Questions and Answers
Copyright © September 2009 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong
Page 5
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 Ēj 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 forty-one -- PreBabel epistemology: the Occam's razor.
From Tienzen Gong: The PreBabel is a building and construction
project. That is, it does not truly have the issue of right or wrong
but has the issue of success or failure. However, during the
construction, many engineering issues must be discussed, and most of
those issues do have truth and false values. Thus, it is the time now
for us to reach an agreement on what truth is. So, I am putting my
understanding as below and looking forward to all your ideas.
Epistemology is the discipline of dealing with the issue of how to
distinguish a truth from a falsity, and it is a big subject. For our
purpose, I would like to make it simple, with only two points.
- Point 1: Occam's razor.
- Point 2: the interplay of theory and its experimental verification.
- The ontology of a theory -- what does a theory constitute?
- The metaphysics of experimental verification -- what are the genuine tests? not phony, bogus and pseudo.
Today, I will only talk about the Occam's razor. What is Occam's
razor? You can find the answer in thousands websites, and each one will
give you the answer with their own language. Thus, I will try my two
cents here with my own language.
Case 1:
Statement A is accepted as truth.
Statement B is identical to Statement A in substance but differs only with languages. Yet,
Statement B is made "after" Statement A, then,
Statement B is false under Occam's razor.
Case 2:
Statement A was accepted as truth.
Statement B encompasses Statement A, and Statement B contains more
substances than Statement A (that is, Statement A is a "proper" subset
of Statement B), and
- Statement B is accepted as truth,
- Statement B is made "after" Statement A,
Then, Statement A is, "now", false.
In all senses, this Occam's razor is not logical in common sense. Yet,
it is the razor used by the academic world to distinguish the truth
from the false. However great the Newton was and still is, his theory
is now, at best, a "partial" truth after the inception of Relativity
theory and Quantum physics. Newton is simply too great for us to cut
him up with the Occam's razor. Yet, not everyone has Newton's prestige.
Pulleyblank's and Baxter's works are, indeed, great and should be read
by anyone who is interested in Chinese written language. Yet, under
Occam's razor, their works are simply false.
Question -- from "svld" -- No, Occam's razor DOES NOT distinguish
truth from falsehood. It tells no truth but only usefulness when the
subjects are equally true.
Question -- from "erratio" -- ... sometimes simplicity, ...
And I don't think that it's about true or false so much as useful. ...
Answer -- There are thousands of websites on Occam's razor, and 95% of them are written for the layman.
Who is the judge for "usefulness"? What is the standard of the
usefulness? For 99% of people, Newton's laws are much more useful than
Relativity Theories, the calculation of flight time, space travel, the
Sun and Moon eclipses, and most of the whatnots. And, those
calculations can be done with algebra for Newton's laws while the
Tensor Analysis is needed for the General Relativity theory. Who is the
judge for the easiness and simplicity?
The Occam's razor is not a logic, not a philosophy. It is a razor
to decide who is the winner and gets the credit and awards (including
the Nobel Prize). My description of it is the only procedure for how
the Occam's razor functions and operates.
Question -- from "erratio" -- ... unless your theory can not only
do everything Pulleyblank's and Baxter's but do it in a simpler way,
they don't necessarily need to be thrown out completely.
Answer -- You missed the issue of "horse vs the horse's head."
That everything a horse can do, the horse's head can do too. Seemingly,
you also failed to notice the issue of "o-blob vs t-blob". The o-blob
is a "proper" subset of the t-blob. As the domain of Pulleyblank's and
Baxter's works is (o-blob, o-plop and o-glob), it is the "proper"
subset of (t-blob, t-plop and t-glob), and thus this issue is settle.
Question -- from "svld" --
1+1=2 (in arabic number and mathematical symbols)
one plus one is two (1+1=2 in English)
Which one is true
- (of a statement) concurring with a given set of facts; factually correct.
- (logic) A state in Boolean logic that indicates an affirmative or positive result.
"A and B" is true if and only if "A" is true and "B" is true.
- Loyal, faithful.
He’s turned out to be a true friend. (See below, "Compound Words and Terms")
etc..
Answer -- Occam's razor does not deal with this kind of issues.
In the early 1970s, the search for the Charm quark (the J-particle) was
intense. Finally, the CERN group's paper was postmarked two weeks
before the Chicago group's. In 1976, the Nobel Prize on Physics went to
the CERN group.
I am now 50 years old is a fact, a truth, nothing but the truth. This
truth may have some importance in a court proceeding but is no interest
of any kind for Occam's razor.
Occam's razor is not a logic, not a philosophy but is an imposed rule
and is accepted by the academic world. Occam's razor is the supreme
court for judging "truths" and for giving out the sentence that one
truth is truth and the others are false. The winner gets the credit.
The loser stays out of the "hall of fame truth". Only "truths" have the
right to enter into the court of Occam's razor for a judgement. If a
theory is proved to be not true already, it has no chance of facing
Occam's razor. In short, only "theory based" truths can face the
Occam's razor.
Day forty-two -- axiomatic domain, theory and system.
From Tienzen Gong: There are zillion facts and truths in the
world. Yet, the only truths that I am interested in here are "theory
based" truths. Now, we have settled that what Occam's razor is all
about. We must, then, discuss what a theory is.
Every theory is domain bounded. What is a domain? Domain encompasses a
system. Then, what is a system? We can go on with this kind of word
game for quite a while. Seemingly, you all always have your ideas about
words. So, let me define my words. If yours is different from my
definition, then, you keep yours, and I keep mine. There is no point of
doing the "war of words".
The only domain that I am interested in is the axiomatic domain.
Every axiomatic domain's boundary is marked by some axioms. Different
axioms will encircle different domains. The contradictory axioms are
simply enclosing different domains, such as the different geometries
from the different parallel axioms. The structure of inside the domain
is defined by "definitions." For example, Windows and Apple are two
different domains. How their hard disc is formatted is by their
definitions. Thus, with some "arbitrary" axioms and some "arbitrary"
definitions, we get one domain. And, there is no right or wrong issue
for those axioms and definitions but an issue of good or bad. A bad
domain is, often, useless.
With a domain (having boundary and internal structure), some
members come alive and roam in the domain. From the interactions of
those members, some laws can be found by induction. And, some theorems
can be found by deduction. Now, we have a baby as follow,
Pre-domain:
- some axioms
- some definitions
After-domain:
- laws
- theorems
For theorems, they must be provable with deduction. For laws,
they must be verifiable with tests. Of course, both law and theorem are
domain bounded, or sub-domain bounded. Yet, there is one additional
baby in every domain, and it transcends the birth process of both
deduction and induction. It comes alive as Godly ordained, and it is
called "Principle." Principle is deemed to be true in the entire
domain.
Now, this domain becomes a system. In a system, many more phenomena
arise. From these phenomena, someone can come up a hypothesis. From
hypothesis, it comes a theory. From a theory, it comes a prediction.
From a prediction, it comes test plans. From test plan, it comes test
result. With the test result, the "hypothesis" is either verified or
disproved.
Question -- from "sangi39" -- Yours is also wrong, the sequence is:
- Question
- Initial Observation
- Hypothesis based on Initial Observation
- The Design of a Test and Methodology to Enquire the Validity of Hypothesis
- Carrying Out the Test
- Collection and Analysis of Results
- Conclusions Regarding Results and Relation to Hypothesis (do they support the hypothesis or not?)
- Analysis of Test and Methodology
- Reassign Hypothesis
- Redefine Test and Methodology
- Carry out Test
- .... etc.
A theory is not formed directly after the formation of the hypothesis
until enough iterations of the above sequence have been carried out to
end up with accurate predictions. Thus your example only works for a
final iteration, i.e. that a hypothesis becomes a theory once it can
actually predict specific results which occurs after a number of
hypothesis>test iterations.
Answer -- The interplay between a theory and its final test (the
final iteration) is the only beef for the issue. However many warm up
tests were done, the final test issues the verdict of either a
verification or a disprove for a theory. Many theories are still
"waiting" the vindication from a final test.
After a theory is verified, the repeat of the test has two names,
calibration and production. After the Top quark was verified in 1995,
the repeated runs are Top quark production, no longer tests. With that
production, we are trying to analyze the top quark decaying pathways.
With this analysis, we are trying to form a new hypothesis for a new
theory. The cycle of,
Hypothesis -> Theory -> Prediction -> Test -> Verification -> Production -> New hypothesis
is called epistemology telescoping. This is it.
PreBabel is a system with hypotheses, theory, laws, theorems and thus is testable.
Hypothesis : every language can be ciphered with a closed set of root words.
Theorem 1: every language can be ciphered with the same closed set of root words.
- Law 1: Encoding with a closed set of root words,
any arbitrary vocabulary type language will be organized into a
logically linked linear chain.
- Law 2: When every natural language is encoded with a universal set of root words, a true Universal Language emerges.
- Prediction 1: from law 1, the PB (language x) can be easier learned than to learn language x.
- Prediction 2: from law 2, a true auto-translation machine for the world's languages can be built.
That is it.
Note: Any test which does not test against a "hypothesis" is a meaningless test, a phony and bogus test.
Day forty-three -- about Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
From Tienzen:
Seemingly, I owe someone an answer about Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. ...
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.
- "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."
- "... 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."
- "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."
- "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.
In a future post, I will show a true example of four theories which are fundamentally different; yet, 99% of their predictions are identical. The only way to separate those four theories is by tests which is able to test those different predictions.
Obviously, both schools have no fully developed theory with unique predictions which are definitely different from the opposing school's. Thus, a test result was a damning piece of evidence at one time; yet it becomes a supporting evidence at a different time.
Seemingly, the misunderstanding on "what is hypothesis?" is very wide spread. A hypothesis is an educated guess. But, educated guesses are not always hypothesis. A hypothesis "must" embody a theory. A hypothesis without a theory is not a hypothesis. Again, the misunderstanding on "what is theory?" is also very wide spread. A theory without a precise prediction power is not a theory. Theory is domain bounded. A domain must be defined with definitions and axioms. Both schools use the fuzzy concept of "natural languages" and the fuzzy idea of the cognition of world views as their domains while both domains are not defined with definitions and axioms in their discussions. Thus, they are not theories but notions. There is no scientific way to test notions. The only way to test a notion is to construct a theory based on that notion. Only testing the "predictions" of a theory is a meaningful test for a notion. Any kind of "hypothesis <--> test circles" without a theory and its predictions is pseudo and bogus tests.
I will show one example of "theories" soon. As the PreBabel is a scientific theory, it is very important to use the term "theory" correctly.
Day forty-four -- About the differences among languages
Regardless of whether the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is true or false, it touches the "core" issue of linguistics: "Is the obvious difference among natural languages superficial or fundamental?"
There is obvious difference between a brain cell and a toe nail cell. Yet, the "Theory of cell differentiation," based on the cell differences, can be identical to the "Theory of stem cell," based on the master cell, as both theories have the identical domain and the identical predictions.
Thus, can the "Linguistic Relativity Theory" and the "Linguistic Universality Theory" be also identical to each other?
How can we determine that two theories are truly different? However different two theories are superficially, they are identical if and only if both conditions below are met.
- They have identical domain.
- They have identical predictions.
Practically, two competing theories are always sharing an identical domain. If not, they are not truly competing theories, but different species. Thus, their predictions are the only factor to differentiate them.
As the PreBabel (Proper) is the true universal language, the issue of "Relativity vs Universality" is also the core issue for PreBabel. And, it is vitally important to know whether they are identical to or different from each other. Thus, I would like to show one actual example of how to differentiate theories.
Last week, there was a news that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was finally in operation the first time, after spent over 50 billion US dollars. This test is trying to select a winner from, at least, four competing theories.
- Standard Model -- It states that quarks are the "rock bottom" building blocks of the universe. That is, there is no internal structure for quarks.
Prediction -- there is a Higgs boson which gives quarks their "mass".
- Supersymmetry Theory -- It states:
- quarks are the "rock bottom" building blocks of the universe,
- quarks have a property of supersymmetry.
Prediction -- quarks have a set of supersymmetry partners, such as quark with squark, lepton with slepton, etc..
- Superstring Theory -- It states:
- quarks are the "rock bottom" building blocks of the universe,
- quarks are not traditional particles (ball-like object) but are strings (like a rubber band).
Prediction -- There are more dimensions than the known 4-spacetime dimensions. Some models of the Superstring have 26 dimensions.
- Prequark Chromodynamics -- It states:
- quarks are "not" the rock bottom building blocks of the universe,
- quarks are composed of "Prequarks," and there are only two Prequarks (V, A).
Prediction -- There are more dimensions than the known 4-spacetime dimensions, eleven (11) dimensions to be exact, no more nor less.
These four theories share the identical domain, "what are the rock bottom building blocks of the universe?" Seemingly, their hypotheses (the beginning) are dramatically different from one another. Yet, 99% of their predictions are the same; there are quarks and Higgs boson. In fact, the Standard Model is a proper subset of all other three theories. If the Higgs boson is discovered in the near future by LHC, only the Standard Model will be viewed as truth while the other three (also predicting Higgs boson) will be false according to the Occam's razor. Yet, although those three theories are expelled from the "Hall of Fame Truth" by the Occam's razor, they could still be competing theories as long as the Standard Model is their proper subset. For any one of those three, only when its "unique" prediction is verified, it will become the truth while the Standard Model (the proper subset) becomes false, as the Standard Model failed to predict that unique fact.
Although the LHC can produce energy "20 times or more" more than any laboratory in the world, its energy might still not be high enough to produce prequarks. Yet, the prediction of the Prequark Chromodynamics can still have a chance to be verified. If the Higgs boson is found, its decaying pathways could reveal whether there is any extra dimension(s) in addition to the known four. If such an extra dimension is found, both Prequark Chromodynamics and Superstring theory will come alive (from the slaughter of Occam's razor) and become the major players in the field.
This is a life example which expresses two points:
- How does Occam's razor work?
- How to distinguish different theories?
And, a) and b) are working together.
In short, the different hypotheses will not guarantee that two theories are, indeed, different. The only way to differentiate theories is by checking their predictions. As both the "Linguistic Relativity Theory" and the "Linguistic Universality Theory" do not have fully formalized theory with precise predicting power (the similar precise prediction power of the four theories in the above example) thus far, thus, I will volunteer myself to formulate one theory on this issue -- whether the obvious difference among natural languages is superficially or fundamental? -- in my future posts. My "guess", now, is that the "Linguistic Relativity Theory" and the "Linguistic Universality Theory" are the identical theory. They are the two sides of the same coin.
Day forty-five -- Reasons being in the dark
[quote from Thakowsaizmu] ... Especially seeing as how even though he is trying to make some universal language, he cannot use the languages he already knows to make any sort of point. We are all still half in the dark about this, and so he has failed in the communication area as well.[/quote]
Answer:
There are, at least, two situations that one is in the dark.
- His surrounding has no light.
- He is unable to see any light either physically, mentally or intellectually.
Yet, in my last post, I hinted that people can be half in the dark on an issue if its hypothesis has no theory or its theory has no predicting power. Thus, I did revisit my own website on PreBabel and am convinced that my paper "The theory and the method of constructing a true Universal Language ( http://www.prebabel.info/bab001.htm )" does not have the above-said defects. I guess that the problem is that it is too long a paper, and most of the people do not truly read it in its entirety. Thus, I will simplify it. Yet, I must discuss some issues before this simplification process.
In the Wikipedia, it lists a topic, "Unsolved Problems in linguistics," with the following problems are unsolved.
- Is there a universal definition of the word?
- Is there a universal definition of the sentence?
- Are there any universal grammatical categories which can be found in all languages?
Are these genuine problems? How can they be not genuine if they are listed as so in the Wikipedia? Well, if we take the Wikipedia as the Gospel, then, no further discussion is needed, indeed. However, I do not take that position and am making my points below.
There are, at least, three different pathways for doing researches.
- The phenomenology pathway -- from the entire phenomena of the "real" universe (the "real" linguistic universe in this case), some rules (theorems or laws) are obtained with
- deduction
- induction
- etc.
- The pure axiomatic system pathway -- a domain (universe) is "constructed" by a set of definitions and axioms, while this set can be arbitrary selected. As soon as such a set is constructed, some phenomena will arise among its members, and some rules (theorems or laws) can be obtained with
- deduction
- induction
- etc.
Then, this "constructed" universe must put into a comparison with the "real" universe, item by item and point by point, such as, their domain, their phenomena, their theorems and their laws, etc.. If the constructed universe is smaller than the real one, then, it is obviously not adequate, and it must be revised. In general, the constructed universe must be equal to or larger than the real universe for it to be a viable theory.
- The hybrid of the two above --
Seemingly, the current linguistics takes the hybrid (the third) pathway. In the real linguistic universe, the grammar of different natural languages are significantly different from one another. Yet, they can be grouped into, at least, three groups.
- a. Deductive group -- they follows some deductive rules. The Generative school is the leader on this, and this group includes the Head-driven phrase structure grammar, Lexical functional grammar, Categorial grammar, Relational grammar, and Tree-adjoining grammar, etc..
- Inductive group -- the grammar rules are not deduced but is formulated by induction.
- the hybrid group --
As soon as we organize a body of phenomena from a particular starting point (grammar in this case), the entire universe (linguistic universe in this case) will be polarized around this point, and the other concepts in this universe will be distorted. So,
- With the deductive approach on grammar, the definition for "word" is A.
- With the inductive approach on grammar, the definition for "word" is B.
- With the hybrid approach on grammar, the definition for "word" is C.
Of course, the chance that A = B, B = C or A = C is almost nil. Thus, the so called "Unsolved Problems in linguistics" arises. However, if we take "the pure axiomatic system pathway," all those unsolved problems will disappear, as they will be defined at the beginning to demarcate a domain. Of course, this constructed domain (universe) will, then, be compared with the "real" linguistic universe. If this constructed linguistic universe cannot encompass the real linguistic universe, then, it is no good. If it can, then, we have found the entire underlying framework for this "real" linguistic universe. As the PreBabel claims to be the true universal language, this is a task must be done. After this, if someone is still in the dark, well, ....
Day forty-six -- about large and complex system
From Tienzen:
As soon as we organize a body of phenomena from a particular starting point (grammar in this case), the entire universe (linguistic universe in this case) will be polarized around this point, and the other concepts in this universe will be distorted.
However different superficially for large and complex systems (such as, the physical universe, the life universe, the math universe or the linguistic universe) there are, they all share a set identical principles.
- Hierarchy principle -- every universe is built up from the bottom up, by its elementary members clinging or sticking together to from a higher globs. Such as:
- Physical universe: from elementary particles --> atoms --> elements --> molecules --> large objects (stars, lives, etc.)
- Life universe: from single cell life --> plants and animals --> human
- Human society: from individual --> family --> village --> country --> nation --> humanity
- Math universe: from numbers or geometrical points --> arithmetics and geometry --> ...
- Similarity principle -- whatever this clinging and entwining process (gravitation, food-chain, love, in sets, etc.) is, it repeats over and over in its hierarchy building.
Therefore, a two point conclusion, at least, can be made:
- Thus, the theorems and laws of one universe "could" be also the theorems and laws of a different universe, although its clinging process could be different, such as, that the gravitation is replaced with love in the case of growing the human society.
- Every universe has a "natural and innate" hierarchy.
Of course, each level of this hierarchy can be studied independently as a sub-domain without any distortion to this natural expansion. However, if a theory is trying to describe the entire universe without following its innate hierarchy by selecting a new beginning point as the center of this universe, then this universe will be polarized and distorted. And, many singularity points could be created by that theory. For example, the grammar is obviously a higher level object in the linguistic universe. If using the grammar as the "center point" for the linguistic universe, many singularities will appear.
Are those singularities created or innate? This is a very important issue. Yet, it is a too big issue for our discussion. I will simply give my answer here; they are innate although they do not show up in its natural expansion of its hierarchy. Thus, these polarized theories are providing great information about that universe on its elasticity and plasticity, although those theories are partial theories in essence. In fact, as theory (or model) is almost always "hypothesis" centered, it is always polarized. That is, only the "Final Theory" can show the natural expansion of its hierarchy by de-polarizing it. In a sense, this polarization is difficult for layman to understand. Yet, there are some simple examples.
- Origami -- by different ways of folding the same piece of paper, different objects can be created.
- Jianzhi (the art of paper cutting) -- by different ways of folding the same piece of paper, the "same cut" on that paper will create different patten.
Now, we can add third principle for any large and complex system (universe).
The Singularity principle -- every universe has a number of singularities, from 0, 1 to 2.
In Topology,
- a ball-shape-like universe has zero (0) singularity.
- a plane-shape-like universe has one (1) singularity.
- a donut-shape-like universe has two (2) singularities.
That is, there are different types of universe. What kind of universe is the linguistic universe? What differences are there among these different universes? Without answering these questions, we cannot truly construct the Final Theory. Yet, there is a short-cut to this issue. Instead of construct a final theory, we can construct a virtue (linguistic) universe. These two approaches are dramatically different. Theory is always "hypothesis" centered. The constructed universe is built from the bottom up with some arbitrary definitions without any hypothesis. Of course, this constructed universe must be checked with the "real" universe, item by item (its theorems, laws, phenomena, etc.). And, this is what we can do in the near future.
Day forty-seven -- A constructed linguistic universe (I)
Tienzen wrote:
These two approaches are dramatically different. Theory is always "hypothesis" centered. The constructed universe is built from the bottom up with some arbitrary definitions without any hypothesis.
While the definitions for "word" and "sentence" are viewed as unsolved problems from the current linguistic theories, they can simply be defined as the building blocks for a "constructed linguistic universe". The followings are the definitions which demarcate the domain of a "constructed linguistic universe". Of course, this "constructed linguistic universe" will, then, be checked with the real linguistic universe, item by item.
- Definition one: Set UL = {Lx; Lx is a natural language}. So, the members of set UL are natural languages.
- 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.
Note: In a universe, some terms are known intuitively and are not defined. In general, these terms are known via some other disciplines. The following terms are undefined.
- Natural language
- Set, member and symbol
- topological form
- Completed sound note
- Meaning -- meaning is, in fact, a pointing function. When, F(wx) --> y, then, y is the meaning for wx.
- Definition four: "Operator" of composite (Opc) -- set Vx is the domain and the range for Opc.
Opc (syx1, syx2, ...) = syxn
Note: there can be some laws for Opc, such as, the Commutative, Associative, Distributive Laws.
- Definition five: "Operator" of dot (Opd) -- Opd is placed at the utmost right position of a syx. Opc cannot have any operand which carries an Opd.
- 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.
- Definition eight: "Operator" of accumulation (Opa) -- Only "sentences" of Lx can be the operands of Opa. Opa stacks "sentences" of Lx into a linear chain.
Seemingly these eight definitions are strange and simple. Can they truly demarcate a constructed linguistic universe? Can this constructed linguistic universe encompass the real linguistic universe? These are the issues that we must answer.
After the demarcation of a domain, we, now, can and need to construct the internal structure of this domain. That is, we need to introduce some axioms now. With different axioms, the internal structure of the domain will be different or that different sub-domains will be constructed.
For the "inflection axiom (IA)," there are two values for IA.
- IA = 0, the wx is not inflected.
- IA =1, the wx is inflected.
Thus, two types of sub-domains (or languages) are created. By introducing, at least, three more axioms, the structure of different languages will emerge in details. I will use two real languages (English and Chinese) to check that how good this construction process is.
Day forty-eight -- about China's language policy
[quote from Trailsend] with Tienzen's description of hierarchy in the "Life" universe, by which presumably he means "biological." From a biological standpoint, as Svid points out, humans are classed under kingdom Animalia, and their biological processes are the same. Moving into other spheres like ethics, sociology, or psychology certainly changes the ball game--but Svid was making no claims there. He just thought that, within the sphere of biology, Tienzen's hierarchy was not valid. [/quote]
Answer:
You are claiming that you are going to do research of some sorts, and then, you have no excuse for the mistake that you are making here. There are three basic skills for doing any kind of research.
- the ability of "distinguishing" -- able to distinguish different objects or topics from "one" messy glob.
- the ability of "connecting" -- able to connect or link the related objects or topics which are seemingly unrelated and separated far apart.
- the ability of "not presuming" before a through research
Why are you "presuming" that the hierarchy in my life universe is about biological? In fact, I indicated it otherwise. And, those indications are explicit and strong.
In the parallel listing for the clinging or sticking, they are,
- Physical universe --> gravitation
- life universe --> food-chain
- human universe --> love
- etc.
So, what is the hierarchy of life universe that I was talking about? A true researcher will definitely not presume that the "biological" is the answer. In fact, you have a disconnection on this yourself.
[quote from trailsend] Which is to say, as Khagan mentioned, it is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Even if Svid is right, at best it negates a very minor point that could be argued in any number of other ways.
You said that 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 wasn't aware the government had made this decision. When did this happen?
[/quote]
Answer:
Are you able to read Chinese newspaper? The catch phrase for China's high officials on this issue is, NOW, "Reading the traditional (character set), writing the simplified."
Anyone who learns traditional is able to pickup the simplified with ease, but it cannot be the other way around. The fact is that knowing the mother knows the son but not other way around. And, the simplified is the son of the traditional. Thus, the traditional must be learned and cannot be picked up.
Politically, China cannot discredit her "greatest" political achievement over night, and it must be weaseled out honorably, such as, under the cover for promoting the unification between Taiwan and China.
Day forty-nine -- Construced linguistic universe (II)
From Tienzen:
After the demarcation of a domain, we, now, can and need to construct the internal structure of this domain. That is, we need to introduce some axioms now. With different axioms, the internal structure of the domain will be different or that different sub-domains will be constructed.
Indeed, the definitions demarcate a domain; the axioms will specify the internal structure of that domain or to construct some sub-domains. I will "introduce" (arbitrary chosen) six axioms for this "constructed linguistic universe." Similarly to the Parallel axioms in Geometry, every axiom can have more than one value.
- Similarity transformation axiom -- a rule (theorem or law) will repeat over and over in a domain or in different levels of its hierarchy. And, it has two values;
- Sa = 0, similarity transformation is not active.
- Sa = 1, similarity transformation is active.
- Predicative axiom -- particles in a glob (a word, a phrase or a sentence) is distinguishable. And, it has two values;
- Pa = 0, PA is not active.
- Pa = 1, PA is active.
When Pa = 1, a sentence "could" be first distinguished as the "Speaker" and the "others." If Sa = 1 also, then, the "others" can be further distinguished as,
- action (or state) words
- object (things or person) words
- pointing words, and these can be further distinguished as,
- pointing the action words
- pointing the object words
- gluing words
- others
- Inflection axiom -- some tags are tagged at the end of words. And, it has two values;
- Ia = 0, IA is not active
- Ia = 1, IA is active
Note: As I mentioned before, with some definitions and axioms, we can often find some theorems and/or laws. Now, we can identify a theorem.
- Redundancy axiom -- For a function F, it will be applied, at least, twice on its operand. And, it has two values;
- Ra = 0, RA is not active
- Ra =1, RA is active
Examples:
- Ra = 0;
I go to school "yesterday".
I have "three" dog.
I love He.
She love I.
- Ra = 1;
I "went" to school yesterday.
I have three "dogs".
I love him.
She loves me.
- Non-Communicative axiom -- for (a, b) and (b, a), they are "not" the same. And, it has two values;
- Na = 0, NA is not active
- Na = 1, NA is active
For a sentence,
- when Na = 0,
(I love you) = (love you I)
Note: If a Lx has Na = 0, it will run into some problems.
Is (I love you) and (You love I) the same? Yet, there are some ways to resolve this kind of issue, and I will discuss it later.
- when Na = 1, then the "word order" is a rule.
- Exception axiom -- for every rule in the universe, there is one or some exceptions. And, it has two values;
- Ea = 0, EA is not active
- Ea = 1, EA is active
With these six axioms, a constructed language can be expressed as,
Lx (a constructed language) = {Sa, Pa, Ia, Ra, Na, Ea}
And, we have constructed two types of language, "type 0" and "type 1".
Type 0 = {0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0}
Type 1 = {1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}
Now, our question is that whether there is any "real" natural language having a similar structure to these two types of constructed language or not. Perhaps, some real natural languages are hybrids of these two. This will be our future discussion.
My hope is that all real natural languages will fall in-between these two types.
Day fifty -- Constructed linguistic universe (III)
From Tienzen:
Thus far, we have constructed two types of language, "type 0" and "type 1".
Type 0 = {0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0}
Type 1 = {1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}
Now, our question is that whether there is any "real" natural language having a similar structure to these two types of constructed language or not. Perhaps, some real natural languages are hybrids of these two.
The real natural language universe is very complicated. Yet, the constructed language universe is quite simple thus far, with only 8 definitions (including 3 operators) and 6 axioms. After introducing three more operators, its construction will be complete. Our final objective is to "derive" some languages which are similar with or identical to some natural languages. Yet, we should have a bird eyes view on this constructed language universe first. 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.
With the previous definition:
Similarity transformation axiom -- Sa
Predicative axiom -- Pa
Inflection axiom -- Ia
Redundancy axiom -- Ra
Non-Communicative axiom -- Na
Exception axiom -- Ea
By comparing with the English, what is the type of language for English in terms of this constructed language universe?
- English is inflected --> Ia = 1
- English has a "subject -- predicate" structure --> Pa = 1
- English has parts of speech, tense, numbers, etc. --> Ra =1
- English has word order --> Na =1
For every real natural language, I think that it has Sa =1 and Ea =1. Thus, I will make this a law.
Law one: For every real natural language, it has Sa = 1 and Ea =1.
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}
Now, we should be able to prove a theorem:
Theorem 1: In comparing with the structure of English, a "type 1" language can encompass the English-like languages.
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.