Day twenty-six -- The PreBabel process is as easy as 1, 2 and 3.

      Question -- from "Thakowsaizmu" -- So... it isn't so much a universal language as it is some sort of ciphering of the parent language?

            Answer -- Indeed, it is. But, what is the point? If it means that the PreBabel logic is wrong and the PreBabel process is dead at the get go because it is just some sort of a ciphering of the parent language, then I am deeply sorry for wasting your precious time (three big long months). However, I am quite innocent for your suffering as the ciphering (as you are seemingly preferring to use this word) was, indeed, one of the key pillar of the PreBabel process, and it was clearly outlined in the paper (The theory and the method of constructing a true Universal Language, ) which was the first file uploaded to the web.

            I have said that the PreBabel logic is very simple, as simple as a, b and c. The PreBabel process is also very simple, as simple as 1, 2 and 3.

            Point 1 -- the goal: to construct a universal language with linguistics principle, not with the power of political and economical supremacy.

            Point 2 -- the strategy and the methodology: to create a dialect for every nature language (at least, the big 5) with a universal root word set, such as, PreBabel (English), PreBabel (Spanish), PreBabel (Chinese), etc..

            Point 3 -- the design criterion: the PreBabel (language x) must be much, much easier to learn (as the first language or as the second language) than the language x itself.

            And, this is it. The point 3 is, in fact, the hinge point. If point 3 failed, the PreBabel process will certainly fail in a practical sense, even while the point 2 is successful. In the past, many issues were discussed in this thread, such as, why is there horse head, not horse? why is there a root for "bone without meat?" etc.. Although they are genuine issues, they are, in fact, marginal and not important at all. If horse is better than horse head, then we simply change it. What is the big deal? On the contrary, the point 3 is "the" issue.

            If point 3 is successful, the PreBabel process has succeeded regardless of how people calls it, the ciphering or the whatnot. If point 3 failed, the PreBabel process will fail with it regardless of what good name that we have given it. It is just simple like this, nothing to it.

Signature --
PreBabel is the true universal language, it is available at