughty language that supposes way to much.
 porpleafreet  but, please explain to me why you have six roots for energy, and about the same amount for hand.
 sangi39  If it were culturally neutral, then foreign concepts would be more easily understood. Therefore, having six word for energy makes little sense when a word for "energy" combined with other roots would allow for easier understanding, but also give you space for four more roots.
 Khemehekis  Tienzen, why do you have a root for "scraping meat off the bone"?
 English is already the universal language.
 loftyD  Yes Tienzen there is a universal language, its called English.
 Emotional comments.
 Avjunza  I'm not going to stain myself by clicking that link, and the previous three posters have already pointed out several flaws, defects, and utter stupidities that you seem to have incorporated into not only your abomination, but your way of thinking as well.
 Maximillian  Like everyone already noticed, it's a bizarre absurd.
 Avjunza  I'm an amateur conlanger/linguist, and I still knew how fucked up his thing was.
 Mbwa  ..., but your attempt has shown some illogicalities(it's a word) that make it... not such a good universal language.
 vreizhig  Well, I got more of a NewAge impression from the spiritual roots than a Christian one. Like those vacuous smiley bozos who believe in "human energee" and "dolphin energee" and say things like "oh no, thee're blockeen my energee."
All these comments and critiques are good, including those emotional ones. Yet, I am unable to give any answer for those emotional comments. For a theory, it is either valid or invalid (right or wrong). I do not know how to answer the comment about the absurd or the bizarre. In fact, most new theory is absurd and bizarre in terms of the current paradigm. So, I don't truly know that whether they are praising me or else.
The next major issue is about my flawed PB root word set. Indeed, this is the key issue, and it will take many days to discuss in detail. However, I will give a short answer here first. This question is, in fact, partially answered in my site ( http://www.prebabel.info/proot01.htm ). The choice of the set is mine, and it can be significantly altered into a different set. In fact, the number can be easily reduced to half. Of course, I owe you all an explanation of why I made the choice as I did. Yet, it will take a bit time for that.
In fact, whether my PB root word set is good or bad is not truly the most important issue on PreBabel. If you can come up a better one, I will thank you for it. The most important issue is that whether a universal language in the line of PreBabel can ever exist, either theoretically or practically. If PreBabel is impossible theoretically, then no further discussion is needed.
The theoretically backbone for PreBabel is the Law 2,
Law 2 "When every natural language is encoded with a universal set of root words, a true Universal Language emerges."
If we can show just one example that one word of one natural language can never be encoded in anyway by any closed root word set (don't have to be the PB set), then the Law 2 is flawed. Yet, there is a way to get around this problem. That is, we can take this "odd" word in into the root word set as a new root. Only if there are unlimited "odd" words, the Law 2 will then failure for good. However, if the number of the odd words is quite large (a few from each language) although not unlimited, the Law 2 will then face the practically useless issue.
Day two  On the issue that a universal language is impossible.
Theoretically, a universal language is, seemingly, possible. If one day, all nations are united into one government, then, a universal language becomes possible. Yet, for this to happen, it is probably practically impossible. That is, some practical impossibilities can be a killer for the theoretical law of existence (theoretical possible). Some of critiques which I listed under "practical impossible" are very good questions, and they will be answered in detail one at a time. Before that, I will see them to be a true practical impossible but to be not a killer impossible which kills the theoretical possible.
In fact, this issue can be worked out with mathematics. Yet, it will go beyond some readers. So, let's look at some historical attempts on constructing a universal language and to see that how their fortunes were. There are, at least, having two schools trying to construct a universal language in the modern time (after Renaissance).
 The formal language school  There are many versions about this history. The widely accepted version is that Gottfried Leibniz (a great mathematician) was the founder of this school. The basic premise of this school is that the "algebra" is capable of expressing all conceptual thought, and the algebra symbolic manipulation can build a set vocabulary of human thought. In the following 400 years, many great mathematicians and linguists worked on this project, such as, Rene Descartes, Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, and thousands of great mathematicians and linguists in the early of the 20th century. By 1950s, the entire framework of the formal language was completed. The necessary and the sufficient conditions for a data set to be a "language" were well understood. With the introduction of computer in the early 1920s, many computer languages were constructed, and all of them are subset of those formal languages. That is, the formal language was very successful and reached a towering height that mankind have never seen before. Yet, the formal language failed its original goal, to construct a set of symbolic vocabulary (100% axiomatized) to replace the natural human language vocabulary (arbitrary and chaotic) and to become a true universal language. Today, the formal language itself is universal but is not a universal human language.
 Esperanto represents the second school  This school tries a different approach for constructing a universal language. Its strategy is to simplify the existing human language, greatly reducing the complicity of the grammar and greatly reducing the arbitrariness of the vocabulary by introducing a large number of root words. Esperanto is claiming that it is a true universal language today. Since its inception in late 1870 (140 years ago), it has now over one million speakers, a great achievement for a constructed language. Furthermore, it claimed two more very important achievements.
 As a second language, it is 10 times easier to learn than any natural language as a second language.
 By learning Esperanto first, a person can learn a natural language as a second language much easier than a person who did not learn the Esperanto can.
If the two claims are facts, then Esperanto is, indeed, a universal language, regardless of its small number of speakers in relation to the world population after 140 years. In 1920s, Esperanto had a chance to become a very powerful language when many Chinese linguists advocated to use Esperanto to replace the chaotic Chinese character system. If that effort were successful, there would have had over 1.3 billion people (more than 1/5 of the world population) in the world speaking Esperanto. By 1958, instead of adapting the Esperanto as the nation's language, Chinese government chose the option of simplifying the original characters to reduce the chaotic nature of the Chinese word system. Although I did not know the true reason of why the effort of Esperanto in China failed, I suspect that the possible reason is that its two claims above (a and b) are more of claims, not facts. Yet, these two claims (a & b) become the defining criteria for any language which wants to be a universal language.
In 1980s, the idea of a universal language came into my head. After studied the two schools above in detail, I concluded that a true universal language, if ever possible, must meet three criteria below.
 Instead of trying to replace the vocabulary of natural languages with a constructed vocabulary set as the formal language school tried, the true universal language must possess the ability and the capacity to unify and to encompass all vocabulary sets of all natural languages.
 As a second language, it must be 10 times or more easier to learn than any natural language as a second language.
 By learning it first, a person can learn a natural language as a second language much easier than a person who did not learn that universal language first.
If a language cannot meet the three criteria above, it is not a universal language. If no language (past, current or in the future) can meet the criterion i theoretically, then a universal language is theoretically impossible. Now, the issue of whether a universal language is theoretically possible becomes an analyzable issue, no need for any emotional statement anymore.
In order to answer all your critiques, I must discuss not only the issue itself but the journey which I took for resolving it. Although this is not the place for a personal vitae, knowing some of my background is useful for understanding the points of view of mine. In this Google age, anyone's background can be easily checked. "Tienzen (JehTween) Gong" is my real name, and many of your critiques are answered on some web pages, and you can find them if you Google my name. At any rate, I am listing two links below for your convenience.
Day three 
Question  from"Trailsend" Mmm...well, I would respond, but...it seems you did not read my prior post, or if you did, you opted not to address any of the points I raised there. I believe most of them are still valid arguments for why your criterion i, ii, and iii cannot be met universally.
Answer: I did read your prior post. It has a very good point, and it belongs in the group of "practically impossible."
I have showed that some practically impossible, seemingly, could turn into a killer for killing the "theoretically possible." Yet, if I can prove mathematically that the "theoretically possible" of the PreBabellike universal language can never be killed by any kind of practically impossible, then I have answered your question in a general term. However, I will still answer your arguments directly soon.
Question  from "sangi39" 
A universal language would have to have a similarly wide international spread as well as the backing of a large number of governmental bodies and the political, economic and cultural influences to make it viable, or even desirable, to accept, something even Esperanto has failed to do. ...
... , a complete overhaul of these international languages for a single universal language would take so much effort, a change in the curriculum, the establishment of a centralised international language board, the time actually required to learn it, chances are the majority of countries won't adopt it and will instead keep teaching their children the home language and possibly one of 5 already established international ones.
Answer  These are truly, truly good points. Yet, they are still belonging in the group of "practically impossible." I was almost attempting of using these points as the fourth criterion. However, in a detailed analysis, these points do not go beyond the criteria ii and iii. In fact, when the criteria ii and iii are met, those issues can be overcome. The true issue is that whether the criteria ii and iii can be met or not, period.
For anyone who raised the question of "a universal language is theoretically impossible," I have showed a history that there are many attempts during the past 400 years for constructing a universal language. However, as both schools are not fully successful as a true natural languagelike universal language, then the "theoretically impossible" issue is not truly answered with that history.
As the old paths are deadends, we must try a new path, and I defined a new approach with the three criteria. I am restating those three criteria below.
 Instead of trying to replace the vocabulary of natural languages with a constructed vocabulary set as the formal language school tried, the true universal language must possess the ability and the capacity to unify and to encompass all vocabulary sets of all natural languages.
 As a second language, it must be 10 times or more easier to learn than any natural language as a second language.
 By learning it first, a person can learn a natural language as a second language much easier than a person who did not learn that universal language first.
The criterion i is significantly different from the Formal Language School's approach which was trying to find an 100% axiomatized "vocabulary" set to "replace" the natural language vocabulary. My approach is to "encompass" all vocabulary of all natural languages, not to replace them, which is done by using an 100% axiomatized "root word" set, not with any new vocabulary set. Can such an approach be possible? This question must be answered theoretically first, then be verified in the real world. Thus, this approach must be written as a mathematical issue, for being able to analyze it. The following is the restatement of criterion i with mathematical terms.
 Set L is a vocabulary set of a (any) natural language. Set L can be an axiomatized set or be an arbitrary and chaotic set.
 Set R is an 100% axiomatized root word set.
Theorem A: For any Set L, there is a Set R which can encode the entire members of Set L.
Can theorem A be true and be proved?
If theorem A is true, then there must have a Set R which is able to encode any Set L (English, Russian, Chinese, ..., etc.). If anyone has a question about this statement, I will rewrite the Theorem A as follow.
 Set T is a set which encompasses all Set L (English, Russian, Chinese, ..., etc.).
Theorem A1: For Set T, there is a Set R which can encode the entire members of Set T.
Now, If theorem A1 is true, then there must have a Set R which is able to encode any Set L (English, Russian, Chinese, ..., etc.). That is, Set R is a universal encoding set for all Set L, and the Set R can be the building block for a universal language.
To prove or to disprove the Theorem A1 is a simple mathematic task. The following is the proof in a layman's term.
Part one: If set T is 100% axiomatized, there is a set R, as the set T itself can be the set R.
Part two: If set T is arbitrary and chaotic,
 set T can be encoded by a R1 set according to the "Two code theorem". R1 is a two code set, such as (0,1), (ying, yang), etc..
"Two code theorem" is a proved mathematic theorem. It states, " For any countable space, it can be encoded with a 'two code' set." Countable space is a mathematic term, and its defination can be found by Google it.
which encompass all physics universe (ordered or chaotic) but excluding the uncountable, such as feelings, spirits, etc.
 The shadow theorem in fractal  it states, "for every chaotic system, it is a shadow of an ordered system." For example, the chaotic scene on the day of 911, it was the continuation of an ordered morning. That is, if set T is chaotic, set T must be a shadow of a set R which is ordered.
 The large number theorem (Ramsey theorem)  it states, "If the number of objects in a set is sufficiently large and each pair of objects has one of a number of relations, then there is always a subset containing a certain number of objects where each pair has the same relation."
If we do not understand this mathematical jargon, it can be easily restated in common words, "Any large structure, regardless of how homogeneous or how chaotic it is, will necessarily contain an 'orderly substructure.'" Thus, if set T is chaotic and arbitrary, there will necessarily contain an 'orderly substructure', the set R.
Now, we have proved theoretically, that set R (an orderly set) is always a reality under any circumstance regardless of whether we can find it or not. With theorem A1, we can easily prove a theorem A2.
Theorem A2: No practical impossible event or anything else can inactivate the theorem A1.
Theorem A2 is, in fact, a corollary of theorem A1, and no proof is need for it.
With theorem A1, I have answered all critiques about the issue of "impossibility of both theoretical or practical for having a universal language." Yet, some of the critiques do have some excellent points in them, and I will discuss them in detail directly in the future.
With theorem A1, the criterion i (my new approach) becomes workable, and a universal root word set can definitely be found or be constructed. Yet, how? In 1980s, I had no the slightest idea of how, although I did list some guidelines.
 Something is obviously very difficult to be encoded, take them in as roots.
 Roots must be simpler than their composite, a kind of nobrain guideline but a very important one.
With these guidelines, I was still unable to construct a set R, the root word set. Furthermore, even if I successfully found a set R, a new universal language would have had no speaker at the beginning as a starter to get an engine going.
However, with an indepth analysis, the meeting criterion i will naturally force the manifestation of criteria ii and iii. When criteria ii and iii are manifested, all practical impossible could be overcome. Nonetheless, the problem is still about how to find or to construct the set R. Without the set R (the root word set), the project for a universal language was dropped without any choice for twenty some years.
Now, many of you said that my set R is flawed. For the issue of "impossibility," I dispelled it with theorem A1, the existence theorem. If I can prove a "uniqueness theorem" (there is one and only one set R), then all the "flaw" issues are resolved. A "uniqueness theorem" must prove that all different set R must be different expressions of a mother set R. I will talk about this later.
Day four 
Question  from "porpleafreet"  just PLEASE give a straight answer on why you have so many ridiculous and unnecessary roots. this issue has been raised multiple times on every page, and so far, you have not deigned to answer it. so, please save yourself any further grievance and just answer the question now.
seriously.
Answer  As a mathematician linguist and a language linguist, I would truly like to answer your questions by proving a "uniqueness theorem". However, with the post like yours, I must give in. Now, I am going to answer your questions with direct answers, right to the points. Yet, I still need to open a pathway in order to get to them.
As I already stated in my previous post, after the theoretical work for a universal language was completed in 1980s, I was desperately needing a root word set which is able to encode at least one natural language. So, I dived into the English Etymology. I studied all English root words and prefixes, but they only encompass a small portion of English vocabulary. The suffixes are mainly for the purpose of inflection. So, I went out and brought a book, "Dictionary of word origins" by Joseph T. Shipley (ISBN 8002215572). I read the entire dictionary, page by page. Then, I was kind of an expert on English etymology, but no cigar, no root word set for constructing a universal language.
If anyone can give me such a root word set, I will thank him a billion. If it is just a partial set (1/2, 1/5, 1/10, ...), I will still thank him a million. At least, I would have something to start with. If that partial set has many, many flaws, I would have still giving him many, many hugs. However, if someone gave me a complete set, I would then have demanded the guarantee of its completeness.
There was no such a kind person for twenty some years. However, in October 2003, my luck was turned. I was invited by Chinese government to Beijing for some meetings. In one meeting, a few linguists from Taiwan brought up an issue (not in the agenda) about the stupidity of the simplified Chinese word system. Their points were as follow:
 The traditional system was artistically beautiful while the new system destroyed it.
 The traditional system was the true heritage of Chinese culture. By abandoning it, China has lost the Chinese heritage.
 Returning to the traditional system will be one of the best way for bringing Taiwan back into China.
Many China's high officials and many China's linguists argued back with two simple points.
 The traditional system was too arbitrary, too chaotic, too complicated, too illogical, too difficult to be learned, and China had 85% illiterate rate in the 1960s because of such a stupid system.
 The simplified system is much easier to learn, and it reduced China's illiterate rate from 85% to 15% in 50 short years. This new word system is "the" greatest achievement of the Chinese government.
Although a great Chinese language linguist on classic Chinese writing, I was not wellversed on Chinese etymology at that moment. So, I kept my silence. Upon returning home, I decided to look into this issue. I was greatly surprised with many information which I did not know before.
 Before launching the simplified system, China was seriously considering to abandon the Chinese word system entirely, although finally settled with a simplified system.
 Many linguists around the world (in China or in the West) were overwhelmingly one sided condemning the traditional system as arbitrary, chaotic, complicated, illogical, ..., and more. Dr. F.S.C. Northrop was a great linguist and the most prominent Sinologist in the 1960. His final verdict on Chinese tradition word system is available at
http://www.chinesewordroots.org
This overwhelmed one sided condemnation shocked me. With this shock, some suspicions arose in me. I do know the Ramsey's large number theorem and the shadow theorem. However stupid the traditional Chinese word system is, it must have some orders in it. As a great theorist on theoretical physics, a good mathematician and an excellent Chinese language linguist, I am 100% confident that I can find whatever orders in that tradition system regardless of how minute it is or how deep it is hidden. I dived into the Chinese etymology. With a lesson, moreoff research schedule, I concluded that traditional Chinese word system is an axiomatized root word system by the November 2004. By April 2006, a root word set (220 roots) for Chinese traditional word system was in my hand. Then, why for 2000 years, no one noticed this fact? A simplified answer is that it is deeply camouflaged. Why and how, I will discuss them later. By January 2008, all Chinese characters (traditional or simplified, almost 60,000) were checked with this root word set. No "single" character escaped. And, a book "Chinese Etymology" was published with US copyright number TX6917909 in January 2008.
I did prove a theorem almost 30 years ago. If a root word set can encode one natural language, it can encode all languages. Thus, a root word set for a universal language was in my hand.
Now, again, that root word set was viewed as mumbojumbo, nonsense, illogical, stupid, ..., and more. I encoded about three hundred English words with the set. If you don't like my way of encoding, do a better one yourself. If you can find one English word which cannot be encoded with that set, then it is not complete, and you can condemn it all the way to the Kingdom come. Then, I will deliver all those condemnations to those dead ancient Chinese. I am 100% innocent.
So far, the critiques on the root word set can be put into three groups:
 "..., and the simplest symbols you have are reserved for a bunch of mystical mumbojumbo about spirits and heaven and energy and preexistence."
 Too many roots for one concept or one thing, such as the roots for hand.
 "Towards the end of the list, you have "roots" which are actually compounds"
Real, real, really, you should be able to answer those questions yourself.
Anyway, my answers are below:
 Why so many roots for one thing?
In Chinese traditional word system, it has some unstated rules.
 50% of words should not contain more than 3 roots, about 30,000 Chinese words.
 40 % of words should not contain more than 4 roots, about 24,000 Chinese words.
 9.9999...% of words should not contain more than 6 roots.
In fact, the root for hand is not just a hand, the physical hand. The root for hand is also used for actions, all kinds of action. If there are 20,000 words are action words by hand, the "one root for hand" system will look truly stupid, let alone to say it simply cannot do the job. Creating a second symbol for it is as simple as blinking an eye. Why should we be so stingy about creating a few more roots for the same thing? In Chinese system, there are 14 roots for hand, I already cut out quite a few of them for the PreBabel set.
 Why those stupid mumbojumbo? Because, they are the, the, the most important roots. So, I place them at the beginning in the root word list. The most difficult words to encode are the conceptual words, the abstract conceptual words, the abstract, abstract, abstract,..., conceptual words. Perhaps, we should use some mathematic operators for those type of roots, such as (+, , X, >, <, etc.). No, they are not abstract enough. Maybe, we could find some symbols in the abstract algebra. But, why bother? There is a set of stupid mumbojumbo right there to be the most abstract symbols. By using this stupid mumbojumbo set, I can encode Chinese word system with ease. Without it, almost half of the Chinese words cannot be encoded. If I can encode one natural language with a root word set, that root word set can encode all languages.
 Those stupid compounds, they are not roots, stup... There is a mathematic theorem, the "Minimum complexity theorem". It states, "for any system, it has a minimum complexity which cannot be further reduced by 'any' means." If we try to invent a system or a machine to reduce the complexity of a system, we can general do it if the minimum point is not reached. At the minimum point, no effort of any kind can reduce it any further. In fact, in my book "Chinese Etymology," in lesson three, I did reduce the Chinese root word set to half (from 220 to 110). Yet, I must reconstruct them when I encode the Chinese words. With a few compound roots in the root word set, the job of encoding a (any) language becomes much, much easier. If you don't like those compounds, ignore them.
I am sure that there still many other issues of yours are not answered. But, this is enough for today.
Day five 
Question  from "vreizhig"  Such a concept is only "important" to those who believe that spirits and heaven exist, and that concepts such as "preexistence" are anything other than meaningless nonsense.
you're clearly assigning spiritualist worldviews a supremacist position in your language, a privileged position above nonspiritual worldviews.
It's much the same for most of the other roots at the top of the list. Root #2, the vertical line, is assigned a completely nonsensical definition that apparently equates ordinary walls with energetic painterghosts. Many of these roots use the word "energy" in their definitions, but none of them use it in anything remotely resembling the scientific sense  they reek of the New Age use of "energy" as a synonym for "magic."
Answer  Although many of you disagree with me, you are all talking about issues, and they are very important and good issues.
My goal is to construct a universal language. It will be very stupid of me of promoting any kind of world view (such as the New Age) or a culturebiased position. I did hear about the name of New Age but not knowing what it is about. A language must be having the capacity of describing all worldviews, whatever that is, including the nonsense. Indeed, the nonsense might be the most difficult concept to describe with a language. Repeat, a language must be able to describe all kinds of nonsense, the preexistence or what not. If you see any nonsense roots in the PB set, then that PB can work.
For the culturalbias issue, as the PB root word set is derived from Chinese traditional word system, it is truly very hard for me to avoid the critique of been culturally biased. Although I cannot deny the origin of the PB root set is from Chinese system, I tried very hard to distance PB from Chinese system with two decisions.
 PB words are one dimensional (linear) , same as English words, not two dimensional as Chinese words which are in a square.
 In Chinese system, many meanings of Chinese words are inferred with the help of phonetics. I did think about introducing 300 sound modules (sound roots) for the PB system. If I did that, the encoding of other language becomes easier as I would have one more tool (dimension) to work with. Yet, it would be too much Chinese in PB. So, I gave that up and keep PB as a mute language at this moment. Almost all languages use phonetics to encode some foreign words, such KungFu, Hong Kong, Beijing, etc.. By keeping mute, PB lost one arm, and this is the big price that PreBabel paid for trying stay being nonculturallybiased.
Question  from "vreizhig"  Yeah... so that justifies using "horse's head," "tiger head," "deer head," and "ghost head," instead of having a root for "head" and then combining it with "horse," "tiger," etc. (I searched your list, and apparently you don't have a plain root for "horse"  you've got a root for its head, but not for the animal itself.) You're nowhere near the "minimum complexity," and any fiveyearold child can see that.
Answer  Excellent observation. Yet, you might not be able to disagree with me (because you cannot as it is a historical fact) that China launched the simplified system in 1958 because of the chaotic nature of the traditional Chinese word system, and this was their stated statement. However, there was a set of Kangsi radicals (214) which describes the system of the traditional set. Obviously, that Kangsi radical set did not convince all those Chinese linguists in the 1950s that the traditional is in fact an axiomatized system. The Kangsi set was published about 400 years ago by the Emperor Kangsi, and its content was known 2,000 years ago. In the Kangsi set, there is no bird's head, horse head, ..., but is bird, horse, tiger, etc., exactly the same as your saying.
Mathematics was and still is considered the most absolute knowledge among disciplines. Yet, only very recent, about 50 years ago, the Fuzzy Topology arose, and the fuzzy logic became very important only 20 years ago. Although we still do not have a true AI (artificial intelligence), it is fuzzy logic which allows the development of many semiAI(s) which are all over the places in our autocontrol systems which give us our modern enjoyments. The Fuzzy Topology is a very deep new mathematics, and we are unable to talk about the detail of it. However, we can get some ideas from some simple examples.
Which one is more fuzzy, the horse head or the horse? Of course, you can have your opinion on this. I am showing you mine. The horse head is more fuzzy than horse. Without using the mathematics terms, fuzzy means that it has more room to wonder. A horse is going to be a horse, and it can be ridden on, can do works, can be in race, etc.. Yet, a horse head can wonder a lot more. By simply adding a root, a horse head can become a horse and thus can do that all job a horse can do. Yet, a horse cannot do many things that a horse head can do, such as, a horse head over man can be the word "playful", a tiger head over man be "pretend", etc. ...
In fact, the "major" difference between the PB set and the Kangsi set is about this fuzziness. With Kangsi set, many words with horse head (not horse), bird head, tiger head, deer head, etc. cannot be dissected with the Kangsi radicals. With the Kangsi set, no one can discover that the traditional Chinese word system is an axiomatized system. With the PB set, there is no chance for anyone to miss that. Just that simple.
Day six 
Question  from "sangi39" 
Have you, then, based the system of 240 roots on the radicals of the Chinese writing system
Answer  Yes, 100%. I have mentioned this many times by now. In my book "Chinese Etymology," it listed only 220 roots, that is, those obvious compounds in the PB set was not there. In the Chinese system, those compounds are there naturally. For the convenience of encoding other languages with PB set, I added those compounds for my laziness and made this point a few times in our discussion before.
Yet, the Chinese system is deeply camouflaged by having many variants for some roots. Only after those variants being pointed out, a naked axiomatized system was revealed. I did not include any those variants (about 50) in the PB set. Why this Chinese system is so deeply camouflaged and how was it done is a big issue. I discussed this issue a few times in different papers. One is available at
http://www.chinesewordroots.org/nparadi.htm
Perhaps, the PB set is not good for encoding English. But it can "reproduce" the entire Chinese system without any additional effort, as I already said in my previous post,
"
By January 2008, all Chinese characters (traditional or simplified, almost 60,000) were checked with this root word set. No "single" character escaped. And, a book "Chinese Etymology" was published with US copyright number TX6917909 in January 2008. "
It is good, very, very good for the Chinese system. I remember that one member of this forum is a Taiwanese. In general, in Taiwan or in China, a high school graduate can read about 3000 Chinese characters (for a total about 60,000), a college graduate 5000 to 6000. Yet, "none" of them knows that why a character is written as it is, not otherwise. The chance for that member to know why the characters of his name (2 or 3 characters) are written as they are is not very high. This PB set not only can reproduce the entire Chinese system with ease, it reveals the reason that why a word is written as it is.
This is not a place for mathematics. So, I will not do any math proofs here anymore. But, math is a very important general science, that is, it has many applications, in physics, in engineering, in financing, in almost everything. In fact, many math theorems have the great importance in linguistics. I am going to list the most important ones below. If anyone wants a detailed proof about them, he can always find answers in the math department in a university near to him.
 Existence theorem  For any arbitrary and chaotic data set T, there always exists an axiomatized set R which can encode the members of Set T.
Corollary 1  L1 and L2 are two arbitrary and chaotic data sets. Set R is an axiomatized set for L1, then R is also an axiomatized set for L2.
Because of this Corollary, the ability of translating one language to another is, thus, guaranteed.
Yet, most importantly, an axiomatized set from Chinese language can encode any other language (including English) is also guaranteed.
 Uniqueness theorem  For any arbitrary and chaotic data set T, and R1 and R2 are two axiomatized set for set T, then R1 and R2 are isomorphic.
That is, they are essentially the same set with different expressions. For example, if you use 240 English phonemes to replace those PB roots, your new set is, in fact, the same as the PB set. If you don't like those mumbojumbo symbols and replace them with some beautiful abstract symbols in their places, your new set is still the same set. If you don't like those compounds and remove them for good once and for all, your new set is still the same old set, as those compounds are not basic but added for my laziness.
Day seven 
Question  from "jal"  quote from "sangi39" I think if he has done what I think he's done, he is very very culturally biased, since even though the chinese character for say "wealth" consists of the basic characters "house", "one/heaven", "mouth/gate", "upright/proud" and "ten", this doesn't mean the Chinese people themselves construct the idea of "wealth" in such a way or that the English speakers of the word do either.  end quote.
Exactly. He kind of reverseengineered the Chinese script, and found it very nifty, and based a "universal" language on it. Pretty weird.
Answer 
My heart is not biased of any kind. If you say that the PB roots are Culturally biased at this point, you are 100% correct, as they are 100% Chinese ideographs. Perhaps, one day I will change it into a set more culturally neutral symbols, but it will take some efforts to constructed them. At this moment, I do need them to be Chinese ideographs. With this said, if you still view the PB set which is culturally biased, then so be it, and I accept that.
"The reverseengineered the Chinese script" is, again, exactly correct, 100% correct. That is, this PB set is not whipped up out of the blue, it is 100% based on Chinese traditional character system. In fact, I made this point very clear many times over in my previous posts. I don't know that what the sudden surprise about it is now.
According to the "uniqueness theorem", I can simply change the PB set with 240 English Phonemes without truly change the essence of it. Yet, at this point, I need the PB set stay as it is for a precise reason. In a previous post, I made three criteria for a universal language.
 Instead of trying to replace the vocabulary of natural languages with a constructed vocabulary set as the formal language school tried, the true universal language must possess the ability and the capacity to unify and to encompass all vocabulary sets of all natural languages.
 As a second language, it must be 10 times or more easier to learn than any natural language as a second language.
 By learning it first, a person can learn a natural language as a second language much easier than a person who did not learn that universal language first.
Each criterion must be testable. That is, there is no point of arguing with a big tongue in cheek. With the PB set as it is now, we can test the criterion ii and iii right now with the following steps.
Step 1: Encodes a language with PB set. The Chinese traditional character set is, now, 100% encoded with the PB set.
Note: The Chinese traditional character set is, in fact, encoded with 220 roots and 50 variants of those roots. That is, that set has a total of 270. For the PB set, all those variant roots are not included, and a few (about 10) which are very much culturally oriented are also not included. That is, the PB set contains about 210 the original Chinese root words. 210/270 = 78%
Step 2: Find a person (Mr./Ms. A) who knows not a single Chinese character at this point and teach him the PB set without any connection to the Chinese language. Yet, he must remember the entire PB set, front to back, and back to front a few times over.
Step 3. Find a person (Mr./Ms. B) who is, now, able to read the current Chinese newspaper.
Step 4. Having a contest between the two persons with the following procedure: On a current Chinese newspaper, arbitrary select a word (character) and ask both persons three questions.
 Is that character a blob? or it has some internal structure? That is, can that character be dissected into smaller parts? As the PB set is only "78%" of the proper Chinese set listed in my book "Chinese Etymology", Mr A who knows not a single Chinese word should get 70% correct answer.
 What is the meaning of that character? Obviously, Mr. B should do much better on this question as he is already able to read Chinese newspaper.
 With that meaning, why that character is written as it is, not otherwise. On this question, I will bet that Mr. A will do better.
This is a very simply test and can be done in a family setting if you have a Chinese neighbor.
I did this test many times over, and I was right every time. Of course, you don't have to take my words for it. Yet, if you do not do a test yourself and simply want to argue with tongue in cheek, I won't answer those kind of argument any more. If you can prove me wrong, I will, of course, want to analyze your test.
With this simple test, we can validate or invalidate the criteria ii and iii. When both are validated for the PB set, PB is ready for a new test, the universal language test.
In general, it takes 5 to 6 years for a native Chinese or Taiwanese to learn the Mandarin since birth at home and 4 to 5 "school" years to get the ability to read Chinese newspaper, that is, about a good 10 year learning on that language. Yet, in my book "Chinese Etymology", I guaranteed that for any person (12 years or older) who knows not a single Chinese word (character) at the beginning can read the current Chinese newspaper after study (in a true effort) with my method for 300 hours (3 hours a day for 100 days). I do have many successful stories. In fact, if you are the one who knows not a single Chinese word (or know very little) at this point, you yourself will be a good candidate for this test. Of course, if you are not interested in facts, it is your right to be so 100%, and I will respect that.
Day eight 
Question  from "sangi39" 
So, it seems the PB radical system is based really more loosely on Chinese radicals, taking into account more spiritual interpretations of some radicals and reworking others into less complex radicals. This would help towards explaining the lack of verbs, since the majority of chinese characters are built of radicals which had a primarily concrete noun meaning, but also the "fuzzy" choice in certain "head" radicals, where the original radical is remade by adding some other radical.
Question  from "ashucky" 
I have to say that I understand Tienzen at this point and also kinda agree with that. But again, you have only seven such words (bird's head, fish head, animal's head, horse head, tiger head, deer head, ghost head) and I'm a little bothered by the "tiger head" because I think it would make pretty much no sense when speaking with people that normally don't use use "tiger", for example Inuits. Of course they now know what a tiger is (thank god for the books and TV) but it would be still kinda odd for them, I believe. Or is that why you have "animal's head"?
On this note, what's exactly the difference between "bird's head" and "bird's head in general"?
Answer  The "Fuzzy Topology" is a relatively new discipline in mathematics, and it will take a good 4 to 5 years of graduate study for covering its entire scope. I, of course, cannot describe it in a few posts here. Yet, it is truly a very important concept in linguistics. I will very, very, very briefly discuss some of its history and concepts here.
As the "Set Theory" is now the backbone of the modern mathematics, it was developed about 100 some years ago. Although there are many different Sets, two of them are the most important ones, the closed set and the open set. I will not talk about their detailed mathematic definitions. A common sense for the word "closed" and "open" will do here for now.
For the closed sets, many theorems were developed over the years and they all behaved nicely. However, there are many weird characteristics for open sets. About 50 years ago, many great mathematicians took the challenge to rein in those wild open sets, and the Fuzzy Topology began. At the same time, many computer languages arose during that period. The nicely programmed algorithms behaved very nicely, and it will always give the same answer each and every time when it runs. Yet, for an incomplete algorithm, it will behave wildly, and a new mathematical discipline arose, the Fractal. By mid 1980s, the Fuzzy Logic arose from these two disciplines, and the Fuzzy Logic is the soul for many modern gadgets today.
Without using the mathematical jargon, the fuzziness is simply the result of something "incomplete". Yet, it took all those great mathematicians to discover that the "incompleteness" is much more powerful than "completeness". In fact, this point can be shown with a very simple example.
 There are one thousand "different" birds needing to be described with a set of 100 symbols.
 Set A has 100 different types of completed birds.
 Set B has 100 different body parts of birds.
So, set A can describe 100 of the 1000 birds. Yet, set B can definitely describe all 1000 birds with ease.
There is no comparison between the "completeness" and the "incompleteness" in terms of their power. The roots (or radicals) in the Kangsi set are all complete characters while the most of the roots (with only very few exceptions) of PB set are incomplete characters. This is the "major" difference between the Kangsi set and the PreBabel set. Yet, the consequence of this difference is immensely great. With the Kangsi set, there is no chance of any kind to discover that the Chinese traditional word system is, in fact, an 100% axiomatized system. This turns out to be the case for the past 2000 years. With the PB set, there is no chance for the traditional word system to hide the fact that it is an 100% axiomatized although it is so deeply camouflaged.
Thus, in Trailsend's post, his question can be partially answered with a law below.
Law A: If set R is a root word set for a universal language (that is, being able to encode all natural languages), set R "must" be a "fuzzy set".
Perhaps, many of you disagree with me on how to select the PB set, and I will respect all that. I just want to point out my reasons.
 It is derived 100% from the Chinese system (not by my choice) as it is the only system that "I" know, which is an 100% axiomatized.
 Many seemingly nonsenses (the spiritual roots, the similar roots, etc.) are included in the PB for a sole reason to accommodate the Chinese system. As long as it (the PB) can reproduce the entire Chinese system with ease, one natural language is encoded by it (the PB) already. Then, the criteria ii and iii becomes testable. By learning the PB set (about 10 hours), a person who knows not a single Chinese word at the beginning can acquire 3000 Chinese characters (which is needed for reading a current Chinese newspaper) with only 300 hours of study. Without the PB, the native Chinese or Taiwanese children takes about 10 years to reach that level.
 With the "uniqueness theorem", although the current PB set is kind of odd and can be definitely accused as culturally biased, it does contain the "true" PreBabel set. However unhappy many of you are about the current PB set, it is all that I can offer now. If you still do not believe that a true universal language is ever possible or is not convinced that the uniqueness theorem is valid, not much I can do for you now.
Day nine 
Question  from "Trailsend" 
Let A and B be the respective sets of lexemes of two distinct languages. Let X be a universal language as described in i, and let X(Y) be the "encoding" of the set Y in X. There ought to also be some inverses of X(Y), X_N(x), which map some set encoded in X back to a natural language N.
For criterion i to hold, X_A(X(B)) = A, X_B(X(A)) = B, etc. Thus, X_A(X(X_B(X(A)))) = A, and so on and so forth. (That is, the transform X can map from A to B and back any number of times, while the mapping is preserved.) This can only hold, however, if the sets A and B are isomorphic. Otherwise, they will have different structural patterns, and it will be impossible to use a single transform to bidirectionally map between the two.
As I (and others) have mentioned earlier, this is a fatal flaw of the theory, not just of the application. All the thousands of languages in the world are nowhere close to isomorphic, and therefore require a great number of "transforms" to map from one to the other. Your system may certainly work for "encoding" Chinese into English, because it was built on Chinese with English in mind. But there is no evidence that it will also be able to fully map Hindi to Nahuatl, for example.
Answer  This is truly a very good and very important issue.
Indeed, you are right. For criterion i to hold, set A and set B must be isomorphic. The definition of "isomorphic" in mathematics uses a lot of math jargons. At here, we say that if two sets can find one to one correspondence to all their members, then those sets are isomorphic to each other. This is not a precise mathematic definition but is good enough for our purpose here.
For the "fact" that we can always make translations between two languages, to and back, is already "a kind of" proof that those two language sets are isomorphic, although we might need to use a few different pathways to translate them, such as:
 Formal translation  word to word
 Semantic translation  meaning to meaning
 Phonetic translation  phonetic importing, such Kungfu
 Note tag translation  must include a note to explain the translation
As this issue is so important, I will discuss it in better details as follow:
 Instead of comparing member to member, we can compare the structure of the two sets. That is, listing the necessary and the sufficient conditions for each set, and they can be compared. In the main page of the prebabel site, I did such a list (especially for English), and it could be a partial answer for this question.
A better description of the necessary and the sufficient conditions for "any" language was described in detail in a paper written in June 2007 (35 pages), and it is available at
http://www.chinesewordroots.org/cwr018.htm
 The "Private Language Thesis (PLT)"  is a private language possible? This is an issue discussed both in detail and in depth in philosophy of language. The PLT states that "any private language is impossible." I will not repeat their discussions and reasonings here, as it is too much to talk about and the kind of language that they were using having too many jargons. Yet, I will make some my own observations here.
 If a private language is possible in one language, then by definition, that part (the private part) of that language can never be translated to any other language. Thus, that language can never be isomorphic to any other language. Yet, for a practical purpose, we can remove that private part from that language, and the remainder of that language becomes isomorphic to other languages. Then, all languages are still isomorphic among one another practically, although not theoretically.
 I, personally, do agree with the PLT that any private language (including the Martian, if any) is impossible under any circumstances. As a theorist on theoretical physics, I do know that there is still a small spot of the universe which is unknown to physics. That is, the language that used by that small spot or that is needed to describe that small spot is private in all senses, practically and theoretically. But, all physicists are all confident that we can understand any private languages of nature as soon as we can "hear" it, such as by using some detectors. Our biggest problem is that we cannot hear those private languages with our senses. During the past 10 years, over 10 billion US dollars were spent to build a Large Hadron Colliders (with the most advanced detectors, the eyes and the ears). As soon as that private language of the subparticle world is heard, we, physicists, will be able to decode it. Maybe someone will say that God's language is incomprehensible to human and is, thus, private. Well, I won't argue with that but will exclude it from the PLT which encompasses only the nonGod languages. Maybe someone will say that many dead languages are private. Well, a dead language is no long a language, as there is no longer a conversation between it to us, although many dead languages can still be decoded. Any dead language is not an issue for PLT.
With these and with the fact that all known natural languages can "always" be translated among one another, the proof of isomorphic among all languages can be worked out theoretically in mathematics. I did discuss four theorems before and will add one "Isomorphic theorem" here. I am listing them below again.
 Isomorphic theorem  All natural languages are isomorphic among one another regardless of how huge a difference between their looks superficially, such as Chinese and English both on their word symbols and the grammar.
 Existence theorem  There is, at list, one (1) 100% axiomatized set R (root word set) which is able to encode one natural language.
 Universal theorem  If Set R can encode one natural language L1, then Set R can encode all other natural languages. The Set R is called the PreBabel set.
 Uniqueness theorem  If Set R1 and Set R2 are both PreBabel sets, R1 and R2 are isomorphic.
 Fuzziness theorem  If Set R is a PreBabel set, then Set R must be a fuzzy set.
Those theorems can be proved mathematically even without an actual Set R "on Hand." However, everything changes as soon as an actual Set R is "on" hand. Those theorems are no longer just provable theoretically but are "testable" physically and practically.
 The current PB set is able to encode the traditional Chinese character set completely, 100%. This is testable, simply check out every Chinese character with the PB set.
 Using the current PB set to encode any other natural language, such as English. I did about 300 English words. This is, indeed, a testable procedure.
 As the Chinese system is already 100% encoded, the criteria ii and iii "becomes" testable (no longer theoretical). And, I discussed this in my last post.
Of course, I have not covered all issues about a universal language. However, the above outline does provide a clear framework for a universal language. Many of your critiques are truly good, such as:
 Why are there "bird's head" and "bird's head in general"?
 Any universal language will eventually diverge,...
 Semantics
 ...
I will discuss these issues soon.
Day ten 
Question  "sangi39" 
So, it seems the PB radical system is based really more loosely on Chinese radicals, taking into account more spiritual interpretations of some radicals and reworking others into less complex radicals. This would help towards explaining the lack of verbs, since the majority of chinese characters are built of radicals which had a primarily concrete noun meaning, but also the "fuzzy" choice in certain "head" radicals, where the original radical is remade by adding some other radical.
Answer  The current PB set is 100% derived from the traditional Chinese word system, but it is absolutely not based "loosely" on it. At this point, I need to explain an "Invention theorem" which is also very important for proving the existence of a true PreBabel set from a different angle.
In the past, many newspapers reported that a new law of nature was discovered. This could well be the case for some, as a new law was summarized after some phenomena were observed and analyzed. But, most of the time, a theory is constructed long before its verification. Then, that theory is "invented", not discovered. In my personal case, I am the author of the book "Super Unified Theory" (Library of Congress Catalog Card number 8490325). By typing in the book title "Super Unified Theory" at the US Copyright Office's search page below,
US Copyright Office's search page
the only result is me (JehTween Gong). I am the only person in the world who claimed the book title "Super Unified Theory" since its publication in 1984. It is also the case in the High Energy Physics data base at Stanford University .
High Energy Physics data base at Stanford University
Yet, that theory is not verified, and some physicists do view it as a crackpot. If it turns out to be a crackpot, it will go into the trash can in no time. Thanks God, it has not reached that point yet. On the other hand, if one day, it is verified, then the whole world "discovered" that that theory is true. That is, I did not discover that theory but invented it. As those physics laws (listed in the book) are surely preexisting before my invention, yet, I did invent it as any sign of such an existence was nowhere in sight at the time of my invention. In fact, most of the science theories work the same way, as a invention, not a discovery. Thus, an "Invention Theorem" can be proved.
Invention Theorem: While the universe is moving forward through some kind of pathways long before the era of human existence, all natural laws (in physics, in chemistry, in biology, in mathematics, etc.) which describe those pathways are "invented" by human.
This "Invention Theorem" may not be carrying much weight in the eyes of physicists, chemists, but it is one of the most important theorem for linguistics, especially for a universal language. And, I will discuss this point later.
Although the PB set is 100% derived from the traditional Chinese word system, it was unknown to Chinese people for 2,000 years, and thus, the traditional Chinese word system was viewed as the worst written language in the world during the past 200 years by both native Chinese linguists and linguists of the West. Indeed, the PB set is my invention, alone. And, I am responsible for it 100%, for better or for worse. Thus, I must explain the principles behind its construction. In fact, those critiques of yours do hit on those principles. I am summarizing your critiques below:
 Why are those spiritual roots?
 Why are so many similar roots? Such as,
 6 or 7 roots just for hand
 bird's head and bird's head in general
 Why uses "horse head" instead of "horse", etc.?
 Why are so many compound roots?
These are, indeed, good questions. I need to answer them in two ways, for practical and theoretical reasons.
 Practical reason  I need to "accommodate" the Chinese system. It did, and I followed. With the current PB set, I can "reproduce" the entire Chinese system with ease. That is, I can "encode" the entire Chinese system with ease. This makes the Chinese system to be a "dialect" of the PreBabel. Then, the first step of constructing a universal language is completed. It also makes every premise in a universal language becoming testable, such as the criteria ii and iii.
 Theoretical reason  With the "Fuzziness theorem", any PreBabel set, if any, must be a fuzzy set. Thus, the entire design is according to the Fuzzy Logic. Today, the Fuzzy Logic is wellknown. So, I will not go in the details on it. I am simply listing the key points which are important for the PB set design below. In comparison to the formal logic, there are, at least, three key differences which are having great importance for a PB set design.
 Silhouette (bivalence) for formal logic vs gradient (multivalence) for Fuzzy set
 Completeness (formal logic) vs incompleteness (fuzzy logic)
 Discrete (formal logic) vs continuum (fuzzy logic)
The completeness vs incompleteness issue was discussed in my last post.
We did live in a formal logic world for long time. Every gadget is either on or off, no choice inbetween. Yet, language is not a blackwhite bivalence world with only yes or no. There are many, many gradients in between the two extremes. Thus, the linguistic universe must be a fuzzy set, and of course, its root word set, if any, must also be a fuzzy set. Thus, many similar (with gradients) roots in the PB set is not only common but sometimes is a must. Using the "bird's head" and the "bird's head in general" as an example, the "bird's head" was used to identify all birds in terms of their names. The "bird's head in general" is used to describe the quality or things related to birds. By simply adding one more root, a reader will never confuse the things or the quality about birds as the name of some birds.
If the multivalence is better than the bivalence, the continuum will be even better. The multivalence is still discrete by all means. Yet, how to create continuum in the linguistic universe? It is done by inheritance and compounding. Starting with a fuzzy root word set, it begets generation one (G1) words, then G2, G3, ..., etc. For practical reason, it normally does not go beyond G5. Something very important happens during this kind of growth and compounding, that is, the compounds contain more information than the sum of their parts (roots or radicals). That is,
 F(r1, r3, r7), the compound of r1, r3 and r7.
 Info (F(r1, r3, r7)), the information carried by F(r1, r3, r7)
will often be described with the following equation,
Info (F(r1, r3, r7)) > (large than) the sum of Info (r1) + Info (r3) + Info (7)
This additional small bit of information fills the discrete cracks, and the entire linguistic universe becomes a continuum. This compounding is, in fact, one of the essence of the PreBabel design. How ironic it is that a fuzzy set becomes much more precise than any crisp set. Fuzzy set discriminates much better and supply much more information.