Someone said: {Linguistics has four levels: Phonology,
Morphology, Syntax & Semantics referred to as the formal linguistics. The
issue of linguistics having three folds is contestable and arguable.}
He is kind of right in terms of human natural languages but is
wrong in linguistics.
Someone also said: {only angel’s language is perfect}. This is
wrong.
For these two comments, I decided to write a very brief
discussion here about {what linguistics (language) is}.
While most of the members of this forum are human language
linguists, I will discuss this linguistics issue in its rightful scope (much
bigger than the human languages). You (the readers) need not get into it too
deep. But a superficial understanding of the SCOPE of linguistics is necessary
even for discussing the human languages.
For a system T, it is a language if it can describe a system U
(universe).
In general, U is not T. However, U is T is still meeting the
above definition. Yet, this self-mapping will not be discussed here.
With the above definition, the FIRST question will be {what is
the smallest T?}
Example: T has only one token, such as {1}. U has three members:
{apple, orange, egg}
Can T describe U? The answer is Yes.
For apple = 1
Orange = 11
Egg = 111
So, the system T (with only one token) can be a language for U
(with three members).
The next question is {what is the biggest U?}
How about U = the entire natural universe.
However, we do not truly know what the {entire nature universe}
is and thus are unable to deal with it analytically.
Fortunately, we can describe some known universes.
U1 = computable universe; everything (members) in U1 is
computable
U2 = U1 (computable) + un-computable universe; some members in
U2 are not reachable by any computing algorithm.
U3 = U2 + countable infinite universe;
U4 = U3 + uncountable infinite universe
Then, the third question will be {what kind of language system
is needed for those universes?}
Can the above T {1, with only one token} be the language of U1?
The answer is NO.
Yet, there is a math theorem (proved) that a two token system
can be the language for U1. That is, T2 = {two tokens, such as (0, 1), (yin,
yang), (man, woman), etc.}. This is a proven math theorem, and I thus will not
provide any further explanation here. But, most of the high school students
today know that only two codes are needed for all computing universe.
Then, can the language T2 describe the U2 (including the
un-computable)? Anyone who can read definition knows the answer right the way.
It is a big NO.
Then, what kind of language system is needed for U2, U3, and U4?
The answers are:
For U3, T3 must have 4-codes.
For U4, T4 must have 7-codes.
Again, you (the readers) need not get into the above too deep,
just understanding that the above issues are parts of linguistics.
With the above, we, now, have the 4th question: {is the U4 the
biggest U (universe)?} And, can T4 (the language of U4) be able to describe a U
bigger than U4?
The MOST of answers is NEGATIVE.
In Christian theology, God is totally incomprehensible (thus
only faith can reach God); that is, God is beyond the U4 and T4 (the largest
human language).
In Zen Buddhism, the highest wisdom (the Nirvana) is beyond the
description of human language (T4) and can be reached only via kōan.
In math, there are Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, saying that
there is always a math statement outside of the entire math universe.
The three above show that there is something unreachable by the
largest REAL language system. That is, we can now define {what is the ‘perfect
language’?}.
{Perfect language is a language which can describe ‘that thing’
which is beyond the U4.}
With a clear definition, we now can address the issue of
‘perfect language (PL)’.
Is PL an ontological reality? If it is, how can we show it?
For a linguist who studies human natural language only, he needs
not to get into the depth of the above issues. But the above issues nonetheless
are the foundations of ALL (any) linguistics.
The key points of my book {Linguistics Manifesto} discuss the
above issues. I strongly discourage the readers to read that book. However, if
you are interested in some detailed arguments, it is available at many Ivy
League university libraries (such as Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, etc.; see https://www.worldcat.org/title/linguistics-manifesto-universal-language-the-super-unified-linguistic-theory/oclc/688487196 ).
The conclusion is that the HUMAN natural language is bigger than
the entire math universe and is able to describe ‘that something’ of Zen
Nirvana or of God of Christian.
That is, we can now not only describe the ontological issue of
‘perfect language’ but is about the perfect language in terms of human natural
language.
The universal language, the dream of all linguists;
Key for AI and
computational …
God said: there was a PreBabel (universal) language.
Here it is; see my new book {PreBabel --- The universal and
perfect language}.
A review copy is now available at https://tienzengong.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/prebabel-the-universal.pdf
