Theoretical framework for a universal language

Day six --

      Question -- from "sangi39" -- Have you, then, based the system of 240 roots on the radicals of the Chinese writing system


      Answer -- Yes, 100%. I have mentioned this many times by now. In my book "Chinese Etymology," it listed only 220 roots, that is, those obvious compounds in the PB set was not there. In the Chinese system, those compounds are there naturally. For the convenience of encoding other languages with PB set, I added those compounds for my laziness and made this point a few times in our discussion before.

      Yet, the Chinese system is deeply camouflaged by having many variants for some roots. Only after those variants being pointed out, a naked axiomatized system was revealed. I did not include any those variants (about 50) in the PB set. Why this Chinese system is so deeply camouflaged and how was it done is a big issue. I discussed this issue a few times in different papers. One is available at
      http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/nparadi.htm

      Perhaps, the PB set is not good for encoding English. But it can "reproduce" the entire Chinese system without any additional effort, as I already said in my previous post,
      " By January 2008, all Chinese characters (traditional or simplified, almost 60,000) were checked with this root word set. No "single" character escaped. And, a book "Chinese Etymology" was published with US copyright number TX6-917-909 in January 2008. "

      It is good, very, very good for the Chinese system. I remember that one member of this forum is a Taiwanese. In general, in Taiwan or in China, a high school graduate can read about 3000 Chinese characters (for a total about 60,000), a college graduate 5000 to 6000. Yet, "none" of them knows that why a character is written as it is, not otherwise. The chance for that member to know why the characters of his name (2 or 3 characters) are written as they are is not very high. This PB set not only can reproduce the entire Chinese system with ease, it reveals the reason that why a word is written as it is.

      This is not a place for mathematics. So, I will not do any math proofs here anymore. But, math is a very important general science, that is, it has many applications, in physics, in engineering, in financing, in almost everything. In fact, many math theorems have the great importance in linguistics. I am going to list the most important ones below. If anyone wants a detailed proof about them, he can always find answers in the math department in a university near to him.
         1. Existence theorem -- For any arbitrary and chaotic data set T, there always exists an axiomatized set R which can encode the members of Set T.

            Corollary 1 -- L1 and L2 are two arbitrary and chaotic data sets. Set R is an axiomatized set for L1, then R is also an axiomatized set for L2.

            Because of this Corollary, the ability of translating one language to another is, thus, guaranteed.

            Yet, most importantly, an axiomatized set from Chinese language can encode any other language (including English) is also guaranteed.

         2. Uniqueness theorem -- For any arbitrary and chaotic data set T, and R1 and R2 are two axiomatized set for set T, then R1 and R2 are isomorphic.

      That is, they are essentially the same set with different expressions. For example, if you use 240 English phonemes to replace those PB roots, your new set is, in fact, the same as the PB set. If you don't like those mumbo-jumbo symbols and replace them with some beautiful abstract symbols in their places, your new set is still the same set. If you don't like those compounds and remove them for good once and for all, your new set is still the same old set, as those compounds are not basic but added for my laziness.


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