Day sixty-five -- Can any theory be based on only two highly atypical examples?

[quote="Khagan"] So you developed what you claim a universal language by working solely with two highly atypical and somewhat similar languages?

Does this seem scientifically sound to you, Tienzen?

Is this not like trying to develop a Grand Unified Theory of physics without ever familiarizing yourself with Quantum Mechanics? [/quote]

The first Quantum Mechanics model (the Bohr model) works "only, only ..." for hydrogen atom only. The calculation on "any" other atoms in Quantum Mechanics must use the "Perturbation" methodology or similar ones which estimate the effects or the distortion from the additional mass (additional neutrons and protons) to the hydrogen model's calculation. This is called "Many bodies theory." Thus far, there is no "general" theory which can calculate heavy atoms in Quantum Mechanics without falling back to the hydrogen model (with only "one" neutron, "one" proton and "one" electron).

With your logic, the Newton's gravitation law would be useless.

F = G (m1 x m2)/r^2

It is a law for two bodies (m1, m2). Yet, there is no chance of finding a "true" two body system in this entire universe. If we ignore all other planets, we still not be able to calculate the exact gravitation between the Sun and the Earth with the above equation, as the Moon is hugging and kicking all the time. So, we must also ignore the Moon at the first try. Of course, that error is quite large as the Moon is both quite heavy and very close to Earth to be ignored. So, we can include the Moon (as one body) for the second calculation and try to get an average from the two calculations. Of course, there is still some errors as the center of gravity of this compound body moves. Yet, after a few fine tune approximations, we can get a number which is very close to the true answer.

"Every" theory (whatever that is) must accommodate the "simplest" system, not the complicated system. As soon as the issues of the simplest system are resolved, the complex or complicated systems can always be handled with fine tuned approximations or with a Perturbation function which could encompass an infinite number of approximations.

In the same token, all the unique features of any language can always be deal with the similar method (in Quantum Mechanics), with the PreBabel + the perturbation(s).

[quote="sangi39"] ... but personally I find that you're more concerned with vocabulary (which is easy really since all you have to do is develop some mnemonic system) than morphology. [/quote]

This is a fair comment. However, the "Super Unified Linguistic Theory" (available at http://www.prebabel.info/bab014.htm ) goes way beyond vocabulary.

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