The structure of a constructed linguistic universe

 

 One,

The procedure and evidence to show that the language spectrum is correct

Procedure:

1. Constructed Linguistic Universe: SULT is built from the bottom up with arbitrary definitions and then checked against the real linguistic universe item by item to see if its theorems, laws, and phenomena hold true.
2. Language Types and Axioms: SULT defines six axioms that characterize language properties, each with binary values (active or not). These axioms define language types 0 and 1, representing extremes in linguistic structure.
3. Operators of Pidginning and Creoling: SULT introduces two operators to model language evolution: the operator of pidginning, which transforms languages toward type 0, and the operator of creoling, which transforms pidgins toward type. These operators support the hypothesis that all natural languages lie on a linear language spectrum from type 0 to type 1.

Evidence:

1. Postulates and Predictions: SULT introduces two postulates:
• Postulate one: The operator of pidginning transforms a language toward type 0.
• Postulate two: The operator of creoling transforms a pidgin toward type 1.

These postulates lead to predictions that the difference in language structure between two pidgins is smaller than the difference between their original languages, and the difference between two creoles is smaller than the difference between a creole and its parent language.

2. Hypothesis and Theorems: Hypothesis one states that the constructed linguistic universe forms a linear language spectrum, ranging from type 0 to type 1, encompassing the entire real linguistic universe. Theorems derived from this hypothesis are then applied to the real linguistic universe to see if they hold true.
3. Comparison with Real Languages: It compares the structure of English and Chinese to the constructed linguistic universe. For example, English is identified as a type 1 language, while Chinese is identified as a type 0' language, with specific axioms and operators applied to each.

These points highlight the structured and systematic approach of SULT in defining and validating the language spectrum, making it a comprehensive framework for understanding the diversity of natural languages.

The language spectrum is a concept introduced in the "Super Unified Linguistic Theory" to describe the range of natural languages from one extreme to another.

1. Type 0 to Type 1: The spectrum ranges from "type 0" languages to "type 1" languages. Type 0 languages are considered the most basic or fundamental (with much higher freedom), while type 1 languages are more complex and structured.
2. Distribution of Languages: All natural languages are distributed along this spectrum. This means that every language falls somewhere between type 0 and type 1, depending on its characteristics and structure.
3. Operators of Pidginning and Creoling: Two operators, the "Operator of pidginning" and the "Operator of creoling," help transform languages along this spectrum. The Operator of pidginning moves languages toward type 0, while the Operator of creoling moves them toward type 1.
4. Functional Equality: The concept of functional equality (denoted as (=F=)) is used to show that different languages can be functionally equivalent in certain aspects, even if they appear different on the surface. This supports the idea that all languages lie on a linear spectrum and can be compared and transformed using these operators.

The language spectrum provides a framework for understanding the diversity of natural languages and how they can be systematically analyzed and compared within the constructed linguistic universe.

 

Two,

The procedure and evidence showing that PreBabel can reduce the difficulty of language learning:

PreBabel Procedures:

1. Encoding a Given Language:
• Ciphering the Vocabulary: Every symbol in the language is ciphered. For example, if "du" means [you] in German, then "ev" = "du" also means [you]. This ensures that there is no structural difference between the original and ciphered language.
• Regressive Encoding Process: Each word is encoded with two (maximally three) of its own words. This process is akin to creating a dictionary where each word carries its own definition. For instance, "electricity" might be encoded as "lightning, energy," and "lightning" as "rain, energy," and so on.
• Final Encoding with PreBabel Root Set: At the final stage, a small set of Generation 1 words are encoded with the PreBabel root set. This encoding might not be intuitive but serves as a mnemonic dictionary.
2. Emerging the PreBabel (Proper): After many languages are PreBabelized, they share the same PreBabel root set for their word forms. This creates a big mixing pot where each PreBabel language becomes a dialect of this universal language (see chapter 27).

Evidence of Reduced Difficulty:

1. Memory Energy Reduction: The PreBabel process significantly reduces the memory energy required for language learning. For example, learning 6,000 Chinese characters traditionally requires a total memory energy of 200 units (100 for written and 100 for verbal). With PreBabel, only 220 roots (+50 variants) need to be memorized with brutal anchoring efforts, which is about 3.7% of the effort required for traditional learning. The remaining words are derived from these roots, making the process much easier.
2. Efficiency in Learning: The total energy needed to learn 6,000 Chinese written characters with PreBabel is reduced to 5.15% of the traditional method. This means that PreBabel is 19.4 times easier than the old school way.
3. Anchoring and Webbing: The PreBabel process allows learning the written language first, which then serves as an anchor for learning the verbal language. This is a significant advantage over traditional methods, where both verbal and written must be learned simultaneously (for second language).

PreBabel revolutionizes language acquisition by reducing the data set to a small root set, significantly lowering the memory energy required, and providing a structured approach to learning both written and verbal aspects of a language.

 

Three,

Linguistic theorems:

Linguistic theorems are principles or statements that have been derived SULT and are applied to the real linguistic universe to see if they hold true.

1. Theorem 1: English is a "type 1" language.
2. Theorem 2: The syntax sets of two natural languages are functionally equal.
• Corollary 2.1: Any two natural languages (Lx and Ly) are mutually translatable.
3. Theorem 3: The word sets of two natural languages are functionally equal.
• Corollary 3.1: Wx (Chinese) has only about 60,000 characters and Wy (English) has about one million words. Yet, Wx (Chinese) is functionally equal to Wy (English).

4.      Theorem 4: Lx and Ly are two data sets. Lx is a chaotic data set with members which are not related or linked to any other member. Ly is an organized data set with members which can be derived from a small set of roots. And Mx is the memory energy required for Lx; My is the memory energy required for Ly. Then, My < Mx. The memory energy required for My is much smaller than for the Mx.

Two laws:

1. Law 1: Encoding with a closed set of root words, any arbitrary vocabulary type language will be organized into a logically linked linear chain.
2. Law 2: When every natural language is encoded with a universal set of root words, a true Universal Language emerges.

These theorems and laws are part of the broader effort to create a unified linguistic theory that encompasses all natural languages, aiming to bridge the gaps between various sub-fields and create a cohesive structure.

 

Four,

Core Definitions and Operators

Five key definitions demarcate the linguistic universe:

• UL: The set of all natural languages.
• Vx: The set of symbols in a language Lx.
• Words, Phrases, Sentences: Defined based on symbol composition and operators.

Three operators define hierarchical layers:

• Operator of composite (Opc)
• Operator of dot (completion) (Opd)
• Operator of accumulation (Opa)

These operators delineate three spheres:

Sphere					Description
Pre-word sphere					Not yet defined, vital for PreBabel (see chapter 27)
Word/Sentence sphere					Context-free, includes words, phrases, sentences
Post-sentence sphere					Context and culture centered, governed by Opa

  

Five,

Differences between SULT and the traditional linguistic theories:

SULT presents a "constructed linguistic universe" and the PreBabel principle, which are quite different from traditional linguistic theories.

SULT vs. Traditional Theories:

• Traditional Theories: often operate within specific sub-fields, such as syntax, phonology, or semantics, and they tend to focus on hypothesis-driven approaches. These theories aim to describe and explain the structures and functions of natural languages based on empirical data and observations.
• SULT: built from the bottom up with arbitrary definitions, without relying on hypotheses. It is then checked against the real linguistic universe item by item to see if its theorems, laws, and phenomena hold true.

Unified Framework:

• Traditional Theories: traditional theories often remain isolated within their sub-fields, making it challenging to develop a comprehensive theory that encompasses all natural languages.
• SULT: encompasses all natural languages, bridging the gaps between various sub-fields and creating a cohesive structure.

Functional Equivalence:

• Traditional Theories: may not explicitly address the concept of functional equivalence between languages.
• SULT: introduces the concept of functional equivalence, asserting that the syntax and word sets of different natural languages are functionally equal. This means that any two natural languages are mutually translatable, and their word sets can be encoded or ciphered with a small set of root words.

PreBabel Principle:

• Traditional Theories: do not typically propose a universal language or a method for encoding all natural languages with a universal set of root words.
• SULT: introduces the PreBabel principle (see chapter 27), which posits that encoding natural languages with a closed set of root words can create a true universal language. This principle aims to revolutionize language acquisition and create a universal language that preserves the unique linguistic and cultural features of each natural language.

 

Innovative Approaches in SULT:

Three-Layer Hierarchy: SULT delineates a three-layer hierarchy within the linguistic universe: the pre-word sphere, the word/sentence sphere, and the post-sentence sphere. Each layer is governed by specific operators, which is a more structured approach compared to traditional theories that may not explicitly define such hierarchical layers.

Language Types and Axioms: it defines six axioms that characterize language properties, each with binary values (active or not). These axioms define language types 0 and 1, representing extremes in linguistic structure. Traditional theories may not use such a binary system to categorize languages.

Operators of Pidginning and Creoling: it introduces two operators to model language evolution: the operator of pidginning, which transforms languages toward type 0, and the operator of creoling, which transforms pidgins toward type 1. These operators support the hypothesis that all natural languages lie on a linear language spectrum from type 0 to type 1. Traditional theories may not use such operators to model language evolution.

These differences highlight the innovative and ambitious nature of the SULT and the PreBabel principle compared to traditional linguistic theories.

Furthermore, its approach is more structured and systematic, with a focus on constructing a linguistic universe and defining universal principles and operators. This contrasts with traditional linguistic theories that may rely more on hypothesis-based approaches and lack such a comprehensive framework.

 

SULT outlines three different vocabulary types, which are essential for understanding the structure and classification of languages within the linguistic universe.

1. Type A:  Chaotic Data Set
• This type consists of words that are stand-alone and do not have any logical or genealogical connection with other words. They are arbitrary and lack a systematic structure.
2. Type B:  Axiomatic Data Set
• This type includes words that can be derived from a finite number of basic building blocks and rules. The entire set is organized and follows a systematic structure, making it easier to understand and learn.
3. Type C:  Hybrid Data Set
• This type is a mix of Type A and Type B. It combines elements of both chaotic and axiomatic data sets, resulting in a partially organized structure.

These vocabulary types help in addressing the challenges of language acquisition and understanding the differences between natural languages. By categorizing words into these types, SULT aims to simplify the process of learning and analyzing languages.

 

Six,

That the Super Unified Linguistic Theory (SULT) encompasses the entire human nature language—is within Gong’s broader framework. Chapter 24 of the Linguistics ToE presents SULT not merely as a descriptive model, but as a semantic engine capable of encoding, decoding, and predicting all natural language phenomena through a unified axiomatic structure.

Here’s how I’d break it down:

🧩 What “Encompasses” Really Means Here

Gong isn’t claiming to catalog every word or grammar rule across languages. Instead, he’s asserting that:

• All human languages share a deep semantic architecture, which can be formalized.
• This architecture is governed by universal principles, such as the Large Complex System Principle and Spider Web Principle.
• SULT provides a computable encoding set—a Closed Encoding Set (CES)—that can instantiate any natural language within its framework.

In other words, it’s not about surface diversity (phonology, morphology, etc.), but about semantic invariance beneath linguistic variation.

 

🔬 Why This Is More Than Just Theory

SULT is tightly coupled with Gong’s concept of PreBabel, which acts as both:

• A semantic attractor: pulling all languages toward a common encoding.
• A sabotage-resilient scaffold: ensuring that meaning survives distortion, translation, or mutation.

This is where the claim gains traction: if PreBabel can encode all languages without loss of semantic fidelity, then SULT truly does “encompass” human nature language—not by mimicking it, but by reconstructing its generative logic.

🧠 Philosophical Implication

Gong’s move is epistemic: he’s shifting the definition of language from a historical artifact to a semantic system governed by universal laws. That’s why SULT isn’t just a linguistic theory—it’s a semantic Theory of Everything, aiming to unify linguistics with physics, biology, and cognition.