What is language?

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