About PreBabel (Chinese)

Day thirty-one -- about PreBabel (Chinese).

Question -- from "Trailsend" -- ... that since all Chinese logograms can be broken into a root set, and you have used this same root set as the basis for PreBabel, then all Chinese logograms can be broken down into PreBabel root words.

Answer -- Yes, exactly.

Question -- from "Trailsend" -- However, You have shown that in PreBabel encodings, all characters must be arranged linearly, and that the order of this arrangement is a distinguishing factor (for example, (dot, horizontal divide) = above, while (horizontal divide, dot) = below).

Answer -- This issue of root order is a bit more complicated, especially for Chinese. In general, the "order" (either for roots (forming words) or for words (forming sentence)) is discussed in my paper "The theory and the method of constructing a true Universal Language, http://www.prebabel.info/bab001.htm ). Seemingly, you missed that point.

Question -- from "Trailsend" -- My question, then, is how you systematically arrange the root radicals of Chinese logograms into a linear chain as PreBabel requires.

Answer -- I do not truly understand this question. If you mean the "word form" of Chinese character, then the linear writing style of PreBabel vocabulary is a convention, not a requirement, as Chinese character uses a two dimensional style. If the "linear chain" relates to Law 1, then there is no difference between the Chinese characters and PB (English) words.

Question -- from "Trailsend" -- As I am currently learning Chinese, I will try to track down a copy of your book, as it will probably be of great help to me in that process.

Answer -- You stated, "I have no reason to believe that learning PB (Chinese) is any easier than learning Chinese." Now, you can check out your statement with a test, not as an issue of believing any more. In a Chinese language environment, a person can speak fluent Chinese verbally about one year (some needs only six months). For Chinese written part, however a language genius he is, he needs a few years to gain the ability to read Chinese newspaper. Yet, with PreBabel (Chinese), you can reduce those years into six months (in fact, 300 hours of good study). This is not a claim but is a guarantee. In addition to as a universal language, the PreBabel has revolutionized the way of language learning. One of the key point is that learning PB (language x) needs not a "language x" environment. PreBabel has transformed language from a way of living habit to a knowledge, similar to geometry, chemistry, etc..

Question -- from "Trailsend" -- However, I still do not believe that this system could form the basis for a universal language. It is, apparently, quite well suited for applications to Chinese, but not all languages behave the way Chinese does. More synthetic languages (particularly those of the fusional variety) would be much more difficult to "encode" using this root set (or any root set, really) than Chinese is. Thus, given an "encoding" of such a language, students would not be able to merely "figure out" grammar as you suggest is possible in Chinese.

Answer -- For knowledge, it needs no belief. You either know it or not. I listed two criteria in my PreBabel paper. 1. Criterion one (C1): Its scope and capacity must be in par, at least, with one natural language. 2. 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 either meets these two or not. If not, then the PreBabel is not a universal language, just as simple as that. There is no faith nor believing about it.

These two criteria was the first paragraph of the first section of the PreBabel paper. Yet, up to now (15 pages of posts), no one uses them to discuss the issues. Those issues (being discussed), 1. "I don't believe that universal language is ever possible". Who cares about anyone's believe? PreBabel is an issue of science (linguistics science), not a religion. 2. "Why horse head, not horse?" So what? Indeed a problem, change it. 3. "Tienzen is culturally biased." Is this making any difference for the validity of PreBabel as a science? 4. "I don't get a mental image of (dot, stop) as "at"." So what? Which criterion will thus fail because of this? 5. "People are all different!" Indeed, they are. But, what is the point? Which criterion will thus fail because of this? 6. ... etc..

If you are truly going to learn Chinese, you have a chance to check out these two criteria in person. Beliefs, you need them no more. If you learn Chinese via the old school, then, we can talk three years from now. If you learn Chinese via PreBabel (Chinese), you can make your report here after 300 hours of good study.

Signature -- PreBabel is the true universal language, it is available at http://www.prebabel.info