Day thirteen --
Question -- from "porpleafreet" -- and lastly, I would like you to encode a few things for me, here's a small list:
never trust a pineapple -- or a grapefruit, for that matter.
the blue sky greened, then faded to red, then out to black before dawning anew the next day.
the little monkey attacked tienzen viciously with a spork.
please encode those, I want to see how they'll turn out.
Answer -- I think that 2 or 3 examples will suffice to show the process of encoding and to evaluate that whether the PB root word set is capable of encoding all English words or not.
The first step is to define the word with two or more (maximally 4) English words of your choice.
For "laser" = (engineer, light), Note: (this is my choice, and you can have yours.)
The second step is to read out these words with PB roots or PB words.
"Engineer" = root 125
"light" = (fire, energy), as this word "light" is not a current PB word, it must be encoded first.
"fire" = root 91
"energy" = root 3
So, "laser" = (R125, R91, R3)
For "electricity" = (lightning, energy)
As "lightning" is not a current PB word, it must be encoded first.
"lightning" = (rain, light)
Again, "rain" is not a current PB word, it also must be encoded first.
"rain" = (sky, water)
"sky" = seed word (sw) 97
"water" = root 93
So, "electricity" = (sw97, r93, r91, r3, r3)
For a large PB word, it can actually written as a PB word phrase, such as,
"electricity" = (lightning, energy) = ((sw97, r93, r91, r3), r3)
For "radio" = (artificial, speak)
"artificial" = (man, engineer) = (r96, r125)
"speak" = r165
So, "radio" = (r96, r125, r165)
For "buttmunch" = (kiss, butt) and many of you can encode this one better than I could.
For "what's up" or "never trust a pineapple", the meaning of these phrases or sentences is the result of semantic operation. When PreBabel has enough PB words, some combinations of those words can easily translate those sentences. In fact, we don't encode sentences but translate them.
Question -- from "Ave94" --Why there can be no universal language:
And if they were going to learn another language, why one with no other speakers, when they can learn a natural language with millions of speakers? If there are only a few other speakers, then there's no point in learning it, because it would be useless without people to talk to in it. And it is easier to learn a language if you have help from fluent speakers.
Answer -- With the above examples, we can be very confident that an induction proof that this PB root word set can, indeed, encode the entire English vocabulary. Yet, why should anyone want to learn it?
Almost all the non-English speaking countries teach English in their schools, and most of their students learned English one to five years during their school years. Yet, 80% of them are unable truly to speak or to write in English. English is simply a too difficult language to learn as a second language.
With the PreBabel, a new linguistic law was discovered.
Law 1: Encoding with a closed set of root words, any arbitrary vocabulary type language will be organized into a logically linked linear chain.
When the encoding of English with PB set is completed (100% or at least with a dictionary of 50,000 English words), this PreBabel (English) becomes a dialect of English. Then learning English as a second language via its dialect [PreBabel (English)] will become much, much easier (10 to 100 times easier). And, this is a testable issue.
As we already know that Chinese written language was one of the most difficult language to learn in the world, yet it becomes the easiest one after the Chinese word system was encoded 100% with a cousin of the PB set. A world record was set with only 89 days of study (from an initial state of not knowing a single Chinese word both verbal and written to a level of being able to read the current Chinese newspaper), and this case can be examined in detail at
Question -- from "Thakowsaizmu" -- And in manipulating those roots to make more words, all the people have to either agree on the meanings, or memorize meanings that may not make total sense to them. Universal languages in this vein are usually doomed from the get go. You cannot be one hundred percent nonsubjective when creating these words.
Answer -- Before a natural language is encoded with the PB set 100%, the encoding process is an open frame process. Indeed, a thing or a concept can be encoded in many different ways with the PB set, such as,
[R(a), R(b, R(c)] = [R(x), R(y)] = ...
And, these are synonyms. Of course, at the time of compiling a dictionary for that language, some synonyms should be dropped while only preserve the best ones. Although the encoding process is wide open, limited only by our imagination, there is one rule that we should observe, the excluding principle.
Excluding Principle: when R(a) + R(b) means X, then R(b) + R(a) should mean X+ (not X). When a word already has a PB code, a similar code should be assigned to a different word if that PB code can encompass it.
This excluding principle is not in contradiction with the synonyms but is a good and economic way of encoding. In a sense, this kind of assignment is kind of going back to the issue of "you told me so," but the degree of that has reduced greatly.
PreBabel is the true universal language, it is available at