Questions and Answers
Copyright © September 2009 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong
Page 6
After the inception of the PreBabel site on July 14, 2009, it has caught many people's interest. An in-depth 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 twenty-one --- Is Esperanto a universal language?
- Day twenty-two --- The strategy of constructing a universal language
- Day twenty-three -- Should PreBabel words be intuitive? And, the PreBabel a, b and c.
- Day twenty-four -- Can PreBabel (language x) be learned easier than the language x itself?
-
Day twenty-five -- About "words and concepts of one language are grouped differently in another language.
- Day twenty-six -- The PreBabel process is as easy as 1, 2 and 3.
- Day twenty-seven -- How and when can PreBabel (Proper) emerge?
- Day twenty-eight -- more about intuitiveness.
- Day twenty-nine -- about memory anchors on learning a language.
- Day thirty -- about tests for PreBabel.
Page 4:
- Day thirty-one -- about PreBabel (Chinese).
- Day thirty-two -- the debut of PreBabel (Chinese) at AP Annual Conference 2007 (CollegeBoard).
- Day thirty-three -- traditional Chinese etymology vs PreBabel (Chinese).
- Day thirty-four -- the first constructed language, the Lii character set.
- Day thirty-five -- phonological reconstruction vs PreBabel (Chinese).
- Day thirty-six -- more about the construction of the Lii character set.
- Day thirty-seven -- Published works on PreBabel (Chinese).
- Day thirty-eight -- more of traditional Chinese etymology vs PreBabel (Chinese).
- Day thirty-nine -- PreBabel methodology I -- equivalent transformation.
- Day forty -- Types of conlang and more on traditional Chinese etymology vs PreBabel (Chinese).
Page 5:
- Day forty-one --- PreBabel epistemology: the Occam's razor.
- Day forty-two --- axiomatic domain, theory and system
- Day forty-three --- about Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
- Day forty-four --- About the differences among languages
- Day forty-five --- Reasons being in the dark
- Day forty-six --- about large and complex system
- Day forty-seven --- A constructed linguistic universe (I)
- Day forty-eight -- about China's language policy
- Day forty-nine --- Construced linguistic universe (II)
- Day fifty -- Constructed linguistic universe (III)
Page 6:
- Day fifty-one -- Constructed linguistic universe (IV)
- Day fifty-two -- Constructed linguistic universe (V)
- Day fifty-three -- Constructed linguistic universe (VI)
- Day fifty-four -- Constructed linguistic universe (VII)
- Day fifty-five -- Summary of constructed linguistic universe
- Day fifty-six -- Discovering the PreBabel principle
- Day fifty-seven -- Benefits of PreBabel
- Day fifty-eight -- the PreBabel procedures
- Day fifty-nine -- about Chinese Etymology
- Day sixty -- Can the parts be larger than the whole?
Page 7:
- Day sixty-one -- Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis revisited
- Day sixty-two -- The two step PreBabel procedures
- Day sixty-three -- Can linguistics be justified with math laws?
- Day sixty-four -- About heavily inflecting or agglutinating languages
- Day sixty-five -- Can any theory be based on only two highly atypical examples?
- Day sixty-six -- Can PreBabel encompass the Martian language?
- Day sixty-sevenCan the word Şj be dissected and decoded with the PreBabel root set?
- Day sixty-eight -- Comparison the PreBabel (Chinese) with some old school ways
- Day sixty-nine -- Comparison (II)
- Day seventy -- Comparison (III)
Page 8:
- Day seventy-one -- Comparison (IV)
- Day seventy-two -- Comparison (V)
- Day seventy-three -- Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis again
- Day seventy-four -- the "center of gravity" for new linguistics
- Day seventy-five -- the reviews and the material facts on PreBabel (Chinese)
- Day seventy-six -- Is PreBabel just an oligosynthetic written Lojban?
- Day seventy-seven -- About the flexibility of language
- Day seventy-eight -- About the universal grammar
- Day seventy-nine -- The "Large Complex System Principle" (LCSP) & the Martian Language Thesis
- Day eighty -- The three tiers of axiomatic system hierarchy
Page 9:
- Day eighty-one -- Universal grammar -- the total freedom
- Day eighty-two -- Spider Web Principle and the Minimum Complexity Theorem
- Day eighty-three -- Life system is the Totality
- Day eighty-four -- SULT is a language continuum
Day fifty-one -- Constructed linguistic universe (IV)
From Tienzen:
Thus, we can rewrite the language "type" equation, Lx (a real natural language) = {1, Pa, Ia, Ra, Na, 1}. Then,
Type 0 = {Pa, Ia, Ra, Na} = {0, 0, 0, 0}
Type 1 = {Pa, Ia, Ra, Na} = {1, 1, 1, 1}
... Corollary 1: English is a "type 1" language.
Then, we can compare the other real natural languages with this constructed language universe, one by one. Yet, I think that two will be enough to prove the point, and I will make such a comparison with Chinese language in my next post.
With the previous definitions:
Similarity transformation axiom -- Sa
Predicative axiom -- Pa
Inflection axiom -- Ia
Redundancy axiom -- Ra
Non-Communicative axiom -- Na
Exception axiom -- Ea
For Sa = 1, all other axioms are either repeating or inherited in each level or sub-level through out the hierarchy. Thus, the language "type" equation can be and should be written in better details, such as,
Lx (a real natural language) = word {Pa, Ia, Ra, Na} + phrase {Pa, Ia, Ra, Na} + sentence {Pa, Ia, Ra, Na}
For Chinese language,
Pa = 0 for all levels.
Ia = 0 for all levels.
Ra = 0 for all levels.
Yet, for Na (the Non-Communicative axiom), it is not a (0, 1) operator but is a fuzzy operator. And this fuzzy operator goes way beyond the coverage of Ea (Exception axiom).
For Chinese words, the Na basically equals to zero (0), but its exceptions go way beyond the Ea can cover. Thus, I must introduce a new concept, the "apostrophe"; 0' is basically a 0 but with exceptions go way beyond the Ea can cover. Note: this case exists at the pre-word level which is not defined thus far.
For Chinese phrases, the Na basically equal to 1'; the word order of phrases does make difference most of the time.
For Chinese sentences, the Na basically equals to 0'; the word order of sentences does "not" make difference most of the time. Such as, (I love he) = (love he I) = (he I love) = (love I he)
Thus, Lx (Chinese language) = word {Pa, Ia, Ra, Na} + phrase {Pa, Ia, Ra, Na} + sentence {Pa, Ia, Ra, Na}
= word {0, 0, 0, 0'} + phrase {0, 0, 0, 1'} + sentence {0, 0, 0, 0'}
With such a complicated equation, we should introduce an arithmetics table to calculate it. As there are three parts, we can define the operation table as below,
0 + 0 + 1 = 0'
1 + 1 + 0 = 1'
0 + 0 + 0' = 0'
1 + 1 + 1' = 1'
0 + 0 + 0 = 0
1 + 1 + 1 = 1
and, 0' + 1' + 0' = 0', so,
Lx (Chinese language) = {Pa, Ia, Ra, Na} = {0, 0, 0, 0'} = 0'
That is, the Chinese language is a (type 0') language.
Now, we can re-visit the English language. Superficially, the English words are inflected at the "word form" level. Yet,
- Many words can represent many distinct parts of speech.
- The correct part of speech for many words cannot be decided without understanding the semantics or even the pragmatics of the context.
Thus, the Ia (inflection axiom) in English is not a perfect 1, and it should be 1'. That is, the English language should be a (type 1') language. Perhaps, the (type 0) and (type 1) are ideal languages.
Now, we know the difference between two languages. Is that difference superficial or fundamental? We need to introduce three more operators to answer this question.
Day fifty-two -- Constructed linguistic universe (V)
From Tienzen:
Perhaps, the (type 0) and (type 1) are ideal languages.
Now, we know the difference between two languages. Is that difference superficial or fundamental? We need to introduce three more operators to answer this question.
What we are doing here is not only new to linguistics but is also new to science. Thus, we must make the terms that we are using very clear without any misunderstanding. The terms of axiom, postulate, assumption, hypothesis and premise are sometimes viewed as synonyms. The followings are the definitions for this work, the "constructed linguistic universe."
- Axiom -- it is a non-logical axiom and is selected arbitrary. Its purpose is to demarcate a domain.
- Hypothesis -- it is a statement which must be proved, generally via a theory.
- Postulate -- it is a statement that is assumed to be true without proof and to serve as a starting point for proving other statements. In practice, a postulate must have enough evidences to support (not to prove) its validity.
Now, I will introduce two postulates for this "constructed linguistic universe."
- Postulate one -- the "Operator of pidginning" transforms a language Lx toward the direction to the "type 0" language.
Definition 9 -- the "Operator of pidginning" transforms a language Lx to a pidgin (Lx).
- Postulate two -- the "Operator of creoling" transforms a pidgin (Lx) toward the direction to the "type 1" language.
Definition 10 -- the "Operator of creoling" transforms a pidgin (Lx) to a creole (Lx).
With these two postulates, we can make some predictions.
Predication one -- Lx and Ly have different language structures. That is, [Lx - Ly] = D1,
and [pidgin (Lx) - pidgin (Ly)] = D2, then,
D2 < D1, D2 is smaller than D1. That is, the difference of the language structure in terms of "language type" between two pidgins is smaller than the difference between two original languages
Predication two -- Lx is a natural language with a creole (Lx) and Ly with creole (Ly). And,
[Lx - creole (Lx)] = D1
[Ly - creole (Ly)] = D2
[creole (Lx) - creole (Ly)] = D3
Then, D3 < D1, D3 is smaller than D1, and
D3 < D2, D3 is smaller than D2.
The difference of the language structure in terms of "language type" between two creoles is smaller than the difference between it and its parent language.
If we can find some evidences for these two predictions, the following hypothesis is proved.
Hypothesis one -- this "constructed linguistic universe" forms a linear language spectrum, ranging from the "type 0" to the "type 1". That is, all natural languages are distributed in this language spectrum, and this "constructed linguistic universe" encompasses the entire "real" linguistic universe.
If the "hypothesis one" is true, then the difference among natural languages is superficial, not fundamental. The great divide between the "type 0" and "type 1" can be bridged over with two operators, "Operator of pidginning" and "Operator of creoling".
Thus far, we only concern about the "structures" of the languages, without any concern about the members (the word forms, sounds, cultures, etc.) in those structures. This is also an issue which must be discussed.
Day fifty-three -- Constructed linguistic universe (VI)
From Tienzen:
Thus far, we have made the following points.
A. The constructed language universe has three layers of hierarchy.
First, we should have a bird eyes view on this constructed language universe. In fact, it has three layers (levels) of hierarchy.
- The pre-word layer (pw - sphere) -- this sphere is, in fact, not defined thus far in this constructed language universe. Yet, it will be the vital sphere for PreBabel. And, it will be added later.
- The word/sentence layer (ws - sphere) -- this sphere has three sub-layers
- the word sphere
- the phrase sphere
- the sentence sphere
This ws-sphere is governed (or delineated) by two operators, "Operator" of composite (Opc) and "Operator" of dot (Opd).
- The post-sentence layer (ps - sphere) -- this sphere is context and culture laden or centered. In fact, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is defined in this sphere, and thus it is a major interest of our discussion. This ps-sphere is governed by the "Operator" of accumulation (Opa).
Thus, each sphere is governed or delineated by operators. In this post, I will discuss only the ws-sphere. And, we can "derive" some theorems and laws now.
The pw-sphere is not yet defined. The ps-sphere is context (history, culture, etc.) centered, and thus, there should be some fundamental differences among different languages in this ps-sphere.
B. Thus far, our discussion is centered on ws-sphere, and I have reached the following points.
- There are different languages which have different language structures, ranging from "type 0" to "type 1".
- By introducing two operators, "Operator of pidginning" and "Operator of creoling", the great divide between the "type 0" and the "type 1" can be bridged over. That is,
- The "type 0" is the ground (or default) state.
- The "type 1" is the excited (or higher energy) state.
And, the transition between the two states can be achieved with two operators, "Operator of pidginning" and "Operator of creoling". Thus, a "hypothesis one" is suggested.
Hypothesis one -- this "constructed linguistic universe" forms a linear language spectrum, ranging from the "type 0" to the "type 1". That is, all natural languages are distributed in this language spectrum, and this "constructed linguistic universe" encompasses the entire "real" linguistic universe.
In order to prove that the "Hypothesis one" is true, we must construct a theory for it. And, I will start this with a definition.
Definition eleven (11) -- Lx and Ly are different sets (with different symbols and different numbers of symbols). Z is a Range Set. F is an (arbitrary) function.
if, F (Lx) = Z, (F maps Lx to Z)
and F(Ly) = Z, then
Lx and Ly are "functionally equal". And it is written as, Lx (=F=) Ly
With this definition on (=F=), functionally equal, we can make a new postulate.
Postulate three -- Lx and Ly are different natural languages in the ws-sphere, then
Lx (=F=) Ly
That is, the major known natural languages, at least the Big 6, are functionally equal in the ws-sphere.
Note: This "postulate three" does not cover other spheres, as the Lx and Ly might not be functionally equal in the ps-sphere which is history and culture centered.
The "postulate three" will play a vital role in our construction of this "constructed linguistic universe" and in our process of verifying the "hypothesis one."
Day fifty-four -- Constructed linguistic universe (VII)
From Tienzen:
The concept of "functional equal" is not new. But it is new as an operator in algebra and in set theory. For two sets, A and B which are not equal in algebra nor in traditional set theory but can be "functionally equal" with definition 11. Now, the internal dynamics of this "constructed linguistic universe" can be analyzed.
First, let's review some definitions.
- Definition two: Set Vx = {syx; syx is a symbol in Lx}.
- Definition three: Wx is a "word" in Lx if and only if the following two conditions are met.
- Wx is a syx of Lx.
- Wx has the following attributes:
- Wx has a unique topological form.
- Wx carries, at least, one unique completed sound note.
- Wx carries, at least, one unique meaning.
...
- Definition six: Sx is a "sentence" in Lx if and only if the following two conditions are met.
- Sx must have, at least, two wx. That is, Sx = Opc (syxa, syxb, ...).
- Sx must be an operand of Opd. That is, Sx = Opd (Opc (syxa, syxb, ...)).
Note: Definition 6.a -- If Sx has only one wx, Sx = Opd (wx) is a "degenerated" sentence.
- Definition seven: Px is a "phrase" in Lx if and only if the following two conditions are met.
- Px must have, at least, two wx. Px = Opc (syxa, syxb, ...)
- Px must "not" be an operand of Opd.
Second, the word/sentence layer (ws - sphere) -- this sphere has three sub-layers
- the word sphere
- the phrase sphere
- the sentence sphere
This ws-sphere is governed (or delineated) by two operators, "Operator" of composite (Opc) and "Operator" of dot (Opd).
With these definitions, the words, the phrases and the sentences are all members of the set Vx. And, the set Vx can be re-written as:
Set Vx = {syx; syx is a symbol in Lx, words, phrases, sentences}. Thus,
set Wx = {syx; syx is a word in Lx}
set Px = {syx; syx is a phrase in Lx}
set Sx = {syx; syx is a sentence in Lx}
And, set Vx = Wx U Px U Sx; (union of Wx, Px and Sx).
We now can prove some theorems.
Theorem two -- In ws-sphere (context free), Vx = Lx
Note: traditionally, we call Vx is the set of syntax.
Theorem three -- (Lx, Vx) and (Ly, Vy) are two different natural languages, then,
Vx (=F=) Vy
That is, the syntax sets of two natural languages are functionally equal.
Corollary 3.1 -- Lx and Ly are mutually translatable.
Postulate 4 -- the Transitive Property holds for the (=F=), the functional equal.
Now, we can re-write the set Vx.
Let P is a process, the combination of Opc (operator of composite) and Opd (operator of dot), then,
P ({wx}) = Sx U Px = P (Wx), the process P generates the Px (phrases) and Sx (sentences).
So, Vx = Wx U P(Wx) , and I will re-write this set equation with a new convention,
Vx = (Wx, P), the Vx can be constructed by having Wx (set of words) and P (process of constructing phrases and sentences). This new convention is, in fact, an "equivalent transformation".
Now, (Lx, Vx) and (Ly, Vy) are two different natural languages, and,
Vx = (Wx, Px) and Vy = (Wy, Py)
Per theorem 3 -- Vx (=F=) Vy, the syntax sets of two natural languages are functionally equal, and we can prove a new theorem,
Theorem 4 -- Wx (=F=) Wy and Px (=F=) Py, the word sets of two natural languages are functionally equal.
Corollary 4.1 -- Wx (Chinese) (=F=) Wy (English).
Wx (Chinese) has only about 60,000 characters and Wy (English) has about one million words. Yet, Wx (Chinese) is functionally equal to Wy (English).
Seemingly, this corollary 4.1 is a commonly known old fact. Yet, when it becomes a theorem, a new logic is opened up. It, in fact, says that every English word can be encoded (or ciphered) with Chinese characters, one million words being encoded with a few thousand characters.
If we can find a PB set, and PB (=F=) Wx (Chinese); PB is functionally equal to the entire Chinese character set. With the "postulate 4", the transitive of (=F=),
Wx (Chinese) (=F=) Wy (English)
PB (=F=) Wx (Chinese)
then, PB (=F=) Wy (English)
That is, Wy (English), all English vocabulary, can also be encoded with PB.
Now, we have reached the starting point for PreBabel.
Day fifty-five -- Summary of constructed linguistic universe
[quote from sangi39] The formatting of this forum leaves the long list of "equations" provided across the last 2-3 pages disjointed to the point where some don't make all that much sense. [/quote]
Answer:
I will organize these posts into a single page during the holiday. Now, I am briefly summarizing them as below.
- The objective -- instead of analyzing the "real" linguistic universe which is very complicated with many chaotic data sets, I am simply constructing a "constructed linguistic universe" with some arbitrary selected definitions, axioms, postulates, etc.. Then, I will compare these two universes item by item. If I can show that the "constructed linguistic universe" does encompass the "real" linguistic universe, then a "Super Unified Linguistic Theory" is constructed.
- The constructed linguistic universe --
- Five definitions:
- Definition one -- the set UL, it encompasses "all" languages, Lx, Ly, ....
- Definition two -- the set Vx, it encompasses all symbols of "one" language, Lx.
- Definition three -- the words
- Definition four -- the phrases
- Definition five -- the sentences
These five definitions demarcate a linguistic universe.
- Three operators --
- Operator of composite
- Operator of dot (completion)
- Operator of accumulations
These three operators delineate a three layer (sphere) hierarchy.
- the Pre-word sphere
- the word/sentence sphere
- the post-sentence sphere
- Six axioms --
- Similarity transformation axiom -- Sa
- Predicative axiom -- Pa
- Inflection axiom -- Ia
- Redundancy axiom -- Ra
- Non-Communicative axiom -- Na
- Exception axiom -- Ea
These six axioms identify the language type, "type 0" and "type 1". Then, can this great divide between these two types be bridged over?
- Introducing the concept of "apostrophe," the type degeneration or deviation.
- Two more operator:
- Operator of pidginning
- Operator of creoling
Two postulates:
- Postulate one -- the "Operator of pidginning" transforms a language Lx toward the direction to the "type 0" language.
- Postulate two -- the "Operator of creoling" transforms a pidgin (Lx) toward the direction to the "type 1" language.
Two predications:
- Predication one -- the difference of the language structure in terms of "language type" between two pidgins is smaller than the difference between two original languages.
- Predication two -- The difference of the language structure in terms of "language type" between two creoles is smaller than the difference between it and its parent language.
- One more definition and two more postulates
Definition on functionally equal
Postulate three: the major known natural languages, at least the Big 6, are functionally equal in the ws-sphere.
Postulate four: the Transitive Property holds for the (=F=), the functional equal.
- Conclusion and comparison:
- Hypothesis one -- this "constructed linguistic universe" forms a linear language spectrum, ranging from the "type 0" to the "type 1". That is, all natural languages are distributed in this language spectrum, and this "constructed linguistic universe" encompasses the entire "real" linguistic universe.
- Theorems -- all theorems of this "constructed linguistic universe" are applied on the "real" linguistic universe and to see whether they hold or not.
- Theorem 1: English is a "type 1" language.
- Theorem three -- the syntax sets of two natural languages are functionally equal.
Corollary 3.1 -- Any two natural languages (Lx and Ly) are mutually translatable.
- Theorem 4 -- the word sets of two natural languages are functionally equal.
Corollary 4.1 -- Wx (Chinese) has only about 60,000 characters and Wy (English) has about one million words. Yet, Wx (Chinese) is functionally equal to Wy (English).
- Hypothesis two -- the PreBabel principle.
This outlines the entire framework for the "Super Unified Linguistic Theory."
Day fifty-six -- Discovering the PreBabel principle
From Tienzen:
Thus far, the Pre-Word sphere is not defined in this "constructed linguistic universe." There is also very little study on this pre-word sphere in the "real" linguistic universe. The phonology and the morphology are subjects in the word/sentence sphere, although they might have some issues which fall in the pre-word sphere. Even the etymology is not an 100% pre-word issue. Most of the etymology discusses the evolution of the words, instead of the structure of words.
Most of vocabulary of natural languages are a type of arbitrary vocabulary which means that words are patterns of temporally ordered sound types, and meaning of a word does not attach to particular activities, sound, marks on paper, or anything else with a definite spatiotemporal locus. Some English words do arise from roots. Yet, those roots are called "root words," that is, they are words, not pre-words. Furthermore, root words encompass only a very small portion of the English vocabulary. Again, the inflection of words is the issue in the word/sentence sphere, not a pre-word issue. For Chinese words, although the "Kangsi" leading radicals are known, the body of Chinese characters, for thousands years, remains a blob, an arbitrary vocabulary type.
After the publication of "Chinese Word Roots and Grammar" in 2006 and of "Chinese Etymology" in 2008, three new linguistic principles were discovered.
- There are three different vocabulary types.
- Type A -- chaotic data set, most of the member of the set are stand alone without any logic or genealogical connection with other members.
- Type B -- axiomatic data set, the "entire" (not partial) set can be derived from:
- a finite number of basic building blocks,
- a finite number of rules.
- Type C -- a hybrid data set, the mixing of type A and type B.
There is an unsolved problems in linguistics, listed in Wikipedia.
[quote="Wikipedia"] What fundamental reasons explain why ultimate attainment in second language acquisition is typically some way short of the native speaker's ability, with learners varying widely in performance?[/quote]
With this new discovery, this unsolved problem is, in fact, removed. Please read the article "The New Paradigm of Linguistics," at;
http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/nparadi.htm
- With the discovery of the PreBabel principle,
If we can find a PB set, and PB (=F=) Wx (Chinese); PB is functionally equal to the entire Chinese character set. With the "postulate 4", the transitive of (=F=),
Wx (Chinese) (=F=) Wy (English)
PB (=F=) Wx (Chinese)
then, PB (=F=) Wy (English)
That is, Wy (English), all English vocabulary, can also be encoded with PB.
Now, we have reached the starting point for PreBabel.
Thus, a "Law 1" is discovered.
Law 1: Encoding with a closed set of root words, any arbitrary vocabulary type language will be organized into a logically linked linear chain.
This is done with a "Regressive encoding," for example;
electricity (lightning, energy)
lightning (rain, energy)
rain (sky, water)
sky (above, mountain)
above (dot, horizontal bar)
dot, horizontal bar, mountain and water are roots. This "Regressive encoding" process entails two steps;
- every word is linked to two (maximally three) other words.
- the final destination is the closed root set.
Note 1: logically linked linear chain acts as a chain or a system of logically linked mnemonic.
Note 2: a closed set means that the parts (radicals) of all vocabulary of a language will not contain any symbol beyond (or outside of) the given root word set.
- A "Law 2" is also discovered.
Law 2: When every natural language is encoded with a universal set of root words, a true Universal Language emerges.
These three new discoveries are the major issues in the Pre-Word sphere.
First, are these discoveries valid?
Second, what are the benefits that these new discoveries can provide?
These are the issues which must be answered.
Day fifty-seven -- Benefits of PreBabel
From Tienzen:
What are the benefits that these new discoveries can provide?
The PreBabelizing process provides two monumental benefits.
- It revolutionizes the way of language acquisition.
- It creates a true universal language.
Each and every natural language is just a set of data, the words (including the word forms, the word sounds and the word meanings), the phrases and the sentences. This set of data can be reduced to set L = {words, a Process}, with the process to create phrases and sentences. Thus, to learn a language is simply to "memorize" the set L.
Every memorization process (human or machine) consists of two steps.
- deposit the information
- recall the information
In order to recall the information, the information must be "indexed," and a index file is created. For maximizing the memorizing process, it is further divided into two steps.
- temporary (or short term) memory, such as the RAM
- Long term memory
While the computer memorization process can be done "almost" instantaneously, the human long term memory requires a "burn-in" process which is limited with the brain energy. That is, only a finite numbers of burn-in per day can be done by a brain before it is exhausted. And, learning a language is simply managing the data set L with the memory energy.
For average persons (not genius), everyone's memory energy is about the same. Thus, we can prove a theorem.
Theorem: Lx and Ly are two data sets. Lx is a chaotic data set with members which are not related or linked to any other member. Ly is an organized data set with members which can be derived from a small set of roots. And, Mx is the memory energy required for Lx; My is the memory energy required for Ly. Then,
My < Mx
The memory energy required for My is much smaller than for the Mx.
In reality, human long term memory consists of two steps,
- anchoring -- burn-in the information and its indexing file
- webbing -- associating the new information with the anchored data, and this reduces the burn-in energy and the recalling efforts for the new information.
For learning the first language (the mother tongue),
- the verbal is learned with brutal anchoring efforts without any previously anchored base.
- the written is learned with the verbal as the anchored base.
For learning the second language -- both verbal and written must be learned with brutal anchoring efforts without the help of any previously anchored base. Thus,
[quote="Wikipedia"] What fundamental reasons explain why ultimate attainment in second language acquisition is typically some way short of the native speaker's ability, with learners varying widely in performance?[/quote]
Now, we can analyze the great benefit of PreBabel process on language acquisition. Let's use Chinese language as the example.
- Chinese college graduates learn about 6,000 Chinese characters.
- Let memory energy on these 6,000 written words be 100
- Let memory energy on these 6,000 words on verbal (word sounds) be 100
That is, the total energy for learning these 6,000 words (written and verbal) is 200.
With PreBabel (Chinese),
- Only 220 roots (+50 variants) needs to be memorized with the brutal anchoring efforts. That is,
220 / 6000 = 0.037 = 3.7%
Yet, these 220 are much easier than any of the 6,000.
- The 300 sound modules can be learned as derived words, and the effort is about 1/10 of by learning with the old school way.
(300 / 6000) x (1/10) = 0.005 = 0.5%
- The remaining 5700 words are all derived words from the above (220 + 300), and the effort is less than 1/100 (in average) of by learning with the old school way. Note: after one point (about 1,000 words learned), zero energy is needed.
(5700 / 6000) x (1/100) = 0.0095 = 0.95%
Thus, the total energy needs to learn 6,000 Chinese written characters with Prebabel (Chinese) is
0.037 + 0.005 + 0.0095 = 0.0515 = 5.15%
100 / 5.15 = 19.4
That is, the PreBabel (Chinese) is 19.4 times easier than the old school way.
Yet, most importantly, the above process can be done without learning the verbal at the same time which is almost impossible for the old school way. After knowing the written, the verbal can be learned with the written as the "anchor" and becomes much, much easier. This turns the language learning process upside down completely.
In summary, the PreBabel improves the language acquisition in two great ways,
- Reduce a huge data set to a very small root set, and thus reduce the memory energy about 95%.
- Provide a memory anchor for learning the verbal in learning the second language.
Learning PreBabel (English) is quite similar to learning PreBabel (Chinese). I will discuss the minute difference between them soon.
Day fifty-eight -- the PreBabel procedures
[quote="Khagan"] How do words like the German "duzen" (to use the informal "du" [you] pronoun with someone) and "siezen" (to use the formal "Sie" [you] pronoun with someone) get translated to PreBabel English?
In other words, how does PreBabel's "universality" deal with words that only exist in one of the two languages being dealt with?
A possible (albeit admittedly not practical) Hungarian word based on a simple root and a myriad prefixes and suffices:
meg.szent.ség.telen.ít.het.et.len.ség.es.ked.és.e.i.tek.ért
szent - holy/saint
szentség - holiness
szentségtelen - unholy
szentségtelenít - [he] defiles/makes unholy
megszentségtelenít - [he] defiles/makes unholy (perfective)
...
megszentségteleníthetetlenség - the impossibility of being defiled/made unholy
...
Out of all those, only the last suffix "-ért" is unambiguously solely a grammatical one... arguably making the second last entry "meg.szent.ség.telen.ít.het.et.len.ség.es.ked.és.e.i.tek" the word one is left with after a "de-inflection process". [/quote]
Answer:
I know neither German nor Hungarian. Thus, I cannot answer your question in terms of those two languages. However, your question really deals with three general questions.
- How to PreBabelize a word which is unique to a language?
- How to PreBabelize words which have unique relations in a language?
- How to PreBabelize words which are constructed with a unique culture tradition (with special myriad prefixes and suffices) in a language?
In fact, I discussed these questions many times before. I will summarize them here again. The PreBabel process real has two steps.
- Encoding a giving language, and it again has three sub-steps.
- Ciphering the vocabulary -- that is, every symbol in that language is ciphered. if "du" [you], then "ev" = "du" also means [you], and "Sie" [you] = "Thf" [you]. If there are another million [you] in German, there are a million ciphers for [you] in German. There is not a single difference between the original German and the ciphered German in terms of its structure.
- "Before" the ciphering, every word is encoded with two (maximally 3) of its own words with a "regressive encoding process". In fact, this is a dictionary process. In dictionary, a word is explained, in general, with a sentence or with a synonym. In this PreBabel process, a word is encoded with two words of the same language. That is, we are "making" every vocabulary carries its own dictionary, nothing else and nothing to it.
- Only at the "final" stroke, a very small set of the Generation 1 (the bottom base) words are encoded with the PreBabel root set. This encoding might not be all that intuitive, such as, the (dot, stop) = "at". Then, all words are "progressively ciphered."
Note: the issue that "at" can perform hundreds different kinds of acts, the (dot, stop) can do the same as it is simply a cipher for "at". The internal meaning of (dot, stop) has nothing to do with its external performances. It is simply a mnemonic dictionary for the word "at."
These three sub-steps are done internally in a given language. And thus, all the unique linguistic and cultural features are completely (100%) preserved in its PreBabelized system.
Because that every word carries its own dictionary, the PreBabelized system revolutionizes the way of language acquisition.
- Emerging the PreBabel (Proper), the true universal language -- after many languages are PreBabelized, they are sharing the same PreBabel root set for their "word forms." And, they form a big mixing pot. Every PreBabel (language x) becomes a dialect of this big mixing pot. Although the PreBabel (language x) is 100% linguistic and cultural centered in the language x, the mixing pot can sort out the conflicts and remove the duplicates. Then, the PreBabel (proper) will emerge. This process can begin after two PreBabel (language x) are done.
[quote=Khagan"]
meg.szent.ség.telen.ít.het.et.len.ség.es.ked.és.e.i.tek.ért
Who gets to undertake the "de-inflection process" for this word?[/quote]
Answer:
I am working on the PreBabel theory and two PreBabel (language x). The PreBabel (Chinese) is 100% done. The PreBabel (English) will be practically usable after 1,000 basic English words are PBlized. The PreBabel (proper) will emerge after two PreBabel (language x) are done.
I am unable to PBlize any other language myself. I think that someone will do them after the PreBabel is widely accepted.
The de-inflection is not the necessary condition for PreBabel, the non-inflected word system can be inflected into PB inflected phrase system. I will discuss this in the New Year.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all, and see you all in the New Year.
Day fifty-nine -- about Chinese Etymology
[quote from Khagan] Do you plan to create a version of your website that uses unicode for displaying the PreBabel/Chinese characters (are they all regular/existent Hanzi characters?) instead of using pictures?[/quote]
Answer:
As every Chinese character was viewed as a stand alone blob without an internal structure in addition to having a "leading radical" before the publication of my book, "Chinese Etymology," 60% of the PB roots are not encoded with a unicode. Now, Chinese government is planning to return to the traditional character set in 10 years to take the advantages of it being a PreBabel (Chinese). I think that those PB roots will have a unicode by then.
[quote from Khagan] Also, are there any short texts that have been PreBabelized for English? Or for other European languages? [/quote]
Answer:
Any text can be written with vocabulary. PreBabel (English) has about three hundred words now. As soon as we encode about 1,000 PB (English) words, we can write some texts in PB (English) with ease.
For other European languages, we also need to encode some vocabulary first. We need a lot of friends to do this work. My priority, now, is to establish the theoretical framework on PreBabel. Many linguistics departments of many universities around the world are now very interested in the PreBabel project. I will report the progress on this in due time.
At this point, the "root-form" of the PB root set is a bit cumbersome for encoding English. I will discuss this issue soon. Now, we can encode a language by using the R numbers, such as,
word a = R10 + R20 (roots composite)
or word b = G1 (20) + R30 (Regressive encoding, G1 is generation one word).
[quote from Trailsend] Really? I heard back in March a proposal had been put before the NPC and CPPCC to return to the traditional system, but I didn't know it had been approved. [/quote]
Answer: The following is quoted from "The new Paradigm of Linguistics ( http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/nparadi.htm ),"
"The People's Republic of China (PRC) was found in 1949. By then, China had suffered over 100 years of humiliation. The culprit for China's demise was identified to be the Chinese written language which was viewed as a type A language without any logic for its complexity. In fact, it was viewed as a language without a logic of any kind at all. A slogan of those days was "Without abandoning the Chinese word system, China as a nation would surely die." And, the Chinese word system was also accused as the only reason for China's high illiteracy (over 85%) at that time.
However, the process of Romanization of Chinese words was not a success by 1958. The interim measure was to simplify. The simplification of the Chinese word system is, now, viewed as the greatest achievement of the PRC.
In 1958, if anyone in the world knew that the Chinese written language is a type B language (the easiest of all languages to learn), the above history would not have happened.
As the above history did happen, the Fact two is validated in and before 1958. Even today (March 7, 2009), one Chinese word expert in China emphasized that traditional (non-simplified) Chinese words are too difficult to learn for the young kids in China."
Three years ago, any question about the great achievement on the Simplified character set would be viewed as a direct challenge to the PRC. Yet, the calling for returning to the traditional set are made two years in the roll now. Of course, it will take some maneuvers to make this change with honor, without disgrace the earlier act. The facts are the following,
- It takes 5 to 10 school years for native Chinese kid to learn 3,000 to 5,000 Chinese words while an American kid can do the same in six months by learning the PreBabel (Chinese).
- About 95% of those educated Chinese people are still semi-illiterate in terms of Classic Chinese language as they still don't truly know the meaning of each word by learning the old school way. The verbal Chinese language uses "phrase" as a word while the Classic language uses word as word. Only by learning PreBabel (Chinese), the student will learn the meaning of the "word."
That is, to stay with the Simplified, the PRC is wasting the youthful life of her people, which is excusable if the PreBabel (Chinese) was "not" known. And, one day, Chinese must come to America to learn Chinese written language.
Furthermore, the "universal language" is very important politically in the world politics. With the development of PreBabel, the PreBabel (English) has a chance to become the true "universal language". By then, the Chinese language will simply become a dialect of the PreBabel (English).
[quote from Trailsend] Gosh darn it, that'll be troublesome...the Chinese program at my university is still teaching simplified.[/quote]
Answer:
Then, if you are learning Chinese at your university, you are wasting your time. If I were you, I will challenge the university program as it is wasting every student's life. There is no argument about it, at all, period. There are too many kids are smart than you on this, visit ( http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cw10.htm ).
[quote from sangi39] At least in terms of the UK high school education system a person learns the spoken and written language (speaking, listening, reading and writing) over 2 hours per week. In a given educational year a student will typically attend around 39/40 weeks of school and therefore 78-80 hours of language lessons per year totaling 234-240 hours of language lessons by the end of the pre-GCSE stage lessons at which point, assuming they were taught well and learnt well, they will be able to comprehend and use the spoken and written language to at least a basic degree.[/quote]
Answer:
Seemingly, you are talking about the "class room" lessons, not including the homework and self-study.
In the Preface of my book ( http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/pface01.htm ), it states,
"This is a self study book for someone who knows not a single Chinese written word, that is, the reader needs no tutor in order to study this textbook."
In the Introduction of the same book ( http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/intro10.htm ), it outlines the "self-study" schedule.
That is, my 200 hours are self-study hours with zero "class room" hour. In reality, I do provide "class room" teaching for kids, and it is about 60 "class hours" (two hours a week for 30 weeks). The bottom line is that it is the difference between 5 years and 200 hours.
[quote from sangi39] Although I can't read the Chinese replies, the English replies all seem to be what Trailsend termed "polite dismissals". They all seem to follow the same general pattern of "we'll pass it on" and "it was interesting" ... there is very little suggesting they'd go further than this.[/quote]
Answer:
There is "absolutely, absolutely, ..., absolutely, ..." no need for those presidents of American universities to write back with a "polite dismissive" letter. A simple test is for you to send them a letter and to see whether they will reply with a polite letter or not.
Those are the copout letters for passing the buck. The issue involves the consciousness of the educators -- whether they are wasting their students youthful life away or not, when this issue becomes a history. By "pass it on", the burden of the consciousness is also passed on. Obviously, they did realize that the issue on hand was very serious and severe.
[quote from Trailsend] I am not. (If I was, I wouldn't be quite so concerned) My understanding of the situation is limited to news stories I was able to find online, and what I was able to dig up on the English section of the Chinese government's webpage, including this article from the government's site, dated from August of this year, which didn't seem to suggest that there would be a movement back toward the traditional system.[/quote]
Answer:
Before the Iraq war, the US government launched a massive dis-information campaign. As the simplified set was identified as the GREATEST achievement of PRC, any change must be weaseled in if she must take a new direction, whatever that it is. The key point is that whether my claim on my "Chinese Etymology" is true or not. If it is not true, no further discussion on this is needed. It can simply be judged by anyone who knows not a single Chinese word. After reading the following page,
http://www.chineseetymology.com/exhibite.php
if one still agrees that the "cause" for launching the simplified system is valid, I will not try to convince him any further. The validity of my claim needs no Chinese government's approval. You yourself should have the ability to know the difference.
If my claim is true, then the Chinese government must face one dire FACT;
She is wasting her people's youthful life away.
[quote f rom Khagan] Tienzen , I am very interested in getting your book "Chinese Etymology". Is it really $400 for the 305 page paperback though? If so, why is it so expensive?[/quote]
Answer:
This is not a place for me to discuss the selling of books. But, I will answer your question about "why is it so expensive?"
It is a textbook, not for the general public. Its purpose is to teach a person to acquire the ability to read Chinese newspaper with 200 hours of self study. And, the calculation for its worth is as follow.
It will take a person 5 school years to reach the same level by learning the old school way.
- It will cost a person $1,000 a year for going to an old school. Thus, 5 x $1,000 = $5,000
- It will save a person, at least, 4 years. This is very valuable.
- It will provide knowledge which can never be learnt anywhere else in the world. With the old school way, one person learns 3,000 Chinese words, and he knows those 3,000 words. Any new word will be an unknown word. With my Chinese Etymology, he learns 3,000 words, and he will know all (about 60,000) Chinese words. This is a value beyond any calculation.
Anyway, 400 / 5000 = 0.08, That is, 92% off.
[quote from Khagan] If your etymology is correct and factually based, it ought to be something even amateur linguists could partially recreate. And even if they do it imperfectly, my understanding is that well less than 10,000 characters are required for general literacy in Chinese.[/quote]
Answer:
This will be the case for all PreBabel (language x) but not for the PreBabel (Chinese). Chinese traditional set is heavily and deeply camouflaged. Without knowing those camouflages, no one knew that Chinese traditional set is a PreBabel for the past 2000 years. Furthermore, the phonetics and the Chinese characters interaction is the most complicate one among "all" natural languages. Without knowing the 300 sound modules, there is no chance to construct a useful "Chinese Etymology."
[quote from Khagan] ... the $400 list price is almost certainly a guarantee of perpetual obscurity for it ... [/quote]
Answer:
I charge $3,000 tuition fee per student (for a 30 week lesson). Many parents are eagerly enrolling their kids for the lessons. I will give a presentation on PreBabel at Georgia Southern University ( http://class.georgiasouthern.edu/flseccll/index.html ) on Friday, April 2, 2010. I might give out 3 copies with deep discount at that meeting.
[quote from Khagan] How familiar are you with any language that is neither English nor Chinese? PreBabel gives the impression of heavily inflecting/agglutinating languages not having been given much thought. [quote]
Answer:
I learnt some Japanese and Spanish about 30 years ago. I am very fluent in Hunanese and Taiwanese. Yet, the point is not about how many languages that I know. It is about the language structures that I have learnt from those experiences.
- English/Chinese --- completely different "types" of languages
- Japanese/Chinese --- Japanese is not in Chinese family but is very, very heavily "influenced" by Chinese, and it goes way, way beyond the importing of a foreign language.
- Spanish/English --- two languages of a language family.
- Hunanese and Taiwanese --- dialects of a family
Thus, the issues of language types, language influencing process, divergence process of a family language and the dialect process are all included in those experiences.
The PreBabelizing process (Regressive encoding) is wholly independent from the types of the vocabulary regardless of whether it is inflected, agglutinated or not. The Regressive encoding is encoding a word with its own words (two or three). Only at the last stroke, a small set of the first generation words is encoded with PB word roots. In fact, there are three ways for this PreBabelizing process.
- An inflected word can be separated into two parts, the body and the tail.
i-word = b-word (body) + tail
Only b-word is PreBabelized, and the tail stay unchanged.
- A PB tail set is generated, and every i-word becomes a word phrase.
i-word = PB (b-word) + PB (tail), the i-word becomes a PB phrase.
- With a de-inflection process.
I will discuss these in detail in the future.
Day sixty -- Can the parts be larger than the whole?
[quote] Can the parts be larger than the whole? [/quote]
Answer:
Before the inception of Prequark Dynamics, it makes no sense in physics, such as in the following sequences,
quark --> neutron or proton --> atom --> molecule --> large object
The sub-particle is always smaller than its parent particle both in size and in mass. Yet, in the Prequark Dynamics, although the quarks are composed of prequarks, the prequark is not smaller than its parent particle neither in size nor in mass. This is why it is named prequark, not subquark.
Is there such a prequark phenomenon in the marco-world? In fact, most of the social phenomena are prequark-like. As the social science does not understand the prequark phenomenon and treats all problems with the sub-particle concept, the social science is not a true science thus far as it has used a wrong approach and a wrong principle to deal with its problems.
One simple prequark-like phenomenon is the "visible" iceberg which is composed of three parts.
- a big chunk of ice, about 10 times bigger than the visible iceberg.
- a large body of water (ocean or a large lake)
- a big space above it
Lacking any one of these three parts, the "visible iceberg" will not be a reality. Yet, every its part is much bigger than it both in size and in mass.
In social science, the definition for "nation" is an unsolved problem. A "nation" can be roughly demarcated with the followings,
- People --
- Races
- ethnic groups
- languages
- religions
- history
- etc.
- land
- etc.
Yet, every part of the "nation" (language, religion, etc.) can be much larger than it (the nation) both in size and in mass. This issue was discussed in detail in the article "Political Science and the Equation of War" which is available at
http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cwr016.htm
In fact, the PreBabel is also a Prequark-like phenomenon. It is a "part" of all natural languages while it is much larger than them.