I think the whole thing is quite remarkable, to speak of a Universal Grammar and all. And I mean no disrespect, as I am one of the few people in history who has discovered a universal grammar, it is just that I find it strange--all this talk of a universal grammar when one does not, more often than not, know what grammar is.
There are two branches of reasoning, Logics and Analogics, and here we have an expression of the Two-Element Metaphysics. One of these is relative and one is absolute. Logics are relative, and Analogics are absolute, therefore. Common grammar, arithmetic and algebra are in the category of logic, which means they are relative, so a universal relative is like saying an absolute difference. Now, that puts anyone with a sense of humor ROFLing.
However, I have learned that behind many fuzzy thinkers is something that can be developed into clarity-and that is the drive to conventionalize grammar. This means learning and teaching the principles of grammar period, not trying to create a new one when you have no idea how to fix the old one. Since the function of the human mind is to effect human will, and since we do this through both branches of reasoning, logics and analogics, what is being striven for is a unity of mankind. However, in this regard, adding and subtracting of human will towards any given goal is our job, I do not think we will be able to do our job until people clearly know the principles of reasoning to begin with. These principles are not taught even today. Those who made the greatest strides in this endeaver, Confucius, Plato, Euclid, the mind or minds behind the scripture, are not given their due respect.
An example of the problem today is that people actually believe they know more than they do. And, we live in an environment where every form of media is used as an attempt to get people not to do their job as mind. The first thing that needs to be done, and done globally is to teach people that as mind, they have a job to do just like any other environmental acquisition system of a living organism. They perform that job through the artifices of language, and no one, absolutely no one, can do that job for them--neither men nor gods. Secondly is to cultivate the resistence to those who are want to take mind away from men.
The only true resistence fighter in history, or as Socrates correctly stated, the only true politician in history are the men and women who promote the understanding and correct use of language. It is not the people like the Einsteins of history who, quite frankly, could not think their way out of a paper bag.
Man is learning language as part of the evolutionary process. It will not happen over night. As an evolutionary process, breeding plays an important role, perhaps more so than education. I don't know. All I do know, is that at the moment, I am less interested in dealing with people trying to build a bridge when they do not know what a bridge is, than finding a mate.
Which brings me to a point. Since language is used to effect human will, and by it we attempt to add and subtract human will, the unit of discourse in that regard is the family unit. One will notice that civilizations will rise and fall based upon units. Thus, how can one expect to unify a country, a contenent, or a world, when few even know how to effect the promotion of a single family? Get freaking real people.
Thus, one can judge the probabilty of success in these endeavors, not based on good intentions or bad reasoning, but upon a persons respect for their own words. How interested is a person in knowing if what they say is true or not? By this we can measure any man or woman, simply by how much their own words constrain their actions. This very fact is the essence of the Platonic dialogs, the key to human psychology is language. There was no greater psychologist among men, than Plato. People often think they understand what he was about, when in fact they were clueless. Take the Republic for example. The goal was to place the best of men in the worst of situations transparent to both gods and men. He did not create a utopia, he described the greatest hell he could. That is how stupid scholars have generally been. My god, men generally cannot even understand what they read and are proclaimed intelligent.
Grammar cannot be fixed until men are aware, and keenly aware of their need for it. That need, that desire is biologically based. You cannot create hunger in a digestive system that does not function. However, one can prepare the way for those who do, and will hunger. The problem is, the food is often burried by a mass of men who do not understand that their words are the very dung that hide those who really did have something to say. They cannot be faulted for this, however, no more than one can fault a baby for crying and interupting Babalon 5.
The univerality of language itself is based not upon a particular branch of reasoning, or grammar, but upon the function of language in regard to evolution. Evolution forces the adaptation of species, however, meteor impacts has taught life that this form of evolution is not reliable. We use language to predict future events so that instead of adapting to the environment, we learn to adapt the environment to us. Language is the pivatal point in how evolution is effected. This is why such puzzles as the Name of the Beast in Revelation is important, it is a desciption of mind. And it is a reason why prophecy itself is important. By it we live or die as a species. You cannot define what prophecy is without defining language itself.
The solution to that puzzle by the way is "To make our coming and going so as to turn the past into the future and to bring the future to pass." It denotes the function of the mind of man, and it is based on the evolutionary distinction between adapating to a thing, and adaptiong a thing. Being the product of mindless craft, to crafting with mind.
One might then say, philosophy did not start with "What is God?" but with "What the hell!" and has been an avoidence measure to that end.