Day eight --

Question -- from "sangi39" -- So, it seems the PB radical system is based really more loosely on Chinese radicals, taking into account more spiritual interpretations of some radicals and reworking others into less complex radicals. This would help towards explaining the lack of verbs, since the majority of chinese characters are built of radicals which had a primarily concrete noun meaning, but also the "fuzzy" choice in certain "head" radicals, where the original radical is remade by adding some other radical.

Question -- from "ashucky" -- I have to say that I understand Tienzen at this point and also kinda agree with that. But again, you have only seven such words (bird's head, fish head, animal's head, horse head, tiger head, deer head, ghost head) and I'm a little bothered by the "tiger head" because I think it would make pretty much no sense when speaking with people that normally don't use use "tiger", for example Inuits. Of course they now know what a tiger is (thank god for the books and TV) but it would be still kinda odd for them, I believe. Or is that why you have "animal's head"?

On this note, what's exactly the difference between "bird's head" and "bird's head in general"?

Answer -- The "Fuzzy Topology" is a relatively new discipline in mathematics, and it will take a good 4 to 5 years of graduate study for covering its entire scope. I, of course, cannot describe it in a few posts here. Yet, it is truly a very important concept in linguistics. I will very, very, very briefly discuss some of its history and concepts here.

As the "Set Theory" is now the backbone of the modern mathematics, it was developed about 100 some years ago. Although there are many different Sets, two of them are the most important ones, the closed set and the open set. I will not talk about their detailed mathematic definitions. A common sense for the word "closed" and "open" will do here for now.

For the closed sets, many theorems were developed over the years and they all behaved nicely. However, there are many weird characteristics for open sets. About 50 years ago, many great mathematicians took the challenge to rein in those wild open sets, and the Fuzzy Topology began. At the same time, many computer languages arose during that period. The nicely programmed algorithms behaved very nicely, and it will always give the same answer each and every time when it runs. Yet, for an incomplete algorithm, it will behave wildly, and a new mathematical discipline arose, the Fractal. By mid- 1980s, the Fuzzy Logic arose from these two disciplines, and the Fuzzy Logic is the soul for many modern gadgets today.

Without using the mathematical jargon, the fuzziness is simply the result of something "incomplete". Yet, it took all those great mathematicians to discover that the "incompleteness" is much more powerful than "completeness". In fact, this point can be shown with a very simple example.

1. There are one thousand "different" birds needing to be described with a set of 100 symbols.

2. Set A has 100 different types of completed birds.

3. Set B has 100 different body parts of birds.

So, set A can describe 100 of the 1000 birds. Yet, set B can definitely describe all 1000 birds with ease.

There is no comparison between the "completeness" and the "incompleteness" in terms of their power. The roots (or radicals) in the Kangsi set are all complete characters while the most of the roots (with only very few exceptions) of PB set are incomplete characters. This is the "major" difference between the Kangsi set and the PreBabel set. Yet, the consequence of this difference is immensely great. With the Kangsi set, there is no chance of any kind to discover that the Chinese traditional word system is, in fact, an 100% axiomatized system. This turns out to be the case for the past 2000 years. With the PB set, there is no chance for the traditional word system to hide the fact that it is an 100% axiomatized although it is so deeply camouflaged.

Thus, in Trailsend's post, his question can be partially answered with a law below.

Law A: If set R is a root word set for a universal language (that is, being able to encode all natural languages), set R "must" be a "fuzzy set".

Perhaps, many of you disagree with me on how to select the PB set, and I will respect all that. I just want to point out my reasons.

1. It is derived 100% from the Chinese system (not by my choice) as it is the only system that "I" know, which is an 100% axiomatized.

2. Many seemingly non-senses (the spiritual roots, the similar roots, etc.) are included in the PB for a sole reason to accommodate the Chinese system. As long as it (the PB) can reproduce the entire Chinese system with ease, one natural language is encoded by it (the PB) already. Then, the criteria ii and iii becomes testable. By learning the PB set (about 10 hours), a person who knows not a single Chinese word at the beginning can acquire 3000 Chinese characters (which is needed for reading a current Chinese newspaper) with only 300 hours of study. Without the PB, the native Chinese or Taiwanese children takes about 10 years to reach that level.

3. With the "uniqueness theorem", although the current PB set is kind of odd and can be definitely accused as culturally biased, it does contain the "true" PreBabel set. However unhappy many of you are about the current PB set, it is all that I can offer now. If you still do not believe that a true universal language is ever possible or is not convinced that the uniqueness theorem is valid, not much I can do for you now.

Signature --

PreBabel is the true universal language, it is available at

http://www.prebabel.info