Questions and Answers
Copyright © September 2009 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong
Page 7
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 ªj 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 sixty-one -- Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis revisited
After the construction of the "Super Unified Linguistic Theory", we can, now, revisit the issue of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.
[quote="Tienzen"]
The detail of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis can be found online easily. Thus, I will only make some comments on the issue, including its history. The following are four quotes form Wikipedia.
a. "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (linguistic relativity) is the idea that the varying cultural concepts and categories inherent in different languages affect the cognitive classification of the experienced world in such a way that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it."
b. "... Universalist theory of language ... effectively arguing that all languages share the same underlying structure. ... also holds the belief that linguistic structures are largely innate and that what are perceived as differences between specific languages (the knowledge acquired by learning a language) are merely surface phenomena and do not affect cognitive processes that are universal to all human beings."
c. "This theory (Universalist theory) became the dominant paradigm in American linguistics from the 1960s through the 1980s and the notion of linguistic relativity fell out of favor and became even the object of ridicule."
d. "Current researchers accept that language influences thought, but in more limited ways than the broadest early claims. ... Current studies of linguistic relativity are neither marked by the naivistic approach to exotic linguistic structures and their often merely presumed effect on thought that marked the early period, nor are they ridiculed and discouraged as in the universalist period."
These four quotes mark a time span of 70 years, from 1940 to now (2009). After a long 70 year studies, no true winner, nor true loser. This is what I am going to comment on.
Their studies centered on the tests of two issues.
- Vocabulary on color and the cognition on color perception from different languages.
- Vocabulary on "time" and the cognition on time concept and perception from different languages.
From the test results of the two issues above, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis was discredited first and then vindicated second, and this trip takes 70 years to make a whole circle. In fact, this 70 years can be reduced into months if two questions were asked.
Question one:
- Is the difference between vocabulary on color or time representing the essential difference between languages? If not, then all tests and test results have no relevancy for differentiating languages.
- Is the difference between cognition on color or time perception representing the essential difference on the cognition of world view? If not, then all tests and test results have no relevancy for differentiating the ways of cognition.
Question two:
If both schools have fully developed theory with predicting power, will both theory predict (or encompass) those test results? If they will, then those tests have no power whatsoever to differentiate the difference between the two theories.
[/quote]
Now, we know that the language universe has three layers of hierarchy.
- The pre-word layer (pw - sphere)
- The word/sentence layer (ws - sphere) -- this sphere has three sub-layers
- the word sphere
- the phrase sphere
- the sentence sphere
- The post-sentence layer (ps - sphere) -- this sphere is context and culture laden or centered.
For Lx and Ly as two different languages with very different cultures and histories, it will be very obvious that Lx and Ly will be quite different in the ps-sphere. Different cultures have different traditions and different ways of doing business, that is, a different way of viewing and processing a "given" event. Of course, the varying cultural concepts and categories inherent in different languages (in ps-sphere) will definitely view a "given" event or object differently. Thus, if the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is defined in this ps-sphere, it is, of course, absolutely correct.
If the Universalists define their theory in this ps-sphere, then they are absolutely wrong. If they define their theory in the ws-sphere, then they are absolutely correct. Indeed, "that all languages share the same underlying structure" in the ws-sphere is verified by the "Super Unified Linguistic Theory".
In fact, both Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Universalist theory are correct in their defined sub-domains. They are both valid theories with different domains and are not competing theories.
Day sixty-two -- The two step PreBabel procedures
[quote="Trailsend"]
However, having already stated a number of reasons why PB (proper) will fail to drop out of the mixing pot as Tienzen hopes, and why the various component ciphers are likely to produce more difficulties than they solve, ... it seems to me that the best way I have to prove my points is to simply let the project continue. [/quote]
[quote="Khagan"]
In what way do you feel that ... Are you aware that the "same" word in "different" languages often (usually) do not cover the same semantic space? This fundamental fact makes your suggestion that the above words are ciphers of "you" nonsensical... [/quote]
If your concern is about "the same word in different languages," then it is the same question as Trailsend's -- the PB (proper) will fail to drop out of the mixing pot. I will discuss this issue later.
The PreBabel process has two big steps.
- PreBabelizing a language x -- this is done 100% internally in language x without any concern about the other languages, and it has two sub-steps.
- ciphering -- if "you" can do one million dances in the language x, its cipher "ouy" can do the same.
- encoding -- before the ciphering, a word of language x is encoded with two of its own words. If a word "you" covers a very large semantic space in language x, then a single encoding cannot cover that huge space which must be covered with a few different encodings, such as,
- Semantic case 1 -- you = (word a, word b)
- Semantic case 2 -- you = (word x, word y)
- Semantic case 3 -- you = (word 1, word 2)
- etc.
I did discuss this issue many times before and am doing it once more here. Among those cases, only the "core" case will be used for the encoding. I divided ws-sphere into two parts Vx = (Wx, Px). Wx is the set for words. Px is a "process" to construct phrases and sentences. I did not call Px "grammar" as Px includes semantic operations too. Thus, the Wx (you) will be encoded only for its "core" case, and it is followed with a PB ciphering. Any other semantic cases for "you" will be pushed into the Px. That is, people must learn those cases in the Px, and this is, in fact, always the way of language acts (PreBabel or not).
Furthermore, the PreBabel process does not prohibit the "splitting" operation. If the semantic space for "you" is simply too huge for a single encoding, it can be split into two or more PB words. Of course, the issue of whether the PreBabel is a simplifying process or not arises. Yet, I don't believe that this "splitting" knife will be used in any big and extensive way for any language x.
- Settling in the mixing pot, the emergence of the PreBabel (Proper) -- I will discuss this issue later.
Day sixty-three -- Can linguistics be justified with math laws?
[quote="sangi39"] On the whole ... is that the mathematical justification for PreBabel also justifies something which on a purely mathematical basis is over 100 times easier than current teaching methods, i.e. justification by maths allows for "ridiculous" proposals. [/quote]
Every feasibility study of a project begins with the justification by math. If something cannot be justified by math which can simulate many, many, many circumstances, its chance for success is very small. After having a number, the "direction" for a test plan can thus be selected, instead of shooting dots randomly.
Analogy uses the similarity in logic. Simulation uses the similarity of math structure. Both of them are very valuable tools for difficult and complex problems.
On the issue of how much easier that PreBabel (Chinese) is comparing with the old school way, it can be analogized or simulated with the following example. There are 6,000 multiplication numbers.
- (35 X 41) = 1435
- (78 x 63 * 35) = 171990
- ...
- (27 x 87) = 2349
- (5 x 19 x 34 x 27) = 87210
Then, there are two schools, Sa and Sb.
Students of Sa must memorize all those 6,000 multiplications as stand alone items.
Students of Sb learn a multiplication table which consists of only 45 stand alone items and a procedure of multiplication.
The memory energy required for these two school students can be calculated very easily with the following assumptions and procedure.
- the memory ability of both school students is the same.
- it takes the same amount of memory energy for each stand alone item.
- the memory energy for Sa students to memorize all those 6,000 items is set as 100.
Question: how much memory energy Sb students must spend to do the same as the Sa students?
- Sb student need to memorize only 45 items. That is, 45 / 6000 = 0.0075 = 0.75%
- Sb student must learn a multiplication procedure. I will "guess" that it needs no more energy than memorizing those 45 items. Of course, if anyone disagree with me on my guess, I can change to his number if he can show that he is correct.
So, the total memory energy that Sb student must spend on this is 0.0075 x 2 = 0.015 = 1.5%
100 / (0.015 x 100) = 66.6666
That is, the Sb method is 66.666 times easier than the Sa method. Furthermore, every new item requires memory energy for Sa student while zero memory energy is needed for Sb student. Of course, this is just a simulation which can be far off from the real case. Yet, is it a ridiculous proposal? I don't think so. If you still disagree with me on this, then nothing else I can say. If you can agree with me on this half way, then the following argument should make some senses to you.
There are three types of vocabulary sets:
- Type A -- chaotic data set, most of the member of the set are stand alone without any logic or genealogical connection with other members. That is, it is neither a root for others nor a derivative of any other members.
- Type B -- axiomatic data set, the entire set can be derived from:
- a finite number (the lesser the better) of basic building blocks, the word roots.
- a finite number of rules for construction of its members.
- Type C -- a hybrid data set, the mixing of Type A and B.
If we simply change the word "vocabulary" to "number", it becomes a summary of the above Sa and Sb example. Of course, there are some questions which must be answered.
- Can we use the same procedure to calculate these "vocabulary" system?
- Is the old school way of learning Chinese written language similar to the Sa of the number learning?
- Is the PreBabel (Chinese) school similar to the Sb?
My answers for them are all positive. So, my number of 19.4 times easier is not ridiculous. Only if you could show that those three questions with some negative answers, then my calculation could be wrong, and of course there is no chance of that.
In fact, we have hashed out this issue many times. The simplest way is doing some tests. I have many real test cases, and some of those detailed case data are available online for everyone's review and challenge (including by Taiwan government and many universities). You mentioned that you cannot read Chinese newspaper. Yet, you are showing off your knowledge on Chinese quite often. Obviously, you have tried learning some Chinese with the old school way as it was the only way available for you before the PreBabel (Chinese). I am very surprised that you did not try the PreBabel (Chinese). If you did at the beginning of this thread (almost 5 months ago), not only you would have been able to read Chinese newspaper by now, but you would have known more Chinese etymology than "any, any, any..." Chinese language professor in the Beijing or Taiwan university. If you are not interested in learning Chinese written language, then it is fine. If you are, then you are wasting the precious time of your life going with the old school way.
Day sixty-four -- About heavily inflecting or agglutinating languages
[quote="Khagan"]
Question 1: Do you have any real test cases for PreBabel dealing with heavily inflecting or agglutinating languages?
Question 2: Do you understand that the words "duzen/Siezen" "tegezés/magázás" (using the familiar form of you/using the formal form of you, in German and Hungarian respectively) are semantically unique and independent words--not ciphers or variations of "you" (whether the "you" of English or Chinese)?
Question 3: Do you understand that in an agglutinating language, even a huge word like "megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedés" can be a proper, unconjugated and undeclined word of its own right, with a rightly separate place in the dictionary/semantic mindspace from its ultimate root word ("szent" for the preceding)? [/quote]
[quote="Trailsend"]
So then, when ciphering languages besides Chinese, why do you take all the various semantic usages of a word and pick only a "core case" to use for its encoding? (Even on its surface, that's a problem, since in many situations selection of a "core case" will be necessarily arbitrary.) Would it not be more consistent to do as you have done with Chinese, and assign different encodings for the various semantic meanings?[/quote]
[quote="sangi39"]
Then there's always the question of language like Arabic and Hebrew which indicate grammatical information by means of internal vowel changes, ...[/quote]
If allow me, I would like to summarize the above into three issues.
- A word can be like a thousand hand Budhisattva with each hand having its own magic. That is, a word has a huge semantic space.
- Different words are sitting on the same toilet doing the same job at the exact same time.
- A word can be absolutely unique, and no member in the Vx set can encode it.
In the Vx set, the syx can be a word, a phrase or a sentence. So, whether the "megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedés" is a word, a phrase or a sentence, it is simply a syx.
The PB procedure (a. regressive encoding, b. progressive ciphering, c. mixing pot settling, etc.) is a mapping or a series of mappings. Furthermore, this PB mapping is a "masking" function, that is, it will not change the essence and the features of the items which are masked although their "appearances" could be altered. I truly do not see a problem from the case 3.
Furthermore, in math, a few members of a domain of a mapping could cause the mapping to go berserk, such as,
F = 1 / (1-x), x is a real number.
When, x = 1, F goes haywire. Yet, there are two ways to deal with this problem.
- remove x = 1 from the domain
- give F (x = 1) = b, a special definition.
In the above case, x = 1 is called a singularity. In calculus, the singularity is cut out from the Riemann intergradation. That is, even a singularity can be deal with.
As long as the "megs...skedés" is a syx, a member of the Vx, we can always deal with it.
- cut it out from the PB mapping
- give a special definition in the PB mapping
Furthermore, I do not think that "megs...skedés" is a singularity in that language. Thus, regardless of whether it is divisible or not and however unique a syx it is, it is pointing to (...), and this (...) can always be described by other members of the Vx. Then, we can reduce that description to two syx (syx1, syx2), and this becomes its cipher which will act exactly as it was (whatever the magic it was playing).
Note: this new cipher must be learned. Anyone who did not learn it will never know the new item. Of course, an old, old, old issue arises again. Will PreBabel becomes easier after all these? I think that if this becomes a wide spread problem in the language x, it might truly cause some problems. But, I don't think that this kind of unique situation takes up 10% of any given language. It will be a success if a language x can be 90% PBlized.
When the worse comes to the worst, we can simply un-PBlized it (cut it out). Over 1,100 Chinese characters in Japanese are not Japanese-lized. If one or two languages are truly outside of the "scope" of PreBabel, I will settle for excluding them (cut them out) in PreBabel. Even if we could only PreBabelize two languages (Chinese and English), I will still be happy about it at this early stage on the development of the PreBabel. We should not smash the toilet because that one piece of ... is too big to be flashed down.
The issue 1 and 2 are seemingly different but are truly inter-connected, one with thousand hands and thousand hands in the same pot.
For PreBabel (language x), it is an 100% internal operation in the language x without any concern about any other languages. Every word in language x will be ciphered. That is, the thousand hands in the same pot will have 1000 ciphers. Yet, one word with thousand hands will be ciphered with only one cipher which can indeed be arbitrary (whether core or not) selected. However, if this is not adequate or not convenient, then we can split it into two or three. When the worse comes to the worst, we can, of course, cipher all those 1000 of them. There is no reason too stingy about it. Of course, I do not believe that we will ever come to that point.
The "splitting" operation to accommodate some different semantic needs is done in many languages. In English,
- (I, me)
- (he, him)
- (she, her)
- (they, them)
The two words in ( ) above are identical words with a splitting operation to encompass different semantic spaces. The following pairs are words which did not split.
- (you, you)
- (it, it)
So, if PB splits a few more words during the PreBabelization process, it will not be a major crime.
[quote="answer Khagan from Tienzen"]
If your concern is about "the same word in different languages," then it is the same question as Trailsend's -- the PB (proper) will fail to drop out of the mixing pot. I will discuss this issue later. [/quote]
The same word in different languages in the PB (proper) has the same situation as case 2 (different words are sitting on the same toilet doing the same job at the exact same time)
in the language x. As I answered the second part in my previous post, the first part is also answered although I did not point it out explicitly at the time.
Day sixty-five -- Can any theory be based on only two highly atypical examples?
[quote="Khagan"] So you developed what you claim a universal language by working solely with two highly atypical and somewhat similar languages?
Does this seem scientifically sound to you, Tienzen?
Is this not like trying to develop a Grand Unified Theory of physics without ever familiarizing yourself with Quantum Mechanics? [/quote]
The first Quantum Mechanics model (the Bohr model) works "only, only ..." for hydrogen atom only. The calculation on "any" other atoms in Quantum Mechanics must use the "Perturbation" methodology or similar ones which estimate the effects or the distortion from the additional mass (additional neutrons and protons) to the hydrogen model's calculation. This is called "Many bodies theory." Thus far, there is no "general" theory which can calculate heavy atoms in Quantum Mechanics without falling back to the hydrogen model (with only "one" neutron, "one" proton and "one" electron).
With your logic, the Newton's gravitation law would be useless.
F = G (m1 x m2)/r^2
It is a law for two bodies (m1, m2). Yet, there is no chance of finding a "true" two body system in this entire universe. If we ignore all other planets, we still not be able to calculate the exact gravitation between the Sun and the Earth with the above equation, as the Moon is hugging and kicking all the time. So, we must also ignore the Moon at the first try. Of course, that error is quite large as the Moon is both quite heavy and very close to Earth to be ignored. So, we can include the Moon (as one body) for the second calculation and try to get an average from the two calculations. Of course, there is still some errors as the center of gravity of this compound body moves. Yet, after a few fine tune approximations, we can get a number which is very close to the true answer.
"Every" theory (whatever that is) must accommodate the "simplest" system, not the complicated system. As soon as the issues of the simplest system are resolved, the complex or complicated systems can always be handled with fine tuned approximations or with a Perturbation function which could encompass an infinite number of approximations.
In the same token, all the unique features of any language can always be deal with the similar method (in Quantum Mechanics), with the PreBabel + the perturbation(s).
[quote="sangi39"] ... but personally I find that you're more concerned with vocabulary (which is easy really since all you have to do is develop some mnemonic system) than morphology. [/quote]
This is a fair comment. However, the "Super Unified Linguistic Theory" (available at http://www.prebabel.info/bab014.htm ) goes way beyond vocabulary.
Day sixty-six -- Can PreBabel encompass the Martian language?
[quote="Khagan"]
My point was simple: you appear to be only familiar with two languages, which are, in some ways, quite similar and in no way representative of the full diversity of languages.
Specifically, you appear to have no familiarity with inflecting or agglutinating languages. Until you though, your time spent working on language universals is a waste--plain and simple. [/quote]
Your critique seemingly has the following parts.
- One fact -- There are some very unique features in the inflecting or agglutinating languages, and they go way beyond the scope of either Chinese or English. I will call these features as "Feature H", or FH in short.
- One conclusion -- Without knowing the FH, there is no genuine chance to construct a "Universal Language". By only familiar with two languages, which are, in some ways, quite similar and in no way representative of the full diversity of languages, your time spent working on language universals is a waste--plain and simple. You used an analogy to support this conclusion.
- One analogy -- like trying to develop a Grand Unified Theory of physics without ever familiarizing yourself with Quantum Mechanics.
- One statement from sangi39 -- he (Khagan) was stating that PreBabel cannot be claimed to be a universal language based on a set of predictions based on one set of observations regarding two languages only.
Lets begin with the analogy first. Many disciplines needs the Quantum Mechanics as the foundation, such as, super conductivity, solid state physics, quantum chemistry, high energy physics, ..., Grand Unified Theory (GUT), etc.. With a detailed analysis, your analogy can have, at least, two situations (cases).
- Case 1 -- PreBabel without knowing FH = GUT without knowing Quantum Mechanics
- Case 2 -- PreBabel without knowing FH = GUT without knowing solid state physics
If the case 1 is the case, your conclusion should be correct. If the case 2 is the case, your conclusion might not be correct. The issue hinges on the nature of FH. If the FH is the foundation for PreBabel, then it is the case 1. If the FH is not the foundation for PreBabel but is something like solid state physics to GUT, then it is the case 2.
Perhaps, many will disagree with me, but I do not think that the case 1 is the case for PreBabel. I will give my reasons below.
- If FH does go haywire under PB-mapping, we can always give a unique PB for FH, such as,
PB (FH) = FH, that is, FH is not touched by PB.
Yet, even if FH were a singularity, I have showed mathematically that a rational mapping (such as, PreBabel) can handle FH, that singularity. Furthermore, it is very easy to prove that FH (whatever it is in language h) can never be a singularity with the "Private language thesis" which I discussed in the early posts.
If FH is a part of language h (Lh), FH can never be private (unknowable). If FH is not unknowable, then FH cannot be a singularity in Lh.
As the PreBabel is a "masking" function which should not disturb FH in any way. That is, the
PB (FH) can never go haywire.
Note: about 30 years ago, there was a "Martian language issue" in physics, not in linguistics. The questions were,
- Can we communicate with Martians when we meet them?
- "How" to get to know each other's languages?
- What will be the starting point?"
These questions were discussed in details in physics, and all questions were resolved satisfactorily. This is, in fact, a scientific proof on the "Private language thesis", and it is an expanded thesis.
- If it is a language, it cannot be private (unknowable).
- For any two languages (Martian or the whatnot), they can always communicate.
As long as FH is a part of a (any) language, it can always be handle by a rational mapping, such as the PB mapping.
- The PreBabel (English + Chinese) can be the base or the seed for PreBabel (proper) although not a fullfledged one. I have never stated that PreBabel is already complete. However, I did show that the Bohr's hydrogen model can be the "base" to handle the calculation for all heavy atoms, and an ideal equation (Newton's gravitation law) can handle the calculation for any real system which is far removed from that "ideal' situation.
In fact, if a theory can handle a complex system but failed for the simplest system, it is not a theory at all but is a "particular solution" for a particular case. A theory must, must, ... must accommodate the simplest system to be a theory. If it fails for a complex or a complicate system, it is absolutely fine. The complicate system can always, always, ..., always be approached with the repeated approximations.
As long as FH is a part of a (any) language, it can always be approached by a "basic" theory which works only for the simplest language.
Thus, "by only familiar with two languages, which are, in some ways, quite similar and in no way representative of the full diversity of languages," the principles of PreBabel can, indeed, absolutely ... absolutely be covering the language universals.
[quote="Khagan"]
If you make any genuine discoveries, they will be quite by accident and you certainly will have no way to separate them from the discoveries that are erroneous. [/quote]
In the history of science, many theories did arise accidentally, and none of them was devalued because of that.
For PreBabel as a theory, it has,
- A detailed theoretically framework.
- Large number theorem
- The shadow theorem
- The attractor theorem
- Fuzzy logic
- Super Unified Linguistic Theory http://www.prebabel.info/bab014.htm
- A detailed implementation procedures.
- an actual PB root word set
- the seed words encoding and ciphering with the PB root word set
- the regressive encoding -- dictionary encoding
- the progressive ciphering
- the settling in the mixing pot
- A detailed metaphysical and ontological supports.
- The Private language thesis
- The Martian language thesis
- Some actual PB implementations
- PreBabel (Chinese) http://www.prebabel.info/bab015.htm
- PreBabel (English)
Thus, the PreBabel could be erroneous or incomplete but will not be accidental.
Day sixty-seven -- Can the word ªj be dissected and decoded with the PreBabel root set?
From: Tienzen
Similar to any English word. every Chinese word (character) has many meanings while one of them is the core meaning. For ªj , its core meaning is the bubbly foam at someone's mouth corner when they speak. Now, we call a spit ¤f ªj (mouth foamy droplets). Of course, the meaning of this word can be looked up in dictionary. But, why it is written as it is? You cannot find it in the dictionary.
In Chinese Etymology, it is composed of two radicals,
- the left radical is a variant for ¤ô (water)
- the right radical is a word ¥½ , meaning "at the end" or "completion".
Then why does ªj mean as it is?
In CE, the meaning of ¥½ arises as follow:
- let's look at two very similar words, ¥½ ¡B ¥¼
- both ¥¼ ¡B ¥½ are composed of,
- ¤@ root 1 and have five means in CE, (heaven's chi [energy], earth's chi, man's chi, as 1, or union). Note: most of the time, one root one meaning, but this is one exception.
- ¤ì root 52, tree or wood.
- for ¥¼ , the heaven's chi (the growing of the tree) is shorter than the root ¤ì , that is, that chi is weak and new (just begin). So, the word ¥¼ means "not yet complete."
- for ¥½ , the heaven's chi (the top stroke) is longer than the root ¤ì , that is, that chi has done its job. So, the word ¥½ means "at the end" or "completion".
Then, what does ªj truly mean? Why does it mean as it is? There is a trick for finding this out. We can often find out the meaning of a word by checking out how it associates with other words. ªw ªj means bubble. In fact, ªw itself means bubble. Then, why is ªj doing there for? ªj signifies the end and the fate of the bubble ( ªw ) , the non-escapable of bursting.
Seemingly, it takes a lot to explain one word. Yet, after some basic is learned, every word becomes very easy. Not only we learn each and every word as it is, but we also know why it as it is.
One 13 year old girl, she went to the old Chinese school for 5 years, and she was crying before every going. She cannot stand the demand that she must learn every word under command without any explanation of why it is written as it is. In my class, she is now eager to come to every session and eagerly rises her hand to dissect and to decode every word. Learning Chinese via CE is not only very easy but is very fun now.
Day sixty-eight -- Comparison the PreBabel (Chinese) with some old school ways
[Quote from] Heisig's books, I am told, offer the same dissection of this character.
When two or more people come to the same conclusion, it is more suggestive that they are right.
You will be pleased to learn then, that Heisig's "Remembering the Kanji" series' first book was originally published in 1977, predating your "Chinese Etymology" by almost 30 years, and so agreements between it and your work are likely to have been independently arrived at.
[/quote]
Thanks for the info. I reviewed Heisig's sample material. The difference between us is greater than the difference between Heaven and Earth.
Heisig's method is 100% a mnemonic device, having zero substance on etymology. I am showing two simple examples here.
- ¤` ,
- Heisig
- Key word -- deceased
- Primitive elements -- top hat on a hook
- story (imaginative memory) -- the deceased gentleman left a top hat on a hook in the front hall.
- Tienzen' Chinese etymology
- meaning -- dead or disappear
- word in roots -- root 186 (Heaven or heavenly) + root 216 (disappearing)
- reading from the word face -- disappearing into Heaven
- J ,
- Heisig
- key word -- recklessly
- Primitive elements -- ancient moon lit up at 100% wattage.
- story (imaginative memory) -- at full moon, people tend to get a little "loony" and start acting recklessly.
- Tienzen's Chinese etymology
- meaning -- the skin under the chin ( it droops at old age)
Note: the word ÄG (beard) is the radical "hair" over J
- word in roots -- ¥j (ancient or old) + ¤ë (meat, a variant of root 96)
- reading from the word face -- old or aged meat (skin)
- its usage -- J ¤H (barbarian, who has long beard in comparing to Chinese)
- derived meaning -- reckless
In the sample lesson, Heisig showed 102 examples. There is not a single example having the correct etymology. The two examples above are enough to show the difference between his method and my etymology.
Day sixty-nine -- Comparison (II)
[quote="Tienzen"] In the sample lesson, Heisig showed 102 examples. There is not a single example having the correct etymology. [/quote]
I made this statement openly on a World Wide Web, and I must be responsible to my saying. Thus, I must give a few more examples to support my statement. First, I read Heisig's material from the following website, clicking "traditional" sample. Note: the URL is too long. So, it is broken into three sections. It must be reconstructed as one string without any space between the sections.
http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN
/publications/miscPublications
/Remembering%20Hanzi%201.htm
[quote="sangi39"] And your example isn't a mnemonic to you? "disappearing into heaven" and "deceased gentleman on a hook in the front hall" both meaning "deceased" are both mnemonic in the case of Chinese character learning since they both explain form and meaning. All the Heisig Method does is use a different set of primitives:
They're both memnonic by definition.[/quote]
No, no, no,... absolutely not. Heisig's is 100% a mnemonic device. Tienzen's is 100% etymology while the mnemonic is just the consequence. This alone is a world difference.
[quote="sangi39"] Both methods explain the composition of each character and how this composition based on set primitive characters with generally set meanings leads to the final meaning. The difference is that you still more strongly to the original meaning of the "underlying" characters while the Heisig method creates a set of meanings for those "underlying" characters which differ in some instances from the original meaning but which he uses consistently throughout and the method by which characters are divided into underlying characters is also consistent. [/quote]
There is another world difference between ¤` as "deceased" and as "disappearing into Heaven". I will show this in the next post. Now, I want to show a super obvious example first.
The word ¶ ,
- For Heisig: the example 57 in the sample material
- key word (meaning) -- page (of book)
- Primitive elements -- turning a shellfish, one
- imaginative story -- Pearl of Wisdom, radiant drop of wisdom with one and only page.
Note: In Kangsi dictionary, ¶ is a human head. There is no secret about this. Yet, Heisig discredited it.
- Tienzen's Chinese Etymology
- Original meaning -- human head. Kangsi dictionary is correct on this one.
- Word in roots -- root 47 (human's head) + ¤I (child, root 36)
The Chinese words are composed of roots (the PB set). The roots in a word give a static image. Then, this image is inferred to give meaning for its descendant words. I will show enough examples on this in due time. Now, I am giving one example.
º , human head. root 47 + ¤K (root 176, dividing). Inference -- head dress is on the head. This word shows the dynamic and the abstract aspects of the head, such as leader. ¹D (the way, pathway) is º + root 15 (traveling). Traveling with the leading head is the Way.
¶ is child's head, without the dynamics and abstractions of º . It depicts the head as an item itself. So, every word containing it is about the "head".
³» , top of the head
¶µ , back of the head
¶¶ , following the head, obeying
¶· , makeup on head, such as beard, hair, etc.
¹x , slow head, dumb or stubborn
¹y , lowing the head
ÀY , another word for head
¹{ , many heads, award to many heads
ȇ , leaning head (not fair)
ȉ , back of the head (collar)
ÃB , the forehead
¾g , lower the chin
ÀV , neck
Áû , the unit (or number) of head
There are another hundreds examples. Why does ¶ also mean "page" today? It is a long story.
If you still not see the difference now, I will show some more examples later.
Day seventy -- Comparison (III)
[quote="sangi39"] Heisig discredited no such thing! Heisig never disputed the etymology of Chinese character as understood by Sinologists and the original meaning of each character. [/quote]
In lesson 4 (page 43, example 57, ¶ ) of his sample lesson, he wrote, "As a primitive, this character often takes the unrelated meaning of a head (preferably one detached from its body), derived from the character for head (Frame 1067)". This is the precise quote, word by word.
Heisig mistakes ¶ as ¤@ (one) over ¨© (sea shell). Not only is this a major mistake but is a great laughing matter. Every 5th grader in China will laugh his tooth off on this. This kind of mistake cannot be excused by claiming as it is only an imaginative mnemonic device. After all, the etymology of the word itself is already the best mnemonic device for the word.
[quote="sangi39"] It should be noted that these meanings are those of the characters as used in the Japanese language not the written Chinese language. [/quote]
I have no idea about Heisig's work on Japanese, the Kanji. I am reading his work on "Remembering the traditional Hanzi."
As I stated that among those 102 examples in Heisig's sample lesson, there is not a single example is correct in etymology.
If anyone benefited from Heisig's method, good for him. I, myself, do not see it as a good mnemonic device by arbitrary making up a story for a given Chinese character. In etymology, a true mnemonic device flows out from its logic naturally. Let's look at the word ¤` again.
- Heisig -- deceased
- Tienzen -- disappear (into) Heaven (could be death or eternal life or just a flying away jet or a bird). The key is disappearing. Let's look some descendant words.
- §Ñ (forget) is ¤` over ¤ß (heart). The heart wonders away is "forget."
- ¦£ (busy) is "a variant of heart" + ¤` . The heart disappears into ..., it has no time to consider others.
- ÉÚ (desolate or lacking of) is ¤` over ¤t (flowing water). Flowing water disappears into ....
¯î (desolate field, not managed garden) is root 49 (grassy plant) over ÉÚ
- ·W (nervous) is "a variant of heart" + ¯î . The heart is facing a desolate situation, not knowing what to do.
- ÁÀ (lie or untrue words) is ¨¥ (speech) + ¯î . When the words are as not managed garden (big mess) or desolate, it cannot be true words.
In all these words, ¤` does not give any hint of an image that "a man is hanging up' a hat while kicking the bucket".
By knowing the correct etymology, the meaning of the words can be read out from their "faces" after learned some basic and some practices. No mnemonic device is needed at all. In fact, not much memory is needed for them neither.
A few more comparisons will be given soon.