Questions and Answers
Copyright © September 2009 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong
Page 8
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 沫 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 seventy-one -- Comparison (IV)
A few more comparisons on Heisig's work.
- 頑 (example 58, lesson 4, page 43 of Heisig's book)
- Heisig
- key word -- stubborn
- primitive elements -- a blockhead, at the beginning
- imaginative story -- Abel and Cain seeking favors of heaven, with stubborn grimace on their faces.
- Tienzen's etymology
- word in roots (or radical) -- 元 (beginning) + 頁 (human head)
- direct reading -- as a newborn's head (not the physical head but is about its mental capability).
- usages
* 頑 皮 -- playful in a mischievous or nuisance sense.
* 頑 劣 -- as a rascal, cannot be educated
* 頑 固 -- stubborn. By selecting "stubborn" as the key word for 頑 , it shows that not only does Heisig not know its etymology, but he does not know the true meaning of the word.
- 首 (example 67, page 46 of Heisig's book)
- Heisig
- key word -- heads
- primitive elements -- horns, nose (自 , see his example 32, on page 32)
- imaginative story -- the picture of a moose-head hanging on the den wall. with a note: ... frequent metaphorical use of term..., as head of state
- Tienzen's etymology
- word in roots -- 八 (root 176, dividing) + root 47 (human head)
- direct reading -- combing the head or dressing up the head
- usages -- the abstract head of anything, leader, etc..
- the descendant words -- 道 、 導
Note: Obviously, Heisig does not know anything about the root 47 (human head) and mistakes it as a horn over nose (自 ). In fact, there are many words from root 47 without the horn, such as,
* 憂 (worry) -- root 47 (the human head) over root 205 (covering) over 心 (heart) over root 17 (pacing). Direct reading -- the heart is covered by the head while pacing to and fro.
Higher generation words -- 優 、 擾 etc.
* 夏 (name for Chinese race, also means summer) -- root 47 (human head) over root 17 (pacing). Direct reading -- a cultured head pacing.
Higher generation words -- 廈
Note: Heisig makes this type of serious error all over the places, such as,
* 胡 , the right radical 月 (meat) was mistaken as 月 (Moon). This is excusable as most of Chinese people do not know the difference on this one neither.
* 頁 (head) as 一 (one) over 貝 (shellfish), and this not only is a big error but is a laughing matter.
* 首 (head) as "animal horn" over 自 (nose). Again, a joke.
- 丁 (example 86, page 54)
- Heisig
- key word -- fourth
- primitive elements -- fourth of enumeration ... an lunar calendar
- imaginative story -- someone waiting fourth in line , using a giant metal spike as a makeshift chair.
His note: When used as a primitive, the character changes its meaning to nail or spike.
- Tienzen's etymology
- word in roots -- 一 (root 1, heaven's chi) over root 5 (rooted chi)
- direct reading -- heaven's chi is rooted
- the usages
* 盯 (keep eye on ...) is 目 (eye) + 丁 (rooted)
* 釘 (nail) is 金 (metal) + 丁 (rooted)
* 打 (hitting with hand) is "a variant of hand" + 丁
* 叮 (repeated reminders or sting with mouth) is 口 (mouth) + 丁
* 訂 (place order or sign agreement) is 言 (speech) + 丁
* 亭 (a permanent hill top pavilion, as an ancient road site rest area) is root 208 (high ground) over root 205 (cover) over 丁 . Direct read -- a permanent (丁 ) covered place on the hill top.
* 停 (stop) is 人 (man) + 亭 . Direct read -- at 亭 , man stop for a break.
* 寧 (tranquility) is root 118 (roof) over 心 (heart) over 皿 (cook ware) over 丁 (rooted). Direct read -- cook ware is set (rooted) under roof (house), the heart is in peace.
Can Heisig's 丁 provide the meaning for those words? What is fourth eye? Fourth metal? Fourth hand? Fourth mouth? etc.. The etymology of above is already the best mnemonic device for those words. Heisig's error cannot be excused by claiming them as simply imaginative mnemonic devices.
His book could be a fun book for a beginner who knows not any Chinese word. Yet, learning all those invented stories will definitely poison learner's mind for a true understanding of Chinese characters.
Day seventy-two -- Comparison (V)
I do not know who James Heisig was and is, nor about his books before. I am not a book reviewer and am not interested in reviewing Heisig's books. Yet, his book was used as a standard to judge my work. I, thus, must make some comparisons between our works in my previous posts. And, I would like to make the following points to clarify the issues here.
- For an arbitrary and chaotic system, a mnemonic device system like Heisig's could be quite useful.
- For an axiomatic system, its own logic will produce the best mnemonic system for itself.
- For an axiomatic system, the Heisig-like system will definitely be a poison for a learner in two ways.
- Learner will mistake that this 100% axiomatic system is an arbitrary and chaotic system and will despise such an chaotic system.
- Learner will never be able to recover from such a poison the same as a stained while sheet will never be able to remove those stains.
The Heisig-like system for an axiomatic system is not only wrong and a great laughing matter but is poisonous to learner's mind.
- PreBabel (Chinese), the newly discovered Chinese Etymology, is an 100% axiomatic system. The simple examples that I showed in my previous posts were never known by the entire human history ever before. They cannot be found in any previously published works, neither ancient nor contemporary. They cannot be learned neither in Taiwan, China nor any university around the world, such as Harvard, Yale, Oxford, etc.. Thus, Heisig's mistake is not all his fault. After all, he has no chance to know any better before the publication of my works.
- Anyone claims that the old school Chinese etymology knows anything about that Chinese character set was an 100% axiomatic set is simply doing the "dog farts" (a Chinese idiom) with his mouth, a precise "terminology" for describing those claims.
With these five points, a few more issues arise, and I will discuss them in my next post.
Day seventy-three -- Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis again
[quote="Tienzen"] With these five points, a few more issues arise, and I will discuss them in my next post. [/quote]
Every nature language is unique. Yet, there are some issues are inter-language issues. One of the most important one is Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.
"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."
Then, there was a 70 year long debate on the validity of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. However, in the "Super Unified Linguistic Theory", this debate is finally settle.
In "Super Unified Linguistic Theory", there is a three layer 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
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.
If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is defined in the ps-sphere, then, it is absolutely correct. In the ws-sphere, the Universalist theory holds the truth, again according to the "Super Unified Linguistic Theory ( http://www.prebabel.info/bab014.htm )."
"... 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."
Furthermore, the pw-sphere encompasses 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.
Please read the article "The New Paradigm of Linguistics," at;
http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/nparadi.htm
Yet, the pw-sphere is the place where distinguishes all languages, affecting the cognitive classification of the experienced world in such a way that speakers of different languages "think" and "behave" differently because of it. In fact, this holds true even for a same language if it is expressed as different types. For example,
- Chinese character set in the old school -- it is treated as a type A language.
- PreBabel (Chinese) -- it is treated as a type B language.
It will take 5 school years in China and Taiwan for students to learn 3,000 Chinese characters and 16 school years for 6,000 words with the old school way.
With PreBabel (Chinese), any 10 year old American kid can learn 3,000 Chinese characters with only 200 hours of good study (as total study hours, both in class and self study). Yet, the difference goes way beyond this.
Many my students (from 10 to 14 years old) studied Chinese 5 years in the weekend school in America. And, the followings are the conversations with them.
Students: Are word roots having internal structure?
Teacher: Why do you ask this question? For many years, did you ask the question that whether the Chinese characters have internal structure or not?
Students: No. Never did.
Teacher: Why not?
Students: We were taught that every character is a blob and no question can be asked. Even while we asked that question once or twice, we were quickly informed that that kind of question is meaningless, a stupid question. We must learn it as it is. And, we will never ask that kind of question any more.
Teacher: So, you were forced to accept the authority and accepted to be a slave without the right of thinking or even asking question.
Students: There was no point of asking those kind of questions as no one knew the answer anyway. Slave or not, we must accept it without thinking.
Teacher: Why are you asking question now?
Students: Your system prompts me and allows me to think. We, now, see a system, not authority. By knowing a system, I, now, have the courage to challenge the authority.
...
This conversation shows the true source that affects the cognitive classification of the experienced world in such a way that speakers "think" and "behave" differently because of it, from a slavery mentality to a confident thinker.
Thus, the PreBabel process is not only a memory managing tool for learning languages but is an engine which transforms the cognitive mentality. What is cognition, then? I will discuss this in my next post.
Day seventy-four -- the "center of gravity" for new linguistics
I am very surprised that both the post counts and the view counts of this thread have reached to these high numbers in a short six months. Thank you all who have posted or visited this thread. All issues which were discussed thus far (January 29, 2010) in this thread were summarized into 74 questions and answers.
Now, we have discussed the followings.
- The PreBabel principle and procedures -- the foundation for a linguistic based universal language. ( http://www.prebabel.info/bab001.htm )
- The Super Unified Linguistic Theory -- encompassing all nature languages ( http://www.prebabel.info/bab014.htm ).
- The PreBabel (Chinese) -- the model for the PreBabel principle and procedures ( http://www.prebabel.info/bab015.htm ).
- The revolution on the language acquisition -- The new Paradigm of Linguistics ( http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/nparadi.htm )
- The PreBabel (English) -- ( http://www.prebabel.info/bab003.htm )
Regardless of whether the above are right or wrong, they are all "NEW" to linguistics. They cannot be found neither in Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Oxford nor in anywhere in the world. Thus, this Conlanger Bboard is now the "center of gravity" for new linguistics.
Yet, the PreBabel is, in fact, very simple, with only three points.
- It has two criteria.
- Criterion one (C1): Its scope and capacity must be in par, at least, with one natural language.
- Criterion two (C2): It must be mastered to a literacy level similar to the language skill of a 12th grader on his/her mother language by an average person in 100 days with 3 hours of study a day, that is, a total of 300 hours of study.
- The PreBabel principle -- if a PB root set can construct PreBabel (x) to meet the two criteria, the same root set can construct PreBabel (y) to do the same.
- Can we construct PreBabel (x) and PreBabel (y)?
Thus, the whole issue has only three test points.
- Are the two criteria sufficient conditions for a universal language?
- Is the PreBabel principle correct?
- Can PreBabel (x) and PreBabel (y) be constructed?
If we can answer test point 3, the test point 2 is also answered. For the answer of test point 3, please review the PreBabel (Chinese) at
http://www.prebabel.info/bab015.htm.
Day seventy-five -- the reviews and the material facts on PreBabel (Chinese)
[quote from papabear] Any peer review on PreBabel? [/quote]
As I pointed out in my previous post, the PreBabel (Chinese) is the "hinge" for the PreBabel system. The followings are some reviews done publicly (by media, universities, Taiwan government, etc.) on PreBabel (Chinese).
- Book 1: The first draft " 天 馬 行 空 的 漢 語 " (The Language as a Flying Horse), meaning --- a language cannot be confined by any grammatical rules or laws, written in Big 5 character set, 130 pages, 188 word roots were identified. It came off the press in November, 2004. Five hundred copies were printed. A news conference for this new book was held on January 9, 2005. Four newspapers and one TV station in Los Angeles reported this news conference. Their reports are available at http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/sb001.htm . The headlines were 龔 天 任 創 造 新 穎 漢 語 學 習 模 式 , meaning -- Tienzen Gong has created a "brand new" method for learning Chinese language.
- Book 2: "Chinese Word Roots and Grammar", a revision from book 1, written in Simplified characters, 144 pages. It came off the press in June, 2005, and 200 copies were printed. This book is widely available in the libraries of Chinese universities. Many comments about this book from the Presidents of Chinese universities are available at http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cw2.htm . Many Presidents used the phrase 獨 辟 蹊 徑 , meaning -- "brand new idea which is never known before". The President of Beijing Language University, 崔 希 亮 , said, " 當 懷 之 精 研 , meaning that I will hold your book in my bosom to study it."
Note: This book is also available in many public libraries in America.
- Book 3: "Chinese Word Roots and Grammar" (in simplified Chinese, 300 pages, 10 chapters, 4 appendixes) which discusses: general and comparative linguistics, the history and the historical writings on Chinese etymology, the critic of those works, the introduction of Chinese word roots, the rules and the growth of Chinese character system, the phonetics of Chinese characters and its history, the interaction of phonetic laws and semantic laws which gives the meaning and the sound of each character, the examples of those interaction and laws, the axiomatic linguistic systems (English and Chinese), the comparison between the two axiom systems, the grammar of English and the grammar of Chinese, etc.. This book is copyright with "US #TX 6-514-465", on May 5, 2006.
- Book 4: "Chinese Etymology" (in English, 326 pages, intended as a textbook for American kid who knows not a single Chinese at the beginning) which has three Lessons and one character list (about 8,000 words). This book is copyright with "US # TX 6-917-909", on January 16, 2008. This book is available in many university libraries. Please visit http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/318075862 for details.
- Book 5: "Chinese Etymology -- Workbook One" (280 pages) which has:
Part one: 220 roots and 1,100 G1 words. ...
Part two: 300 sound modules and 250 four-tones. ...
- "Chinese Etymology" was presented at "AP Annual Conference 2007 (CollegeBoard)" in Las Vegas on July 13, 2007. Over 100 Chinese language professors and teachers attended this presentation. I made two statements.
- Chinese written word system is an 100% root word system with only 220 root words, and it could be simpler than the high school geometry.
- The original meaning of every Chinese word can be read out loud from its face, and any high school student who did not know a single Chinese character could master the Chinese word system within six months.
The detail of this presentation is available at http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cw8.htm
and at the CollegeBoard website
http://www.collegeboard.com/events/apac/2007/program/7.html?confer=2
- Many case studies (the success stories) on PreBabel (Chinese) are available at http://www.chineseetymology.com . These case studies were reviewed in details by the Chinese media (5 newspapers and 6 TV stations), Taiwan government ( 台 灣 行 政 院 ) and many American universities.
- The details of the very successful education institute on PreBabel (Chinese) is available at http://www.TheBestChineseSchool.com/ . The age of the students ranges from 9 to 75. Some are not knowing a single Chinese word at the beginning. A few of them are Chinese language professors who taught in universities in Taiwan.
These are concrete "material facts."
In English vocabulary, there is a word "Crank" --- a pejorative term used for a person who characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional or emotional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task.
I am quite sure that these concrete material facts are still no value of any kind for those diehard cranks. For all others, here the reviews and the material facts they are.
Day seventy-six -- Is PreBabel just an oligosynthetic written Lojban?
[quote from Nortaneous]
Wait, so PreBabel is just an oligosynthetic written Lojban that takes its characters from Chinese and its words from whatever natlang the user speaks? [/quote]
This is a very important issue.
- Both PreBabel criteria and PreBabel principle are having nothing to do with Chinese language.
- PreBabel (Chinese) is the first 100% PreBabelized nature language. Thus, it is used as the model for PreBabel. The PreBabel (Chinese) word root set is used temporary as the PB root word set. As soon as a suitable replacement is constructed, the current set can be abandoned.
- Oligosynthetic -- meaning "few", is a hypothetical designation for a language using an extremely small array of morphemes, perhaps numbering only in the hundreds, which combine synthetically to form statements. At this time, oligosynthesis is almost entirely theoretical, as linguists have yet to discover an actual human language that meets the criteria for classification. Certain Native American languages, namely Nahuatl and Blackfoot, have in the past been claimed to exhibit oligosynthetic qualities (most notably by Benjamin Whorf). However, the linguistic community has largely rejected these assertions, preferring to categorize Nahuatl and Blackfoot as polysynthetic. Indeed, the very concept of oligosynthetic language has always been regarded as somewhat far-fetched. The fact that no existing language, living or dead, has been demonstrably shown to exhibit oligosynthetic properties has led some linguists to regard true oligosynthesis as impossible (or at any rate, wildly impractical) for productive use by human beings. There are, however, a large number of oligosynthetic conlangs, some of which have been constructed especially to experiment with this characteristic. Many well-known a priori conlangs, such as Ro, may be considered oligosynthetic, though not intentionally so. Speech of Oligosynthetic language would depend heavily on the creation of lengthy compound words, to an extent far exceeding that of regular synthetic languages.
That is, no one ever knew that Chinese language is oligosynthetic. Yes, PreBabel (Chinese) has many oligosynthetic qualities. This is a "brand new" discovery.
- Lojban -- was originally designed to support research on a concept known as the Sapir - Whorf hypothesis. Simply expressed, this hypothesis states that the structure of a language constrains the thinking of people using that language. Lojban allows the full expressive capability of a natural language, but differs in structure from other languages in major ways. This allows it to be used as a test vehicle for scientists studying the relationships between language, thought, and culture.
The objective of PreBabel is completely different from the Lojban. PreBabel is a "unifying process" which unifies all nature languages with an attractor (the PB set) and with the "regressive encoding procedure". Of course, PreBabel does have many Lojban features and many oligosynthetic qualities. Yet, PreBabel is neither Lojban nor oligosynthetic language, and they are not PreBabel.
If B is a part of A,
then, B is not A, and A is not B.
Day seventy-seven -- About the flexibility of language
[quote from Systemzwang]
I believe that your attempts fail to capture the inherent *flexibility* of language, which is one of the features of language that makes it so useful - because it's so vaguely defined, it can work even in situations completely unlike from those it developed with a selectional bias for handling - in fact, I think the reaper function for language development is likely to cause features that increase rigidity in language to be purged because they reduce the usefulness and adaptability.
I will try and formalize this criticism of your idea and show how this point of view applies to a lot of your ideas later on. [/quote]
You have touched one of the most important issue in linguistics, and I, indeed, have not addressed it thus far. In physics and mathematics, the flexibility can be precisely defined in terms of the "degrees of freedom" which is a well-understood subject. This is a big topic, and I will discuss it in my future posts. In a short conclusion, the stabler a system is, the more degrees of freedom it can handle. For example, the stabler politic system is, the more freedom its citizens can enjoy. Thus, the stronger a universal structure is, the more diversified sub-systems it can handle.
I am truly looking forward to your critique on this. It will surely be very important to my work.
I do want to show the power of the flexibility of language and the power of the adaptability of the human linguistic capability with two examples.
- 面 (face), 麵 (noodle or flour) in the traditional Chinese character set, they are homonym.
In the Simplified character set, 面 means both face and noodle. Yet, Chinese people handled this transformation, from homonym to homophone.
- 后 (queen), 後 (behind ...). They are homophone in the traditional character set. In the Simplified set, the character 后 is eliminated. Now, 皇 ( 後 ) is now the Queen.
These changes violated two important linguistic rules, and I will discuss these later. Yet, there is no problem for those who learned only the Simplified system. How truly powerful the adaptability and the flexibility the languages have!
Day seventy-eight -- About the universal grammar
[quote="Leto Atryda"]
I don't want all people to speak the same language. I like racial, cultural and linguistic diversity because it makes our world more interesting.[/quote]
I agree with you.
I am sure that no universal language will or can make all people to speak the same language. By definition, a universal language will be the second language for all people.
By the way, this PreBabel project goes beyond constructing a universal language. It also wants to construct a unified linguist theory.
[quote from Nortaneous]
You keep mentioning word sets. What about the grammar? How does that work? How would you map something like this into PB?[/quote]
About the grammar, you are seemingly still with the mentality of "the grammar of language x". That is, the PreBabel should have "a grammar" to look like the grammar of language x or language y. This is, indeed, the case for PreBabel (Chinese) or PreBabel (English). It can even be the case for the PreBabel (Proper). But for PreBabel itself, as a unified linguistic theory, it goes beyond that. There is not "a grammar" but is "a spectrum of grammar" which is discussed in the "Super Unified Linguistic Theory" (SULT) at http://www.prebabel.info/bab014.htm, ranging from type 0 to type 1.
What kind of grammar will the PreBabel (Proper) eventually pick up? I don't know. Before answering this, we must first find out how many choices it has. How big the grammatic universe that the PreBabel (Proper) can roam in? In SULT, it shows a grammar continuum, and a language x sits only on a spot in that spectrum.
In SULT, the grammatic continuum goes from a ground (default) state (type 0) to a high energy state (type 1). Which state is better? This is not a good question. The ground state has higher plasticity (fuzziness or flexibility). The high energy state is more rigid and precise (elasticity). Yet, this is not to say that the type 1 language has no flexibility but is relatively less. However, the growth pattern should be from the ground state to high energy state. Yet, the gravity should pull toward the direction to the default state.
The SULT only outlined (demarcated) a scope of the grammatic universe. What kind of laws and dynamics will roam in this universe? It only very briefly mentioned,
- Two PreBabel laws
- pidginning and creoling processes
We must know the details of the dynamics of this grammatic continuum before we can discuss the grammar for the PreBabel (proper). I will discuss this in my next post.
Day seventy-nine -- The "Large Complex System Principle" (LCSP) & the Martian Language Thesis
[quote="Tienzen"] We must know the details of the dynamics of this grammatic continuum before we can discuss the grammar for the PreBabel (proper). I will discuss this in my next post. [/quote]
The search for a universal grammar is not new. The generative grammar and the transformational grammar are two examples. Yet, there is a dramatic difference between the PreBabel and those old school ways. Their searches are within the linguistics, comparing different languages. The PreBabel uses a different pathway, the "Large Complex System Principle."
The number system, the topological system, the physics system and the life system are all large complex systems, although the members of each system are different.
The "Large Complex System Principle" (LCSP) states -- there is a set principles which govern all large complex systems regardless of whatever that system is, a number set, a physics set or a life set.
Corollary of LCSP (CLCSP) -- the laws or principles of a "large complex system x" will have their correspondent laws and principles in a "large complex system y."
If CLCSP is correct, then a physics law must have its correspondent law in math or in life system, and vice-verse.
The physics system is the "simplest" large complex system, and it has only a few major principles.
- Conservation laws
- Uncertainty principle
- The second law of thermodynamics, the entropy.
- Pauli's exclusion principle
- etc.
The most peculiar principle above is the entropy principle. Can we find it in math universe? The prime number is a very simple math concept. Yet, the large prime number becomes very complicated. There is no formula (or a set of formula) which can encompass all prime numbers. This simple prime number complexity can be viewed as the math equivalent of entropy in physics. In life system, the entropy plays an even more weird role. Under the skin of every life, the entropy principle is violated. Every life destroys its environment (increasing the total entropy of the universe) in order to "reduce" its internal entropy (producing an ordered life system).
Life principle -- increasing the globe entropy in order to reduce the local entropy.
Thus, the entropy (disorder) is, in fact, the source for "order." That is, B is true if and only if the non-B is true. This life principle violates the most important logic principle -- the principle of noncontradiction ( B and non-B cannot be true at the same time). From this life principle, we get the "Mutual Immanence Principle."
Mutual Immanence Principle (MIP) -- B and non-B are mutually immanent. That is, the life principle is a different expression of MIP.
If MIP is a principle in LCS (Large Complex System), then it should also be a principle in linguistic system as it is a truly large complex system.
For every law or principle, we must show its validity in two ways.
- its existence -- one true example will do
- its universality -- in general, the induction proof is sufficient
Can we find one MIP example in linguistic system?
The Martian Language Thesis -- Any human language can always establish a communication with the Martian or martian-like languages. Thus,
- Universal principle I -- all languages (human or martian) share the identical metalanguage.
- Universal principle II -- all language structures are subset of a universal language structure.
On the one hand, these two universal principles produce a "permanent confinement" for all languages; no language can escape from it. On the other hand, it is this permanent confinement which allows the production of infinite number of languages -- as the martian language is just a fictitious language, it has infinite possibility.
Among the large complex systems, the physics system is the simplest. The life system is also simple as all lives share the same set of alphabets, the amino groups. On the other hand, the linguistic system is the most complicated complex system, seemingly, no shared basic units, neither morphemes, phonetics nor grammatic rules. Thus, tackling the linguistic system directly by investigating a few languages can be often futile.
By applying the "Large Complex System Principle," the understanding of those simpler systems can be a guiding light for our research. With the MIP (the life principle), the linguistics is no longer a simple logic system but is a life system.
Now, I have introduced three new concepts.
- A new methodology -- The "Large Complex System Principle"
- A new type of system -- not bound by the principle of noncontradiction ( B and non-B cannot be true at the same time), and the Mutual Immanence Principle rules.
- A new concept of "permanent confinement" which is mutually immanent with infinite possibility.
With these, the foundation of a new linguistics is now set. The search for the true universal grammar begins.
Day eighty -- The three tiers of axiomatic system hierarchy
[quote="Tienzen"]
Now, I have introduced three new concepts.
- A new methodology -- The "Large Complex System Principle"
- A new type of system -- not bound by the principle of noncontradiction ( B and non-B cannot be true at the same time), and the Mutual Immanence Principle rules.
- A new concept of "permanent confinement" which is mutually immanent with infinite possibility.
With these, the foundation of a new linguistics is now set. The search for the true universal grammar begins. [/quote]
What works in Heaven might not be working on Earth. What happens in Alice's wonderland might not be happening in the real life. For linguistics, we must first know what kind of system it roams in before we can truly understand it.
In 1920s, Einstein and Bohr debated fiercely over the issue of uncertainty principle. For Einstein, the uncertainty principle could render the physical world to be inconsistent. As the strong believer of the formal system, Einstein could not accept the possibility of a principle like the uncertainty principle.
-
Formal system -- governed by the "principle of noncontradiction" ( B and non-B cannot be true at the same time). The key phrase is "the internal consistency." As long as a system has an internal consistency, it is valid although it might be contradicting with other systems.
-
In late 1930s, Godel proved his "second incompleteness theorem" which states that most of the formal systems has, at least, one inconsistent statement. I will call this Godel system.
For Godel system, the consistency is still the norm, but it leaks. And, there is no "formal" way to repair that leak.
If Einstein knew the Godel system at the time of his E-B debate, he would not have been against the uncertainty principle (UP) with the fierceness he did. Yet, mathematically, the UP does not go out of the formal system. The UP is still bound by the complementary principle. If A + B = total, then A and B are complement to each other. The complementary principle does not go beyond the "principle of noncontradiction". For quantum theory and Relativity theories, they are all roaming in the "formal" system. Of course, the "real number" system roams in the Godel system.
- In my last post, I introduced the "life system" which is not bound by neither the "principle of noncontradiction" nor the complementary principle. It is ruled by the Mutual Immanence Principle which means that "B is true if and only if non-B is true." There are many such examples in the real life.
There is "left" if and only if there is "non-left" (right).
There is "death" if and only if there is "non-death" (life). etc..
That is, we have three different kind of axiom systems.
- Formal system:
- governing rule -- the "principle of noncontradiction" and complementary principle.
- key phrase -- the internal consistency
- Godel system:
- governing rule -- the "principle of noncontradiction" and complementary principle.
- key phrase -- leaks. The internal consistency can never be maintained.
- Life system:
- governing rule -- Mutual Immanence Principle
- key phrase -- permanent confinement
Obviously, the first two kinds of system are the subset of the life system. Yet, for biological life, it is still very much roaming in the formal system, as the amino groups and DNA are governed by the law of consistency. Only at mutation and evolution processes, lives go beyond the formal system.
In my last post, I have stated that the linguistics is the "most" complicated "life system". Thus, any research of linguistics in and with formal system (such as the generative linguistics) will definitely be futile. As soon as we understand the laws and the principles which govern the "life system", we will reach the total understanding of linguistics. Now, the question is that "What does "permanent confinement" mean?"