It is volume 28 (27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0)


here my trip from the previous volume continues, and it starts with me collecting the elements of the symbols soon after I concluded that symbols matter much more than writing systems, which were layed out from already existing elements, that is why C and С are in different lines (even though they keep the position in the line, more or less (C dissolves into QRS (is it how queers rule the world?))


a third to a half of these images are directly runes.  And if we consider (canseethere) flowgate staves combinations of valve staves, then most of those symbols are runic. And two to three more are oghamic (and now I can see one of those to be runic too, and they I can see that ogham could be vowels, and thus musical notation, probably later complicated by half-symbols, making m and b be forms of a? does it make sense? if they had ascending scale, historically, the celts, I would reconsider this hypothesis, but so far I'd say no way (if u was ᚐ as the lowest sound, and i the ᚔ, but in real life u is ᚔ (but then of course it could be mistransliterated, for vowels are so elusively ambiguous: russian u is ukrainian i))) and only sickle-stave stays, but then it reminds ᛲ
And wait a second! ᚔ is literally i! u is ᚒ, but what if u and a were mistaken one for the other because a is the first vowel all over the globe and surely in all europe (in english it's e (is it a rudiment of бgде or.. I was speaking of how a is named ey)) Could ᚐᚑᚒᚓᚔ be uoaei? then o is not double a, and it would also oppose u being double o (which is technically not in the current transliteration ogham (externatlly current, bnot in this book) )    ω as double υ? very nice!


vine immediately makes me suspect here jewish intervention, and ivy makes me even more suspicious of that possibility, for both plants are not trees but what grows on trees. And others I didn't know and Elder is бузина (and meme of "в огороде бузина, а в Киеве дядька" could be commemorating a trace of some research taken for nonsense)
Reed I think I knew, and I did. Тростник, and isn't papyrus тростник? Because reed reminds read, and one of translations of reed is буколическая поэзия,
Буколика, буколическая поэзия (от греч. bukóĺos — пастух), один из малых жанров александрийской поэзии (см. Эллинистическая культура), получивший дальнейшее развитие в римской литературе и в европейской литературе нового времени. Связанная со своим фольклорным источником — песнями пастухов, греческая Б.
yes, book in bucolische (of pastorale, of herders) poëzie is in oorsprong een literair genre uit de klassieke oudheid (herdersdichten, van het Grieks boukolos = 'herder'). Het vormt net als het herdersspel en de herdersroman een van de vormen van bucolische literatuur. was what caught my attention.
Blackthorn is not only the name of a great scientistesse but also a plant also named prunus spinosa or терн (the crown of Jesus Christ (what is interesting, they don't grow in Israel except some places they (I suppose) intentionally planted it to support their legend))

And because blackthorn is more of a bush than a tree, though it looks like a tree sometimes, I consider it being in the list of plants by accident, for all other in the aicme are not trees at all.
And Muin aicme after Ailim aicme is another proof of it being a later addition. But the consistency of m-g-ng-z-r to b-l-f-s-n and h-d-t-c-q are.. non-existent? what was I thinking? but I still can see it, it is there.. as images in static snow of a tv?

Interesting fact, some people recognize ᚆ to be not h, y, making it both, making it ᚼ, ᛡ, H, j
But then can I trust them? They seem to have inverted the signs:


and they don't place aicme a before aicme m, and most people don't. So what were the guys before this one trying to say? Are there two traditions or were they just mistaken? But trees go before vine (as if it is mine, wtf!)
And the fifth aicme (with no other name?) seem to be clueless about ᚐ being pine.
But then they double down on it, telling that it ain't no joke, not a mistake:


okay, why was I suspecting them placing the sign the other way around? Why do I expose me being wrong just a moment ago? Why would I expose myself being clueless? Because this is how I expose the very escence of research (if we knew what we were doing it wouldn't be called that) the anatomy of it, as a photographer would self-deprively self-depricatingly expose the whole photobank of his without selecting the good ones, giving it all in. I do erase some stuff, but very rarely, when it is also useless as a learning process.
The first one in the previous image are vertical, and in comparison to the horizontal variant, you can see that ogham goes from bottom to top, as it does.
Jndian and persian line of text is sometimes broken by some letters. Ogham and runes don't have to.

Hawthorn is also whitethorn, as the opposite to blackthorn it is interesting that they could be yz or xz

Is ᚊ apple of que? Did religion tell say anything but not ask questions?

This is the way I learn ogham by heart. Consider it my mnemonic device. Time can only tell if it grows into something bigger.

Could it be that people used one to five marks to mark trees and different nations used different systems and then they united them? Nah, pure fantasy speculation if one can call it pure.

But then again, how much can I trust this stuff?

Bindrune for creativity seems to be binderune of ᚴᚱ, the first two letters, so it can be completely made up. And farsightedness looks like etherium logo, so you never know. Metaanalysis is the bithc.

Technically though some of them are legit binderunes, so at least some of them could be right.

and let's revisit something I brought into it before, I did it agian because of how b and d reflecting each other, and he actually did the work of collecting these writing systems and he or she did it indiscriminatingly, so just by chance he could bring on something I would otherwise miss. But his hieratic and demotic is meroitic, I noticed this vol.1 and cuneiform of his is legit ugaritic one, and other stuff seems to be alright if we ignore that he rearranged ogham and futhark at will, and even greek? oh wow! now that is something!

Wild stuff, and the final two are tolkien's, yet let it be here, just for pictish, even though it could be thoroughly crazy and baseless, the reflection of b and d gives it a pass, doubtful it is, but nevertheless, I guess I had worse examples. Quite an abecedaria it is, and also a riminder of how wrong it may get. Do your research better, kids, make your best, strive forwart to perfection, this is the only way to keep the eternal growth. Those abstractions are something to pull ourselves to the future we can only imagine only to grow and see them being not absolutes, but quite reachable states to one or the other extent.
How else would I notice that ᚖ reminds ᛄ! They used vertical representation of ogham, which gives them some based points. Nobody's perfect, they didn't make stuff up, they're legit in my book, even though they're so wrong, my guess is they grew into a scientist, who cringes over the early creation of his. or her. Still a metaanalysis, but this is how wrong it can get if your sources are dubious. A lesson to the reader it is as well. Find more inconsistencies if you wish, I believe there are plenty.
It is also here to decode writings in these scripts some people definitely used at one point or the other.
Справочный материал I myself will probably never use. but then who knows

߉ we saw in stave elements in the second image in this volume is n'ko nine, which it reminds, which may tell of common origin, they could teach him to lie to be that writing system he promoted allowed to be not declared a fraud, to get support of academia. Is it impossible? It is just not. But then why didn't he taught his students that the system is genuine? Not to let those students snitch on him to take his position, for example. Ai researcher should check if tradition of snitching is more rampant in that part of the globe than in neibours. gh in neighbour isn 't it ar of near? near is neigher. is it? it is not.

and why I decided to type is that in stave elements of icelandic radial stave shape similar to ߉ is told to "reflect incoming energy back to it source" which may reflect that whatever you add to it, the outcome sums up to the source: 4+9=13 ~ 1+3=4 (true for every other number)

߀‎߁‎߂‎߃‎߄‎߅‎߆‎߇‎߈‎߉  is the n'ko row of 0123456789 (he could be inventor of alphabet, but numbers they could know, because why would he reflect some modern and historic shapes, with some off the wall shapes and then what, why, I think it is authentic thing coming from the same source indian letters came (we also borrowed, and we did so a long time ago, and though africa is not famous for its scientists, just by accident, statistically, there must have been people seeking for knowledge, and knowing numerals even if they didn't know algebra.
߇ is hello chinese~japanese 七 (and reflects roman V too, but sets some questions with it)
߈ being 8 I can see, and was the handwriting of he who taught africans these numerals so bad?
Bad handwriting wouldn't explain neither ߇ nor ߂ being as if from (also it is 2 looking like 4! no recent borrower would do this intentionally, but it may reflect 4 being a form of 2 on another level? could it be written down as 2 square or something? 3 is 1+2, 4 is 2*2, 5=1+2squared, 6 is 2 times 3, and thus it breaks the harmony, thus satanic even on this lever. level.) 2+2squared, why not, if I had 2*2. 7 is one plus two plus 2squared, 8 is 2 times squared2, 9 is square 1 plus two. at 10 it gets more bulky and goes other order. But then this is such an unscientific fantasy! 2 times 1 + 2quared, two times 2, no good.


That weedch I told you about not far from the end of the previous volume gave me a good piece of mind, when she read about seven vowels egyptian priests sang about: that in russian we have two more vowels, namely ы and э (я ё ю are basically йа йо йу, but those е and и are not just йэ and йы, so in the context of russian language the seven vowels are а е и о у ы э, or if we place them chromatically, they're.. уоаэеиы? They don't seem to be able to placed in consistent chromaticity if that's the right word, уоаэе or уоаыи? уоаэы? ыэаоу? иыэаоу? or does it go like еиыэаоу? уоaэеиы? иыэоуа? иеоуа and fuck russian) but I think it is not russian, so that weedch is a clueless patriot.


About S~T: isLA~itEN

В знаменитой «Наба­тейской книге по земледелию» описывались культы вавилонян. Арабский переводчик Абу-Бекр Ахмед бен Али бен Вахшиях эль Касдани (904 год н.э.) утверждает, что она состояла из девя­ти томов, написанных на набатейском, или древнехалдейском, языке. Она была составлена тремя мудрецами, интервал между жизнями первого и последнего из которых составляет не менее 18000 лет¹. (Chwolson. Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus.- 1856, II, 705.)


Агонь Вада Голда Дерево

Язычные были земными? А of Air? Огонь ~ Airный? Огни ~ Дымы ~

Ог is О-г, Очаг (огонь принадлежащий очагу)

Словообразование при помощи притяжательного суффикса.

So air or heath? are both the same (you're supposed to start fire in open air (otherwise we can suffocate, whether because it eats all air or because you cannot support it if it doesn't have air flow. So this also condemns the new pages, which I edit out and leave here in such form just to preserve what babies may be in this bathwater:

d is cl because дать ~ класть (положить (антоним взять~поднять~собрать~забрать (ложи~клади и бери~возьми (take and have? not cognates, well, maybe have and имей are (greek Η used to be russian И[i], well, it still is (it used to be H[h] or is it still in some dialects? (here I need to ask a local professor about greek dialects (the one I gave my book to read (the one I was told to talk for he's the only specialist having interest in alphabets in all the alma mater (he also teaches greek and help me do the .odo part supplying me with the greek vocabulary)))))))))


these pages are thrown away for this beauty:





бдеть ~ бздеть (бояться seems to be cognate to both (yes, I use word cognate instead of doublet, for words in the same language, because languages are merely abstractions in comparison to words))


волос ~ полоз (полос, ползает, полжи, польсти, полукавь, полез, подлец (previous session's associations were false, falls, fails, пал))

полоз как общее название змеи и всего что ползало? пёстрая лента. Шкуры змей как первые ленты? лента более сложный объект чем нить, и нт в лента похоже на нт в нить
н is probably the root of the word нить, and then лента reminds me of лёню (лента ~ льняна?)

лентяйка ~ лента? незавязанные косы? лень заплести? плести и полоз полоса от слова плести. плёнка ~ плетёнка? полоз полоса полетена? полено тогда каким сюда боком? пол от слова полено? дровяной? ходили по ним же и ими же топили очаг. furnace ~ fire's nest?



Amon Mut Honsu (father mother son) is a triad with alphabetic initials.



Beotia and beauty tell a story (is tor in story tell? is R double L? When you leave the left, left left is right? I suspecect ighs and eft being the same thing.



Beatuty is the better word. and it tells such a story: eau sounds as ju and thus ea is i as in beat. and russian и looks as it could be ea when they are hand-written.
ee is another wasy to say и, and it looks like cursive и even more. And it sets the question: is a = t?
a is read as e is bad (russians don't distinguish betewwen bed and bad.

bad is no bed? (people are bad when they have to sleep in street. But no, bad is bed (you get in bed when you feel bad) bed is not bad.
ill ~! lay?
эл ~ лэ

beauty
bjuti
bu tea
boo eat ([bu] (bu ~ put)) ~ yes (words in pair are key to their understanding (yes and no, eat and put (t as verbal suffix))))
фу ешь



a skelion biskelion triskelion
There's no word skelion, but biskele/triskele tell me that skele could be the word, and I can only find skeleton (in russian it is skelet) so is triskelion three skeletons? three deads? gods ~ deads? gods, dads!

or is it related to scale? skelion with no t, scale. Шкала? как рёбра, палки, скала как камень. скелет родственно к скала? скол? кел в скелет is кол? т в скелет is -ed? - is minus as if something is missing (not in the кривой электродинамический sen se)

скелет ~ из кольев? может ет быть суффиксом множественного числа? (как еврейское от) или он родственен английскому it? или английскому суффиксу ed? as if skelet(on) is "is killed (он)"?
maybe sk is c? c of целый (not fragmented into bones) and here, as you can see, I am searching, research it is. I bruteforce or rather shoot at chance.


G as ↺ may be of Go, because ↺ is clockwise, which is considered to be отворотным
But is C ↻? in hebrew cursive gimel tells yes. And in cursive gimel is the reflection of zayin, which's G

And I don't think I expected this. Unless I spoke about it before and it was stored at the periphery of my consciousness.

And in this sense english is truly a powerful thing, having those C and G as come and go.

co is universal (at least within indoeuropean areal) and has this meaning of gathering, as if co is to, and it is interesting that T the ᛏ looks like ↑, and in the first volume I noticed that clockwise rotation is upwards. Thus G~ᛘ? ᛉ?  ᛉ is z, which g is in greek. So ᛉ it is, the opposite of ᛏ.
ᛉ is also transliterated as x, but x does sound as z, so z it is, but it is interesting that t used to look like x
So is current Z thing отворотное? отвратное it is. Finally, being dismantled, russia рушит самое себя.
is S the opposite? is S C? S is literally С in russian.

o p q  r  s
u v x y z

was it 5×5?

a b c ? d (ugaritic has some h between c and d, and huh, h is just below it)
e f g h θ
i m k n l (because d~l, because h~n, but it could be imkln, because l ~ h)
o p q r s (t~s, as б~в (t~l, so imknl it is))
u v x y z (y~h, j~r)

imknl (i am (a) canal (a channel)) aj am ak an al (anal? kanal as shit-channel? was glossolallies obscene? mine definitely was, it is открове after all. was medium used to help a god to excrete what bothered it? so as a reverse service people would demand what they wanted the spirit to give them)



❄ has 18 ends, which relates to 18 runes of Bornholm's alphabet stone.
and it is very important, but 12 od rhw of the volkfronten stave is even more ingraned into human culture with 12 months and 12 hours, I suspect it to be the sacred symbol more ancient than ❄, even though ❄ is present in nature, but ✥ not so much, ✥ is the closest I found to the symbol I kept in mind, the fourth one:

the third one has 20 ends as if those were proximities and fingers upon them, the first one has 24 ends, which is interesting in the context of elder futhark and in the context of 24 hours and if months were divided into fortnights, those could be of the calendar. But then if we count not ends, but strokes, then we have 12 strokes upon 4 seasons



Norns kNOw RuNeS?
Norns are NOt RuNeS (and what gave birth to runes, which is not runes? Strokes! And runes have only three types of strokes: |, /, \, or is it /|\? ᛏ of the three? ᛏ of the tree!)
And I wanted to represent runes in shapes of /| |\/\/ |\/ |/  but then doesn't ᛂ have horizontal stroke? or is it the dot as in ᚵ? does it make ᛂ a form of ᛁ? in latin i looks like e with dot, and in runes they're the other way around. Is it because i was the norsk reading of what romans read as e?
See the first notebook of the rhythm of big city serie for the previous analysis. There I found two groups sharing the sequence of the strokes:
ᚦ    ᚼ(ᛡ)ᛘ(ᛉ)
ᚼ(ᛡ)ᛦ(ᛣ)ᛏ
and also ᛚᚿ
ᚢ looks like ᛁᛚᛁ or ᛚᛁ, или и ли are indeed u in hebrew. Or rather it is o, או, and ו is and, but it is the other opposite, v. So is u is protophoneme combining those o and v in the essence of vav?



I guessed, that гектар is hundred ар's, and it happened to be true, and I never knew:



so ha is a word, combined of h for hundrend and a for area
is a of are are shortened as a makes it very fundamental, but what is it founded upon? is one are how much one man can maintain? Do you need 6 workers to maintain a garden? An area where one fighter swings his weapon?


if norns are strokes, is strokes a cognate of старухи? strokes are probably cognates of строки, потому что строки отчерчивали, чертами, линиями.
stroke и строка очевидно ложные друзья переводчика, но смысл отдрейфовал (отдрифтовал) недалеко, подобно словам back и бок, и быть может также бак, и возможно can здесь по той же причине. Опять же зачем я занимаюсь тем, что под силу лишь ии.


could norns be morns of which morning is only they'd be morning evening night, if there were three times. Spring Summer ..now these two could be the same in the context of Autumn and Winter.



And they say the year began in the September, and then it was October, November, December?
April May June? And I'm surprised to find three months between these threes: January February March and July August September. And both July and August are told to be named after roman emperors. Is it even true? Either way, it leaves september intact as S in the sird? third position.



кгб ис красный (кровавый, калёный (раскалённый) крутой карий?) голубой (господь) белый (бог)
красный и коричневый два варианта одного и того же слова? слишком совпадают и по форме и по смыслу (жёлтый+чёрный ~ красный? красный ~ куройJA (кара в слове каракум (чёрное в тюркском, напоминает японское курой, и потому я искал больше сходств меж тюркскими и алтайскими но этот проект на паузе) и заглянув в каракум я увидел, что все фотографии показывают, что песок жёлтый, а не чёрный, так что этимология скорей всего не верна, политически это тюркское слово, но кого там тюрки заколбасили кто тут жил, бог весть, и я нашёл там огни как явление природы, так что люди не изобрели огонь, они его нашли и научились переносить. чтоб его переносить, ему нужно жертвовать? может быть умели угли переносить лишь на раздуве, без жертв, но служение, ритуал, должны были быть. По крайней мере ритуал раздува в пламя на новом месте. Жертвовали дерево, видимо. Но жрецы от слова жрать, когда огонь стал бытовым с позволения сказать прибором (бытовой хуйнёй? типа того) жрецы изменили культ? заставили людей поклоняться золоту как представителю огня на земле? Какой ритуал нужен, чтоб передать золото? никакого, просто из рук в руки. Очень удобно)

Но не противоречит ли это г тому г что в слове га? там г = 10. Десятник? Когда их в десять раз больше, когда на каждого приходится десять их, ты подчиняешься. Десятники может? Один представитель от команды? десятник ~ господин? главный из десяти, самый непосредственный начальник, представитель не только группы, но и механизма социального устройства на уровень выше, через которого можно выйти на тысячи сил? нет, это устарело. если так было, то пнредполагаю что людей было сто тысяч, например. По крайней мере в обозримом мире одного полиса. и снова сто во главе, непосредственный десятник один из сотни, г=10, г=господь. Тетракт (а я сперва написал Триада, является ли тетракт следующим шагом после триады? Пифагорейская "ересь" в которую так и не врубились представители культа трёх) от того что ..для чего эти спекуляции?

огни, о которых говорил, не удивительно, что зороастризм в тех краях появился, ибо чудо ведь:




and this one you probably saw before, it is the largest and the most famous, but it appeared recently, maybe to distract attention from the fact that zoroastrism is based upon some natural phenomenon, and that this phenomenon is millenia-old, some of the flames are believed to be such eternal:

this one is told to be 60 metres in diametre.
The early years of the crater's history are uncertain.[3][5] Relevant records are either absent from the archives, classified, or inaccessible.

And then such pits may tell me that it is even more interesting thus, that the shining craters of Ceres are reflecing, it makes it more special, because burning craters exist, and naturally shining substance is something different, and could be a call for help from some inhabitants of that place. Or just a show off of the careless tenants of that secret planet.

кара кум ~ красный кум?
карий от слова кал, всегда это подозревал, никогад не мог сформулиорвать
кал~клал




Valknut may refer to triskele and it reminds what vol.26 began with. Triad of some sork sort
knut is definitely knot, and valk is probably wolf
The term valknut is a modern development; it is not known what term or terms were used to refer to the symbol historically.
(the same as with triskele)
Wiki/valknut doesn't mention norns where I live, but I say that mostlikely interpretation of the symbol is three norns (because it is norsk and triple, and what else is tripal in norsk? Norsk ~ nornsk?
Etymology. Derived from Old Norse valr (“the slain”) and Old Norse knútr (“a knot”), meaning "knot of the slain". The term was coined in later history, as it is not known what name was used by the historical Norse for that symbol. (well at least knot I saw right)
and somebody have link valknut to triskele and similar images, one of which is new to me:

Odin's Triple Horn, what is it? it could be the source of the meme of 666, and then it reminds me of aettir, aettir is three, thus valknut could represent aettir. So could do the triquetra, and triskel too. I should work with aettir onthe body of these shapes. Maybe when I know some 3d
The Triple Horn of Odin is a Viking symbol made of three interlocking horns representing the three horns in the myth regarding Odin and his quest for the magical mead, Odhroerir/Óðrerir, also known as the Mead of Poetry.
According to the belief, two dwarves named Fjalar and Galar killed Kvasir – a being (a god or a man according to different sources) created from the spit of Vanir and Æsir/Aesir (the two groups of gods in Norse mythology) who knew everything and could answer every question.
The dwarves mixed Kvasir’s blood with honey and poured it in three horns named Óðrœrir/Odhroerir, Boðn and Són.
Note: Odhroerir is the name associated with both the Mead of Poetry and one of the horns that contained it.
Valknut and the triple horn have 6 parts each, thus bornholm runes would go in triads, which I suspected of alphabet before I began working with runes. into 6 parts also triquetra is splat, unless we cound the circle, then in 9, but I'd rather ignore it. Unless they all have 3 runes each (three norns, three aettir, to expect three runes would be natural. 27 is of numerals. So triquetra could be representing the 27-tet structure.
But then there's no ambiguity, aettir are named after norns.

and the knot different from triquetra (three corners) printed twice in the centre of the object, or, considering the other side, four times, may also represent three aettir, which I'm yet to find the image of written upon this shape

(this is from the next day, I jumped in here) only, I believe it is the head of an axe. so that tip is whether some trick making it swordier (and more dangerous and maybe outlawed as crossbows were. Cross is the invention of the crossbow? Cross is an old symbol as old as symbol. As cars have one (the end of the edition)

norns ~ periods? пора ~ период, и ор is hour? (I went to sleep here)

(and the next morning I came up with this) nornir ~ nor nir? hornir! (this I saw now not realizing what is this n being demanding me to write N in minuscule. рожки? и чёртики следующее в ассоциативном ряду. три буквы ~ три слова


Три эттира, три экме


colour of snot may have given names to colours (green is ill? zELöny), (


thr

prevent pre vent
pretend pre tend
present pre sent
preprent
prerentpre rent
prerent pre rent
well, whaterver
whatever ~ water? всё вода? вода всё вода всегда
вода нужна всегда
water ~ wherever? wetter! wet is more simple than water. wet ~ мочит? w~мч? wirl мчит? мочит мучает (нехотя, посадил связанным, чтоб вода капала и не умер, а человек это считал пыткой, может врал дабы обмануть мучителя и иметь доступ к воде, а затем притвориться безумным)
мчит мочит мучает три похожих слова с разным смыслом. Полукогнаты? Ложные друзья переводчика? Мои друзья эти буквы, я не переводом занимаюсь а сравнением языка самого с собой, мне даже не нужно много языков для этого (хотя они иногда помогают, но там из-за географии всё другое, произношение, всё, есть сходства, но зачем они нужны если в собственном языке навалом материала. Следует его структурировать дабы он был оперативнее, меньше места занимал. )


до и от      антонимы
to and of are antonyms
мы ~ ms (m~м, s~и (украинский ближе к сорсам, географически хотя бы, но и лексически))
(да, в предыдущем мы приравняли Е к Σ, (e to s which is much more weird, but then bustrophedon could make e and s the same thing, and is e~o? because s is σ (in hebrew there is ס, standing after n though. Why? because letters predate alphabets by a lot, and the same symbols were arranged into the same structure differently. And it explains the ))

Alphabetology is the name of the field I'm in right now. I should watch what is the parent field I spill out into.. cultorology, I suppose, but there's some narrower definition between the two.. some semaseology, I assume, let's check:
alphabetology: the study of alphabetic systems of writing (First Known Use: 1871)
but there seems to be not much to tell about it, so only some weird stuff came out of the search, the line above is all they had. But I still found the parent field:
The study of writing systems, or grammatology, is concerned with the means by which languages are represented by graphic symbols.
Symbols make more sense than the writing systems. Let's check the field around this one:
Symbology is a word, but the word they use for the term is Semiotics and some other terms:
Semiotics, study of signs and symbols
Symbolic anthropology, diverse set of approaches within cultural anthropology that view culture as a symbolic system that arises primarily from human interpretations of the world


the most "ancient" representation of egyptian alphabet I found has only three vowels, and places m after t, and tells that a to t go with a and t being parts of the arm, which may tell, that alphabet was tattooed on arms. A speculation, but the other statements are truer.


but then the more "ancient" thing is Champollion's table:

and it has the chart of demotic shapes, what was I looking for in the first volume, sometime's I just..
The hieroglyphic order not directly derived from an european one was what I tried to say.



valknut is told to be a map of the world, but I think I posted a similar image in the context of "maybe" as a hypothesis, but then what do I know. About walknut not much.

could valknut be вал-knot (узел из поваленных деревьев, knot of fallen trees)

yolk (желток) as if from yellow and k is probably the same к
белок is simple called white. The latin synonym is albumen, where albus is white.




of = ов, to = ть (f and t reflect each other (and они необращаемы друг в друга. f i т could be the opposites, but in such font f is т with a bow (I wonder if ai sees it like this, maybe now it does, sicne I told them)))




As one of the lesser-known Nordic symbols, the Web of Wyrd is a symbol in Norse mythology that represents the interconnectedness of past, present and future. According to the myth, the Web of Wyrd was woven by the Norns/Nornir, the Shapers of Destiny in Norse mythology.
     or 
The Web of Wyrd first appears in Norse mythology as a symbol of fate. The Norns, who were the goddesses of fate, would weave the destinies of mortals into a tapestry known as the Web of Wyrd. They are similar to Moirai in Greek Mythology, who ruled over human life.

wyrd is definitely a form of word, because you can draw all the runes amongst these lines. And these lines are \|/ I spoke about few days ago. And I suspect those vertical lines to be three norns which make one fates meet the other, and are those others avatars of those norns for us? Mother, Me and murderer? The me is my, my wife or my husband, depending on who I am, the parent to my children, my life as they say, so those are the three incarnations of norns in our life: one mother, one wife, one death, often personalized, but when we died in bed, we started to abstragize the concept of death, as something which happens without apparent cause other than time itself. Now we know that it's not about time, but about the damage. And considering two dotted runes in bornholm set, I should compare bornholm's alphabet to younger futhark

(delaclarian?) of bornholm's:
ᛆᛒᚦ
ᛂ(not ᚽ)ᚠᚵᚼ(or ᛡ)
ᛁᚴᛚᛘ(even though it looks like ᛉ)ᚿ
ᚮᚱᛦ(if R, or ᛣ if Q)ᛋᛏᚢ

younger fuþark:
(ᛅ/ᛆ)(ᛒ/ᛓ)(ᚦ)
(?)(ᚠ)(?)(ᚼ) 
(ᛁ)(ᚴ)(ᛚ)(ᛘ)(ᚾ/ᚿ)
(ᚬ/ᚭ)(ᚱ)(ᛦ)(ᛋ)(ᛏ/ᛐ)(ᚢ)
and as I thought, bornholm's set is the very younger futhark, just with two runes with diacritics.
Both ᚠ and ᚼ could be binderunen, for H looks like II, especially since the central bar may go whichever way, as И and N also reminds that ᚿ reminds h (this is a queer part, I am a queer artist in a way (or two)) and F is called digamma, which is literally double ᚴ, if ᚴ is Г, which it probably is, taking the place of G in latin, and place of C in greek. See, symbols predate the writing systems and different nations placed them into that structure differently, because they pronounced them differently, and because they drew the same symbols differently, thus A is острога while ა is крючок.
Futhark of Bureus also doesn't include ᛦ as a letter, recognizing it as a form of ᚱ (which makes sense, considering ᛦ is the next to it in the bornholm's representation.
Let's now look at what they call the elder futhark:
ᚠᚢᚦᚨᚱᚲᚷᚹ (ᚻ/ᚺ)ᚾᛁᛃᛇᛈᛉᛊ ᛏᛒᛖᛗᛚ(ᛜ/ᛝ)ᛞᛟ: elder fuþark
ᚠᚢᚦ(ᚬ/ᚭ)ᚱᚴ ᚼ(ᚾ/ᚿ)ᛁ(ᛅ/ᛆ)ᛋ (ᛏ/ᛐ)(ᛒ/ᛓ)ᛘᛚᛦ: younger fuþark
ᚹ and (ᚻ/ᚺ) are added,
ᛃᛇᛈᛉ stand instead of ᛆ,
ᛖ stands after ᛏᛒ, and this ᛖ is the ᛂ missing from the younger futharrk
(ᛜ/ᛝ)ᛞᛟ stand instead of ᛦ
my indicators signal that what they call elder futhark is probably a psyop made up to distract people from antisemite elders' scrolls' conspiracy.
And because ᛆ is the only one missing without explanation, maybe because ᛇ and ᛖ and ᛟ are added. Now instead of three vowles we had 5:
instead of ᛅᛁᚬ of younger futhark (and notice how consistent it is, considering the fact that the stroke can go both ways, so 0(1), 1(2), 2(3) count makes perfect sense, and tells me it was iao, the descending tone, the archaic descending tone, the way we would naturally sing going deep when the air is gone.
Let's try it out:
(ᛁ)(ᛘ)(ᚴᛚᚿ)
(ᛆ)(ᛒ)(ᚦ)
(ᚮ)(ᚢ)(ᛏ) is the best I could do with this line, substituting ᚱ with ᚢ, thinking of it as of П.

ᛁᛇᛖᚮᛟ of older futhark may indicate that ᚢ is consonant, as lineal structure tells.
ᛇ Ēoh or Īh "yew" (note that ᛖ eoh "horse" has a short diphthong). In futhorc inscriptions Ēoh appears as both a vowel around /iː/, and as a consonant around [x] and [ç]. As a vowel, Ēoh shows up in jïslheard (ᛡᛇᛋᛚᚻᛠᚱᛞ) on the Dover Stone. As a consonant, Ēoh shows up in almeïttig (ᚪᛚᛗᛖᛇᛏᛏᛁᚷ) on the Ruthwell Cross.[2]
what? that is i in both cases, they be trippin'

The Anglo-Saxon rune poem reads:

    ᛇ Eoh bẏþ utan unsmeþe treoƿ,
    heard hrusan fæst, hẏrde fẏres,
    ƿẏrtrumun underƿreþẏd, ƿẏn on eþle.

    The yew is a tree with rough bark,
    hard and fast in the earth, supported by its roots,
    a guardian of flame and a joy on native land.



tree thing is powerful one, I will delve into it some day or night


Could dot of diacritics and word separator be the fourth and hidden (not obvioud) stroke?

was ' used for 's and thus ᛌ is a form of ᛋ?  and ᛧ is the opposite, and a form of ᛦ, which would make ᛋ ᛉ, but only ᛦ is a form of ᛉ, and once again it links Ϻ[s] and M[m] and I don't know why.

and it also begs the question of whether ᛋ stavekless ᚱ (or if ᛲ is, that would explain the opposition of ᛌ and ᛧ)


Back to valknut: I boiled tootpicks to make them more plastic and played with them and found that you actually hace weave sticks like that if they bend, so my further guess was that walknut is the formula of weaving planes like hendkerchieves and such, and if we weaved a wattle fence, then val in valknut is wall, but then nobody weaves fences like that, so what am I talking about? Just trippin, searchin surfing the possibilities of what that thing could be.


зубило ~ chisel (which makes me think that chis is teeth)


a vegan friend of mine is very high-strung, what made me think if meat is man't food (man eat)
then what if woman's food? weed? weed.



thot ~ тётка тётя тити take a tit, take a hit, hike a hat hooker? this is some autopatic writing
too hot, that, ту, её
a = 1  (some vowels for two, like æ and oh wow!)
æ =2? or aa (= o?) = 2
E = 3
o = 4
v = 5

old russian o is ꙋ
and arabic reflect this E O thing, but places them not where they usually are, but then they're followed by 7, which is their 6 (and what vowel It can be I can only guess, some 1 with a dash? for 2 has 7, and 3 has 8 in arabic is 八 and arabic 9 is like our 9, which only was with 1, so were they
Europeans don't use arabic numerals, we use hindu numerals. And 7 tells that no, not hindu, Brahmi.
We both are brahmic cultures. Europe is brahmisch, also because we share numerals with brahmi,
Can brahmi and hindu y7 and 8 reflect eachother and thus reflect arabic 7 and 8
arabic 6 reflects 2, not 1
See, this I only guess, first guess, we're dying, whatever.
How did brahmi distinguished 7 from 9? How can I speculate about it not having any mathematica ltext in any of those writing systems read?


Hindu 3 and 6 reflect eachother.
Hindu 1 and 9 reflect eachother in a way.
but it's 2 between 1 and 3, and it's 3 between 6 and 9, but it was close, but then some digits could be added inbetween.  But then let's leave it to ai's rigor and might

Here, I found some other charge of numerals:




These two are from brahmi specifically, because the one before them didn't have it. A spot of this stuff to learn it is. 20 and 80 reflect eachother


And as usual, I got distracted from


шунт от слова шить (вшивка одного сосуда в другой, для доставки крови туда, куда она по каким-либо причинам не поступает)
стент от слова устанавливать (проволочный каркас, поддерживающий сосуд в раскрытом состоянии)


Remembre that weird stuff they call Saxon alphabet from few volumes ago?

it just got even weirder:


I declared myself to be привит к свету, does it still make me light or dark side? I am the white soul within the dark gown (as monks wear black?) rolling around a light crowd (with a goat within it, so is my task to save the crowd by substituting the goat within it? To send the goat where I am? nah, it is a corny association

association (cia?)
assumption (military police?)



hypotheses (they try to cancel this rule here and there, so they say that the plural of octopus is octopuses, not octopusi, and even more so that plural of ignoramus is not ignorami, but ignoramuses, but I believe that they do so to avoid association of octopussy, he is puss? octopie it would be, but they say that the word is greek, thus no latin ending.

I suppose the latin grammar was introduced with latin words to teach children some latin. And if you speak a latin word, you may want to borrow all forms of it as you speak to the merchant about it.


some (со мной?)


Is it possible, that typos were mistranslated? could parties, misspelled like paries, give birth to pariah?
(as if пария in russian text not recognized for партия it was (interpreters should be understood, probably they didn't have connection with the author to ask, maybe because the author was dead))


according to this guy, both shirt and skirt are cognates of short.


sindDE ~ сутьRU (so we can see how just few centuries ago russian was more similar to german)
(it's funny that english write ge where germans write де, but here it is a coincidence)


I'm out of weed so having smoked my pipe residue (do not do that) I am inot into


I think I will be good in improvisation comedy. I should put a camera on a table and film me going impro in a standup club when there's audience, so I invent new genre of comedy, the improvisational standup, though there is probably some artist working in that genre. But I don't know them and it is an advancement (I do not imitate, thus am fresh)
am is verbal form of me (just as J is consonant form of I (jeFR and IEN both stand for the same))
But then I realize I must not to it in this political climate.
(to~do, it was unintentionally, but it reveals how it is the same word)
Но не помешают и заготовки тем, чтоб не мычать, но это быть может только для тех, кто час должен выступать. Для небольшой репризы можно и не сильно готовиться. Но подобно тому как я однажды начал собирать лингвистический задор, пришло время собирать и шутки. И вот неплохая в голову пришла. В английком работников полиции оскорбляют не мусором, а свиньями, словно наш российский мусор это что здесь устроили иностранные свиньи, немчура всякая, например, (но я не знаю как в германии мусоров называют: здесь можно развить тему, когда узнаю немецкий slur (is slur of slut? slut workd? (is word worked? (not improvised, as an onomatopoeia would be))))
And teaching people english while making joke is a great and unique niche. 
so if russians call pigs trash, why do they have this saying что знают двое, знает и свинья? Потому что очевидно же что не мясная свинья имелась в виду.
But then I recall that comedians tend to be rather depressed people, so let's not extract the funny out of me, not to bottle it, let it live on in me as one of the sources of energy for something way more important. And Kitano was troubled when he tried to speak seriously, but people took him for a joke, when he was a comedian, which made him change his theatrical character.


Just in case you didn't intend not to upload the video itself but forgot to do it, here I said it.
I found and watched and even archived it alright, and it is great, and I probably would probably only subconsciously notice how the reflecting elements reflect properly if I didn't see how it was filmed.
The song is also great, my absolute favourite at the moment.
didn't intend not to upload is legitimate double negation in english, they exist


si & no ~ see & know
(si, смотри / no, знать должен, нечего смотреть если не знаешь (но это лишь как оно могло быть взаимосвязано, но это спекуляция, фантазия, но такова самая первая стадия исследования, либо из него вырастет что-то более серьёзное, либо оно забудется будучи отброшено на перефирию))


хотел записать отброшенным вместо отброшено, и обращая внимание на то, окончание но is of оно, окончание нным ~ оным, им (а оно тогда о, она тогда а, а он просто по дефолту, ъ)



мама
маме~мамы
маму~мамой

отец
отцу~отца
отца~отцом

странно, непонятно какие из этого можно сделать выводы, я бы сделал будь они сходными, но совместив формы обоих слов получается просто месиво. Но вспоминая как в английском латинские слова склоняются не так как германские, можно предположить, что слова из женских (открытых) слогов и слова из мужских (азкрытых) слогов, пришли из разных языков, и потому склоняются по разному.
так что рассортировав по сходству окончаний, получим

отец
отца~отца
отцу~отцом

(забавно, что окончания предложного падежа совпадают в обоих словах, видимо этот падеж появился после объединения лексиконов)


wondering if ᚼ the ᛡ, or it's higher shape, could stand for mill, and M is ᛘ and ᛉ could stand for vertical mill, which mills are written to be like, but I never saw what they looked like, I guess they were vertical sails around a pole, but then wouldn't ᛉ be more stable to attach those sails to? Especially since branches grow like that, which makes runes way more natural than straight angles of modern letters. So they could use trunks with branches before they got the instrument to build their own "trees"
Do windmills predate good instrument? Probably yes.


arrogance ~ arrogants (an abstract term expressed in the form of a group's feature)
patience ~ patients (some patient people)
but no studence, but it can be; and dance is not dents, but dancers, but then dance is an action, not a feature, so let's dig this hole some more:
parents, but not parence, this word is only reserved for a surname and a location
florence ..and florins are the currency of Florence.



Wondering at russian domains of su, ru, and now I use nu (nuccia [ню́сия] от слова nukes, but also от слов New Сила (nucclla [нюся] (русское имя, гораздо менее противное чем параша (гулаг был psyopом, но жар-птица образ нашей сильной нации, она может и плюнуть, но добрая птица, даже перо не жалко подарить)))

s is right next to r so the question arose is p п п n? is П ~ Н
then o is aa or au,
aei? aoi is the range from blue to green and around in japanese,
ki is yellow in japanese (k column maybe because of that is yellow in my book, because gold is kin (золото желто (найди больше примеров, и распространи границы применимости перевода морфемы из японской n в русское ..о? some ν~v thing? some ו ~ ן thing? ז ~ ן thing of N ~ Z? and only today have I noticed the ו ז similarity, and Z does stand at the V's place in greek, but then that Z is ז when ו was removed, so they say and could Z be double V? In the context of BD structure I'd say the other way around. And if B is double D can θ be another form of the same doubling. I think in russian text we would have no other chance but read θ as B unless it was on O's place, and I can see how O is thus B for both are ו (and naturally because russians knew christianity, they knew hebrew text, and maybe khazars were the influence which shower russians this tradition (it's good russians didn't accept judaism, because then they wouyld be targeted as jews are, and though jews seem to be winning, it is pretty much shaky, but they want to win, they have to have some win)))))

黄色い [ki iro i] is how far
kin (gold) is 金, and it is very basic element, working for metal in elements:
notice how huo ~ ash (as if both letters differently name H, and h does remind 火 (hi in japanese)
(hi for fire as he for man, in tai chi it makes perfect sense, and was tai chi tai indeed, was it a tool allowing travellers to speak foreign language as they travelled? I always suspected such system to exist and how exciting must it be to reveal it to the masses, but мутишь мути тихо, не обновляй пожалуйста более свой сайт. Окей, потайная комната? Да блин, ничего не скрыть, обновляй, и находи дипломатические пути

tu reminds egyptian t and graphically 土 could be historically the same 𓏏 (the lower base is the same, the one which probably shows the ground, and the hill in egyptian could be the tree-like structure in chinese, or it could be the central axis and the smaller сечение セクション section


I think I know why would I notice 8th century AD to be used as a time of appearance of many scripts: so you conceal sources speaking of 8th century BC when greeks found alphabet, and it is only natural that it was an explosion of the invention. Because greeks are one of the most influencial nations of antiquity. But not in the 8th century? Some other nation probably was, the one greeks borrowed the alphabet from, my guess is some sakartvello writing system could be the source of greek alphabet, and old-persian or paleo-hispanic could be the influence to greeks

Could AD tell of addition of A and D to B and C? could B and C be З and C? where З were labial but not dental, and both were lingual? Was it because we have one pair of lips, but teeth also come in pairs, but in many pairs.


and I immediately see how ᡔ reminds Ч (совпадение формы и содержания делает символы идентичными) and it's messed up how ᡔ  goes vertically and allows to move the normal text vertically: ᡔsup

In 1587, the translator and scholar Ayuush Güüsh (Аюуш гүүш) created the Galik alphabet (Али-гали Ali-gali), inspired by the third Dalai Lama, Sonam Gyatso. It primarily added extra characters for transcribing Tibetan and Sanskrit terms when translating religious texts, and later also from Chinese. Some of those characters are still in use today for writing foreign names (as listed below).


ᡔ unites T and Ч making one form of the other, and then Z and N are invariants too, and И and S?
(but then isn't t~s? but then isn't z~ž~R~ч (in the sense of cusive r looking exactly like cursive ч))



украинское нахабство объясняет русские слова похабный и быть может храбрый и нахрап
хабарUA ~ взяткаRU
хабаріUA ~ взяткиRU
хабарникиUA ~ взяточникиRU



Though I dislike artificial languages, ithkuil promises to be very useful for enhancing the thought process, so when technology allows it, I will give this monstrosity a try:

It is here because they placed labials first, but then the order is confusing, either way another interesting peculiarity of it is the way it reverses a letter to make it voiceless. or voiced. or otherwise a pair (see w and y, m and n, etc)
It seems to be overcomplicated, but I collect it here as a curiosity:

no, I have no idea what any of those tell

But enough of this irrelevant stuff, let's return to something more natural:



Few bages ago ᡔ was a great find, definitely linked to russian Ч as the same symbol. In which country the root of that symbol is I don't know. Чaй was definitely a shock. And the way this ithkuil ritates its letters, it could be a form of ᚴ

If you found something I found you could get desperate from not being able to publish it, and
That ᡔ above also moves cursor downwards as you use arrows to navigate the text if you view this html through some editor. It goes up and down, when you go left and right, it's very trippy. And maybe can be used in some game development? But do styles work in code? Probably not, but it may lead somebody to a solution based on this find, now I'm not helping only distracting them (are them та and him? та & им (lingual female and labial male? As mathur for man? no, as b being the first in ogham.
Ч as a form of T this ᡔ theᡔtells
T ank K finally tells links С and T by Ч being of C(and h?) and T being the T, by mongolian alphabet, who could have thought! I waited much from mongolian for it only going forward by going down, as chinese used to write being thus unique. But then egyptians also did, and probably many writing systems I don't know. Ithkuil could it be that the word ithkuil is so complex that probably each letter has its meaning. Of coulse you would do it like this if you was so wise that you

Just before sending my second edition of the booklet I passed it through spellchecker and I was shocked by how many typos I missed, these are tghe strong typos, protected by whatever force placed them there (but they could closw my eyes, not eyes of the spellchecker. If some typos got through into the second edition, they are few placed by me ономатопоэйя is my авторское orthography

trandition -> tradition
tradiotion -> tradition
treatice -> treatise
iven -> even
alphabetical -> alphabetic
above mentioned -> above-mentioned
independent from -> independent of
оmeans -> means
cherry picking -> cherry-picking

tradiNtion tradOition
traNdition tradiOtion (only few lines apart, such distinct dislike of tradition declared by my subconsicious mind
Treatise is just my ignorance (I didn't know how was to write it, with tradition ist was
ist tells that is is ист (краткая форма прилагательного истый, истинный. НН дополнительное удлинение плирагательного плилагательного хотел написать, но опечатался пли (блин, снова описалса (was vystocky singing a instead of я by using аз without english influence of I ..)))
and it is very powerful: йА of IЯ and Ай of I both tell of A, and I links it to ا and though I and though I don't know if ا is a colloquial form of أنا, this ana (in hebrew I is ani) is full of ا's.
Further typos of words I knew how to write right (anybody knows how to write what they hear, but to write right they must to be considered literate, were such demands what declared russia illiterate? The plenty of dialectal use of the alphabet? their personal orthographies of their own writing systems sometimes)
So other typos probably were not telling such story, because they are "I (all) o" o as in off and out, as if the subconsciousness only had one message: NO TRADITION! to invent something new, we have to forget about the old you want to substitute with the better form and function.
I couldn't tell from from of by ignorance, so hardly it counts, unless these ignorant moment was another mention another message: from treatise (sense, sence is a part of word essence, but sent scents

and I placed this into cognates.html
sent ~ scent ~ essence ~ sense
(is scent scened? scent is sent! is sent scenet scened? is sonet sent? sonet is probably sogns song, and g meets д (in t ~ ed) again)
asnd it lead me to this:
voiceless shows the past in past? pass passed past - here it doesn't, but maybe passive not active not strong not trying not articulate form of the same thing? but I was thinking of
send is sent in the past. (I wonder what last is.. is last~lost?(past form of lose) but then I see that last is the past form of least ..and least is the past form of.. lease? leased is the least (if you own it you own more))
lease such a rare word especially in foreign minds. But so many variants of translations may tell that it is an ancient word. And I wonder if people payed for rent or if they were just kind to owners so they allowed them to live in it? So was lease cognate of лиз? Приходилось подлизываться. Что значит приходилось? Это успешная стратегия! Ласковый теля двух маток сосёт.
Не потому ли злобные уебаны обычно мелкие, а здоровяки добры? Потому и накачались, чтоб не лезли с драками? А злобные уебаны не прочь подраться видимо? Очень странно, но the world is just and beautiful in its justice. And it promises us eternal youth. And we should prepare sarcofaguses for the case we don't take enough of eternal youth and die. So that at least future generations may resurrect us if we do not make it. We should be good both ways.

When you own, you're on.


Now let's loot at typos of the russian, and thus more worked on version, so why so many typoes? why so many more?

явлется соеднинением -> является соединением   H
по прежнему -> по-прежнему (I didn't know better)
передаваемыые -> передаваемые                            Ы
гуппа -> группа                                                         -Р
перевёрнутными -> перевёрнутыми                        Н
проявлющемся -> проявляющимся                         е/и
стороы -> стороны                                                    -Н
нисподающие -> ниспадающие                              o/a and I think I left it so
говориить -> говорить                                               И
присуствуют -> присутствуют                                -Т
песьма -> письма                                                     e/и
алтернативных -> альтернативных                          Ь
собсственным -> cобственным                                С
встречется -> встречается                                       -А
писменности -> письменности                              -Ь
предыдщей -> предыдущей                                    -У

and this time it doesn't tell any story. And who knows, maybe it is because I corrected many typos along the way of editing, I edited russian version much more. Why so many typos?! I'm way more confident in russian, and I swallow russian text way more easily, I'm black and white and easy.
нить I can see in that нырннитɪьсаьу but it is apophenic, images seen in tv snow.


усович~усачёв (не является ли суффикс чёв суффиксом вич? чёв? чьёс=в? чьих? (чьё в сумке тех и сума) сумка сумма (сума = сумма (в сумке инкассатор носит итогог))

итого = итога?  итоговая сумма



If dog is of dig and собака от копать, копака, копалка, то не от слова ли ррр рыть? не звали ли собаку ры? тогда бы это осталось в лексике, но нет. но рысь? было ли рысь более общим понятием, ли натягиваю я сову на глобус?


Mongolian seemed like a sure path, The path I have to wonder:
(I googled mongolian writing system and was fed some awesome variety of scripts)
Galik:

1        2         3           4          5          6          7           8           9         10         11        12        13        14         15       16
ᠠ᠋     ᠠ᠋᠎ᠠ        ᠢ         ᠢᠢ      ᠦ᠋       ᠤᠦ        ᠷᠢ        ᠷᠢᠢ       ᠯᠢ        ᠯᠢᠢ        ᠧ     ᠧᠧ     ᠣᠸᠠ      ᠣᠸᠸᠠ     ᢀ᠋ᠠ᠋      ᠠ᠋ᢁ

अ    आ / ा    इ / ि    ई / ी    उ / ु    ऊ / ू     ऋ / ृ    ॠ / ॄ     ऌ / ॢ     ॡ / ॣ     ए / े    ऐ / ै    ओ / ो    औ / ौ    अं          अः

ཨ      ཨཱ          ཨི          ཨཱི        ཨུ        ཨཱུ            རྀ          རཱྀ           ལྀ        ལཱྀ            ཨེ        ཨཻ        ཨོ        ཨཽ      ཨ / ཨཾ    ཨ / ཨཿ
 a        ā          i            ī          u         ū             ṛ           ṝ             ḷ          ḹ             e        ai          o      au    am / aṃ    aẖ / aḥ
 
(the firs line is mongolian, the second line is devanagari, the third line is tibetan, the fourth is ours)

But then mongolian is supposed to go top to bottom, thus ᠠ᠋ᠠ᠋᠎ᠠᠢᠢᠢᠦ᠋ᠤᠦᠷᠢᠷᠢᠢᠯᠢᠯᠢᠢᠧᠧᠧᠣᠸᠠᠣᠸᠸᠠᢀ᠋ᠠ᠋ᠠ᠋ᢁ which is that mongolian line without spacebars should be looked at with one's head tilted to the left.
But let's try do it the right way:
ᠠ᠋ᠠ᠋ᠠ᠋ᠠ᠋᠎ᠠᠢᠢᠢᠦ᠋ᠤᠦᠷᠢᠷᠢᠢᠯᠢᠯᠢᠢᠧᠧᠧᠣᠸᠠᠣᠸᠸᠠᢀ᠋ᠠ᠋ᠠ᠋ᢁ
This mongolian thing surprises and scares, it can go on and on and on probably in any size.

ᠠ᠋ᠠ᠋ᠠ᠋ᠠ᠋   
              
This is how Aaaaaa goes (with initial and final shapes different than simple middle)
(you should play with copy-pasting it somewhere, it is really wicked, opens some doors of html never seen before)
that dash in the middel shape is probably the essence of ᠠ᠋'s ✓ the ✓

and now the consonants:
(gray: ambiguous letters)
17       18       19      20       21        22             23            24        25            26              27             28
ᢉᠠ     ᢉᠠ / ᠻᠠ   ᠺᠠ    ᠺᠾᠠ᠋     ᢊᢇ     ᡔᠠ᠋/ᠴᠠ᠋     ᢋᠠ᠋/ᠽᠠ᠋/ᢖᠠ᠋/ᡓᠠ᠋    ᠴᠠ᠋      ᠼᠠ᠋      ᡔᠠ᠋/ᠵᠠ᠋/ᠴᠠ᠋/ᢋᠠ᠋     ᢋᠠ᠋/ᠽᠠ᠋      ᢋᠾᠠ᠋/ᠽᠾᠠ᠋

क         ख        ग       घ       ङ                            च                       छ                                 ज               झ
ཀ         ཁ         ག      གྷ       ང          ཅ                ཙ            ཆ        ཚ                ཇ               ཛ               ཛྷ
ka      kha       ga     gha   ṅa/nga     ca              ca/za       cha    cha/tsha         ja               ja              jha


29     30      31     32      33      34    35    36       37           38           39      (this numbers are here only for me
ᡛᠠ᠋      ᢌᠠ᠋     ᢍᠠ᠋    ᢎᠠ᠋     ᢎᠾᠠ᠋     ᢏᠠ᠋    ᢐᠠ᠋    ᠲᠠ᠋    ᠳ᠋ᠠ᠋ / ᢑᠠ᠋    ᠳ᠋ᠾᠠ᠋ / ᢑᠾᠠ᠋    ᠨᠠ᠋       to refer to the signs easily later in text)

ञ       ट       ठ      ड         ढ       ण     त     थ          द             ध            न
ཉ        ཊ      ཋ       ཌ        ཌྷ       ཎ     ཏ      ཐ          ད            དྷ            ན
ña      ṭa      ṭha    ḍa     ḍha     ṇa     ta     tha        da         dha          na
     

40        41         42      43    44      45        46     47      48      49     50     51      52     53     54      55    56     57
ᢒᠠ     ᠪᠠ / ᠹᠠ    ᠪᠠ    ᠪᠾᠠ᠋    ᠮᠠ᠋    ᠶ᠋ᠠ᠋ / ᠶᠠ᠋     ᠷᠠ᠋     ᠯᠠ᠋     ᡀᠠ᠋     ᠸᠠ᠋    ᢕᠠ᠋     ᠱᠠ᠋     ᢔᠠ᠋     ᠰᠠ᠋    ᠾᠠ᠋     ᢖᠠ᠋     ᢗᠠ᠋    ᢉᢔᠠ᠋

प          फ          ब      भ       म        य          र       ल                व               श       ष      स      ह                         क्ष
པ          ཕ          བ      བྷ       མ       ཡ          ར      ལ      ལྷ       ཝ     ཞ       ཤ       ཥ      ས      ཧ        ཟ       འ      ཀྵ
pa       pha        ba    bha     ma      ya         ra      la     lha     va      ža     śa/ša   ṣa     sa     ha       za      'a     kṣa

The other part you have to see in one piece:

(under this image the link where you can find this chapter in its source)
and here how they would look if I copy/pasted it in the text form:
ᢀ         ᢀᠠ᠋       ཨྃ
ᢀ᠋/ᢁ    ᠠ᠋ᢁ       ཨཿ
ᢁ᠋/ᢂ    ᢂᠻᠠ       ྈྑ
ᢃ         ᢃᠹᠠ        ྌྥ
ᢄ         ᢄᠹᠠ        ྉྥ
ᢅ           ᢉᢅᠣᠸᠸᠠ     ཀཽ྅
ᢆ           ᢉᢆᠣᠸᠸᠠ     ཀཽ྅྅྅

and what a great way to learn chinese:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_transliteration_of_Chinese_characters
but I will return to this stuff after I master mongolian.

What is interesting about the mongolian simbols above is that most of them are ligatures, so the number of signs is much smaller:

Let's look at them in the context of single forms, for some of them repeat them:
1) ᠠ᠋
2) Naturally, ᠠ᠋᠎ᠠ is ᠠ᠋ and ᠠ with some weird space between them, without which it would be ᠠ᠋ᠠ
3) ᠢ
4) ᠢᠢ  is ᠢ and ᠢ, double ᠢ     
5) ᠦ᠋
6) ᠤᠦ is ᠤ and ᠦ
7) ᠷᠢ is ᠷ and ᠢ
8) ᠷᠢᠢ is ᠷ and ᠢ and ᠢ  (thus ᠷ and ᠢᠢ is is)
9) ᠯᠢ is ᠯ and ᠢ
10) ᠯᠢᠢ is ᠯ ᠢ ᠢ
11) ᠧ
12) ᠧᠧ is ᠧ ᠧ    
13) ᠣᠸᠠ is ᠣ ᠸ ᠠ     
14) ᠣᠸᠸᠠ is ᠣ ᠸ ᠸ ᠠ    
15) ᢀ᠋ᠠ᠋ is naturally ᢀ᠋ abd and ᠠ᠋     
16) ᠠ᠋ᢁ is naturally ᠠ᠋ and ᢁ

consonants:
17) ᢉᠠ is ᢉ ᠠ
18) ᢉᠠ or ᠻᠠ are ᢉ ᠠ or ᠻ ᠠ  
19) ᠺᠠ is ᠺ ᠠ
20) ᠺᠾᠠ᠋ is ᠺ ᠾ ᠠ᠋
21) ᢊᢇ is ᢊ ᢇ
22) ᡔᠠ᠋ or ᠴᠠ᠋ are ᡔ ᠠ᠋ or ᠴ ᠠ᠋    
23) ᢋᠠ᠋ or ᠽᠠ᠋ or ᢖᠠ᠋ or ᡓᠠ᠋  are  ᢋ ᠠ᠋ or ᠽ ᠠ᠋ or ᢖ ᠠ᠋ or ᡓ ᠠ᠋
24) ᠴᠠ᠋ is ᠴ ᠠ᠋
25) ᠼᠠ᠋ is ᠼ ᠠ᠋
26) ᡔᠠ᠋ or ᠵᠠ᠋ or ᠴᠠ᠋ or ᢋ ᠠ᠋ are ᡔ ᠠ᠋ or ᠵ ᠠ᠋ or ᠴ ᠠ᠋ or ᢋ ᠠ᠋
27) ᢋᠠ᠋ or ᠽᠠ᠋ are ᢋ ᠠ᠋ or ᠽ ᠠ᠋
28) ᢋᠾᠠ᠋ or ᠽᠾᠠ᠋ are ᢋ ᠾ ᠠ᠋ or ᠽ ᠾ ᠠ᠋
29) ᡛᠠ᠋ is ᡛ ᠠ᠋     
30) ᢌᠠ᠋ is ᢌ ᠠ᠋    
31) ᢍᠠ᠋ is ᢍ ᠠ᠋   
32) ᢎᠠ᠋ is ᢎ ᠠ᠋    
33) ᢎᠾᠠ᠋ is ᢎ ᠾ ᠠ᠋    
34) ᢏᠠ᠋ is ᢏ ᠠ᠋   
35) ᢐᠠ᠋ is ᢐ ᠠ᠋   
36) ᠲᠠ᠋ is ᠲ ᠠ᠋   
37) ᠳ᠋ᠠ᠋ or ᢑᠠ᠋ are ᠳ᠋ ᠠ᠋ or ᢑ ᠠ᠋   
38) ᠳ᠋ᠾᠠ᠋ or ᢑᠾᠠ᠋ are ᠳ᠋ ᠾ ᠠ᠋ or ᢑ ᠾ ᠠ᠋
39) ᠨᠠ᠋ is ᠨ ᠠ᠋
40) ᢒᠠ is ᢒ ᠠ    
41) ᠪᠠ or ᠹᠠ are ᠪ ᠠ or ᠹ ᠠ   
42) ᠪᠠ is ᠪ ᠠ   
43) ᠪᠾᠠ᠋ is ᠪ ᠾ ᠠ᠋   
44) ᠮᠠ᠋ is ᠮᠠ᠋   
45) ᠶ᠋ᠠ᠋ or ᠶᠠ᠋ are ᠶ᠋ ᠠ᠋ or ᠶ ᠠ᠋    
46) ᠷᠠ᠋ is ᠷ ᠠ᠋
47) ᠯᠠ᠋ is ᠯ ᠠ᠋    
48) ᡀᠠ᠋ is ᡀ ᠠ᠋
49) ᠸᠠ᠋ is ᠸ ᠠ᠋
50) ᢕᠠ᠋ is ᢕ ᠠ᠋
51) ᠱᠠ᠋ is ᠱ ᠠ᠋    
52) ᢔᠠ᠋ is ᢔ ᠠ᠋
53) ᠰᠠ᠋ is ᠰ ᠠ᠋
54) ᠾᠠ᠋ is ᠾ ᠠ᠋
55) ᢖᠠ᠋ is ᢖ ᠠ᠋
56) ᢗᠠ᠋ is ᢗ ᠠ᠋   
57) ᢉᢔᠠ᠋ is ᢉ ᢔ ᠠ᠋

another piece of exotic information was the book to which the page from it leads:

There are plenty of such patterns in the end of that very important book which is hidden for my understanding fo so far, but I brin g  your attention to it, because who knows if those flowers denote some alphabetlijk structure.

I think they're the same pattern but in different colours. And they are:



these patterns are presented in the beginning and in the end of that book, the Twenty-One Hymns to the Rescuer Mother of Buddhas
But these patterns are 5 times 8, not 21, which would be 3 times 7, so profane I probably am, I am totally out of my depth.
I wonder if these 8 relate to 8 of vegvisir or to 8 of hypothetic early roman numerals.
And yes I like how 8th shape looks like ☸ and 8 and that ☸ has 8 ends. But now some facts:
 Also known as “Twenty-One Hymns to the Rescuer Saint Tārā, Mother of Buddhas,” this item is a sutra from Tibetan esoteric Buddhism. The copyist was Yong Rong (1744–90), sixth son of the Qianlong emperor and general editor of the Siku quanshu. In addition to being a poet, calligrapher, and painter, Yong Rong had a sophisticated understanding of astronomy and mathematics. On the top protective cover of this item is written, “Imperially commissioned translation of the hymn to the rescuer mother of Buddhas," in Manchu, Tibetan, Mongolian, and Chinese scripts. The calligraphy is excellent, the binding is extraordinary, and the quality of the paper is exquisite. At the end is inscribed, “Respectfully written by scion and servant to the throne Yong Rong.” The mother of Buddhas is an avatar of the bodhisattva Guanyin, and her image can be seen in many wall paintings and Tibetan thangka paintings. The 21 rescuer mothers of Buddhas are female deities honored by all sects of Tibetan Buddhism; they are the most beautiful and merciful female deities who release and rescue myriad beings from suffering. The most revered such deities in Tibet and Mongolia are the green and the white rescuing mothers, and many documents relating to them are extant today. No “Imperially commissioned translation of the hymn to the rescuer mother of Buddhas" is known to exist in Manchurian or Mongolian and the Buddhist canon does not include this text, making the documentary and cultural value of this item very high.
returning to what I speculated about, the 6th shape has 6 ends, but then 4th shape has more than 4 ends, so probably I saying nothing.
Бодхисаттва Гуаньинь: Она почитается как защитница и покровительница всех верующих. Гуаньинь – Бодхисаттва милосердия Авалокитешвара, в Китае утвердился также в женской ипостаси. Китайский вариант его имени Гуаньшиинь, «Слушающий звуки мира».
bodhisattva Guanyin: In India, bodhisattvas are genderless or are referred to as male. The Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, or Guanyin, is often depicted as female in China.



Walk and work are both comands commands, and walk is indeed lighter (леgхче) than work, which is haRd (cЛожный? тяжёЛый?) Heavy? h~R? rought~toughc (r~t (r~ᛐ~ᛚ))
Thus worry not, IMNL is the order, because l is so much as t, just as a is so much d. Just as Ʌ[ʌ]~Λ[λ]
A~T? A~t! (check the dashes)

A~Я as well (they meet in аз (so did that watch maker know something when he saw drew sew drew T instead of I?))
A B C D E F G H T? no, it went I II III IV V VI VII VIII TX X XI XII and to my surprise T is in the nines position in both sequences
A B C  D  E  F   G    H    T
I  II III IV V VI VII VIII TX X XI XII
but then I only know T as X (when roman numerals were invented X wrote was read as T)

write ~ w'read? will read? was w λλ? ł is w. is will bilingua?


Tengri in mongolian: ᠲᠩᠷᠢ



ᠠ᠋ ending so many mongolian symbols made me think that they're like russian э in бэ вэ гэ дэ
46's ᠷᠠ᠋ in the context of ᠢ (which is that final ר-like shape (which is also a ر-like shape if you look at it not from fakey hebrey way but in more authentic arabic writing system, more authentic because it was in actual and not only cult use)  ~ctrl C and ctrl F that ᠢ to truly see.

And that ᠢ is i and I cannot ignore its semblance of russian И, and even more so of greek Η
So did they take their writing systems from the east and then rewrote the history of geopolitical reasons?
But then I wouldn't see И in it if it was rotated the upright mongolian way: ᠢ reminds I though.

46's ᠷᠠ᠋ indeed uses only the ᠷ part. So whoever did that in wiki like this is a mongol i.e. barbarian.
But now I can see my rusist way of seeing things is flawed. We almost destroyed the source, but then we carried its flame to the world. We did our part, they did maybe even more in the more ancient times. If we took it from them, it is just wow~


To my surprise or even shock ᠩ is not in the list of 57 doesn't contain, and the only ng in there is ᢊᢇ which is ᢊ ᢇ, where ᢊ is definitely that ᠢ with a diacritic.
And it is funny how ᢇ looks like Г like this and like cursive Г when we read it mongl way.

Old uygur is so awesome how could I not learn it before? The great thing about it is that it is not only this tiny, but it is also 18 letters:
𐽰 𐽱 𐽲 𐽳 𐽴 𐽵 𐽶 𐽷 𐽸 𐽹 𐽺 𐽻 𐽼 𐽽 𐽾 𐽿 𐾀 𐾁  𐾂 𐾃 𐾄 𐾅 𐾆 𐾇 𐾈 𐾉
 

𐽰  a (aleph. Compare Arabic ا‎)
𐽱  b (beth. Compare Arabic ب‎ (b))       all the text in brackets in this paragraph is from wiktionary
𐽲  g~h (gimel-heth)  is C = E? c and e do look alike, but I dunno?
𐽳  w (waw. Compare Arabic و‎ (w))
𐽴  z (zayin. Compare Arabic ز‎ (z))
𐽵 h (heth. Compare Arabic ح‎ (ḥ))
𐽶 y (yodh. Compare Arabic ي (y))
𐽷 k (kaph. Compare Arabic ك‎ (k))
𐽸 l (lamedh. Compare Arabic ل‎ (l))
𐽹 m (mem. Compare Arabic م‎ (m)) but I'd say compare Old Hebrew 𐡌
𐽺 n (nun. Compare Arabic ن‎ (n))
𐽻 s (samekh. Compare Arabic س‎ (s)) but I'd say compare s and ᛋ and z
𐽼 p (poe. Compare Arabic ف‎ (f))
𐽽 ts (sadhe/tsadi. Compare Arabic ص‎ (ṣ))
𐽾 r (resh. Compare Arabic ر‎ (r))
𐽿 s (shin. Compare Arabic ش‎ (š))  Hey~! wtf is going on here! what sort of fabrication is this? 𐽻 and 𐽿
𐾀 t (taw. Compare Arabic ت‎ (t)) they're just mindlessly say this "compare", because here it is ط
𐾁 ? (lesh.)
 𐾂 𐾃 (Combining dot below)𐾄
 𐾅 𐾆(Combining dot above)
 𐾇 (Combining two dots above)
𐾅 )   𐾅  ) (Combining two dots below)
𐾆 (Bar)
𐾇 (Two bars)
𐾈 (Two dots)
𐾉 (Four dots)
𐽰𐽱𐽲𐽳𐽴𐽵𐽶𐽷𐽸𐽹𐽺𐽻𐽼𐽽𐽾𐽿𐾀𐾁 don't link into binderune so to say, but here's how old uygur text looked:

probably whichever you way it goes:



After old-uygur in unicode goes even more obscure writing system: Khorezmian:
𐾰 𐾱 𐾲 𐾳 𐾴 𐾵 𐾶 𐾷 𐾸 𐾹 𐾺 𐾻 𐾼 𐾽 𐾾 𐾿 𐿀 𐿁 𐿂 𐿃 𐿄 𐿅 𐿆 𐿇 𐿈 𐿉 𐿊 𐿋      
Khwārezmian (Khwarezmian: زڨاک‌ای خوارزم, zβ'k 'y xw'rzm;[2] also transliterated Khwarazmian, Chorasmian, Khorezmian) is an extinct East Iranian language[3][4][5][6] closely related to Sogdian. The language was spoken in the area of Khwarezm (Chorasmia), centered in the lower Amu Darya south of the Aral Sea (the northern part of the modern Republic of Uzbekistan and the adjacent areas of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan).
Knowledge of Khwarezmian is limited to its Middle Iranian stage and, as with Sogdian, little is known of its ancient form. Based on the writings of Khwarezmian scholars Al-Biruni and Zamakhshari, the language was in use at least until the 13th century, when it was gradually replaced by Persian for the most part, as well as several dialects of Turkic.[7]
Sources of Khwarezmian include astronomical terms used by al-Biruni, Zamakhshari's Arabic–Persian–Khwarezmian dictionary and several legal texts that use Khwarezmian terms and quotations to explain certain legal concepts, most notably the Qunyat al-Munya of Mukhtār al-Zāhidī al-Ghazmīnī (d. 1259/60).[7][8]
The noted scholar W.B. Henning was preparing a dictionary of Khwarezmian when he died, leaving it unfinished. A fragment of this dictionary was published posthumously by D.N. MacKenzie in 1971.[9]
and this one ligaturizes somewhere: 𐾰𐾱𐾲𐾳𐾴𐾵𐾶𐾷𐾸𐾹𐾺𐾻𐾼𐾽𐾾𐾿𐿀𐿁𐿂𐿃𐿄𐿅𐿆𐿇𐿈𐿉𐿊𐿋
(though this ligature messes their numerals vijf en twentig kinda thing)

But we got distracted, let's return to the mongolian field and surf through results of that search:

Zanabazar's square script is a horizontal Mongolian square script (Mongolian: Хэвтээ Дөрвөлжин бичиг, Khevtee Dörvöljin bichig or Mongolian: Хэвтээ Дөрвөлжин Үсэг, Khevtee Dörvöljin Üseg),[1] an abugida developed by the monk and scholar Zanabazar to write Mongolian. It can also be used to write Tibetan and Sanskrit.[2][3]
It was re-discovered in 1801 and the script's applications during the period of its use are not known. It was also largely based on the Tibetan alphabet, read left to right, and employed vowel diacritics above and below the consonant letters.[1]

𑨀‎ 𑨁‎ 𑨂‎ 𑨃‎ 𑨄‎ 𑨅‎ 𑨆‎ 𑨇‎ 𑨈‎ 𑨉‎ 𑨊‎ 𑨋‎ 𑨌‎ 𑨍‎ 𑨎‎ 𑨏‎ 𑨐‎ 𑨑‎ 𑨒‎ 𑨓‎ 𑨔‎ 𑨕‎ 𑨖‎ 𑨗‎ 𑨘‎ 𑨙‎ 𑨚‎ 𑨛‎ 𑨜‎ 𑨝‎ 𑨞‎ 𑨟‎ 𑨠‎ 𑨡‎ 𑨢‎ 𑨣‎ 𑨤‎ 𑨥‎ 𑨦‎ 𑨧‎ 𑨨‎ 𑨩‎ 𑨪‎ 𑨫‎ 𑨬‎ 𑨭‎ 𑨮‎ 𑨯‎ 𑨰‎ 𑨱‎ 𑨲‎ 𑨳‎ 𑨴‎ 𑨵‎ 𑨶‎ 𑨷‎ 𑨸‎ 𑨹‎  𑨺‎  𑨻‎ 𑨼‎ 𑨽‎ 𑨾‎ 𑨿‎ 𑩀‎ 𑩁‎ 𑩂‎ 𑩃‎ 𑩄‎ 𑩅‎ 𑩆‎  𑩇‎                             

And now the main chapter on mongolian:
The classical or traditional Mongolian script,[note 1] also known as the Hudum Mongol bichig,[note 2] was the first writing system created specifically for the Mongolian language, and was the most widespread until the introduction of Cyrillic in 1946. It is traditionally written in vertical lines Top-Down, right across the page. Derived from the Old Uyghur alphabet, it is a true alphabet, with separate letters for consonants and vowels. It has been adapted for such languages as Oirat and Manchu. Alphabets based on this classical vertical script continue to be used in Mongolia and Inner Mongolia to write Mongolian, Xibe and, experimentally, Evenki.
Computer operating systems have been slow to adopt support for Mongolian script; almost all have incomplete support or other text rendering difficulties.
but this subject is so extensive, that I placed the scans in another file: mongol.html
but let's not make it lazy, let's do it properly:
᠀ ᠁ ᠂ ᠃ ᠄ ᠅ ᠆ ᠇ ᠈ ᠉ ᠊  ᠐ ᠑ ᠒ ᠓ ᠔ ᠕ ᠖ ᠗ ᠘ ᠙                      ᠠ ᠡ ᠢ ᠣ ᠤ ᠥ ᠦ ᠧ ᠨ ᠩ ᠪ ᠫ ᠬ ᠭ ᠮ ᠯ ᠰ ᠱ ᠲ ᠳ ᠴ ᠵ ᠶ ᠷ ᠸ ᠹ ᠺ ᠻ ᠼ ᠽ ᠾ ᠿ ᡀ ᡁ ᡂ ᡃ ᡄ ᡅ ᡆ ᡇ ᡈ ᡉ ᡊ ᡋ ᡌ ᡍ ᡎ ᡏ ᡐ ᡑ ᡒ ᡓ ᡔ ᡕ ᡖ ᡗ ᡘ ᡙ ᡚ ᡛ ᡜ ᡝ ᡞ ᡟ ᡠ ᡡ ᡢ ᡣ ᡤ ᡥ ᡦ ᡧ ᡨ ᡩ ᡪ ᡫ ᡬ ᡭ ᡮ ᡯ ᡰ ᡱ ᡲ ᡳ ᡴ ᡵ ᡶ ᡷ ᡸ                          ᢀ ᢁ ᢂ ᢃ ᢄ ᢅ ᢆ ᢇ ᢈ ᢉ ᢊ ᢋ ᢌ ᢍ ᢎ ᢏ ᢐ ᢑ ᢒ ᢓ ᢔ ᢕ ᢖ ᢗ ᢘ ᢙ ᢚ ᢛ ᢜ ᢝ ᢞ ᢟ ᢠ ᢡ ᢢ ᢣ ᢤ ᢥ ᢦ ᢧ ᢨ ᢩ ᢪ    
Some of them I think I recognize from the earlier, but some I don't. So let's make sense of it:
But I think I did. In this very volume, earlier So because I forgot it, let's post it again:

Their numerals are sick insane though:
᠐     ᠑     ᠒     ᠓     ᠔     ᠕     ᠖     ᠗     ᠘     ᠙
0     1      2      3      4      5     6      7     8     9
Some are surprisingly similar (0, 6 and 9) and surprisingly because others are just off the wall. But then if we recall that they go down as if we should tilt the head to the left, 3 becomes familiar, and 5, and hardly 2 is, and 1, 4, 7, 8 are just totally unrecognizable.


The word Mongol in various contemporary and historical scripts:
1. traditional, 2. folded, 3. 'Phags-pa, 4. Todo, 5. Manchu, 6. Soyombo, 7. horizontal square, 8. Cyrillic


Khitan, an extinct Mongolic language which was once spoken in Manchuria in what is now northeastern China. The language and the Khitan people were known as 遼 (Liao) in Chinese.
The Khitan people, who dominated a large chunk of Manchuria between 916 and 1125 AD, used two different scripts - the "large script", which came into use in about 920 AD, the "small script", which was reputedly created in about 925 AD by the Khitan scholar Diela, who was inspired by the Uighur alphabet.
The two scripts were used in parallel and appear to have little in common in terms of the forms of the characters and the ways they were assembled into compound characters.
Large:


Small:

Why do I collect it here? Maybe because it can have some keys to link chinese to alphabetic?
Funny how an element of "kid" is used for 40, since it takes a kid 40 weeks to get developed. And 50 is otsu, weird, second cyclec sign, something I have little understanding about.

Khitan reminds russian name for china, which is kitai.



Another mongolian script, ʼPhags-pa_script:

The ʼPhags-pa script, with consonants arranged according to Chinese phonology. At the far left are vowels and medial consonants.
Top: Approximate values in Middle Chinese. (Values in parentheses were not used for Chinese.)
Second: Standard letter forms.
Third: Seal script forms. (A few letters, marked by hyphens, are not distinct from the preceding letter.)
Bottom: The "Tibetan" forms. (Several letters have alternate forms, separated here by a • bullet.)
I don't know what made them tell that vowels are at the far left, since they are to that far, but follow the k-line. Is that k-line what they call medial consonants? So many questions...
A better question is why did they call latin romaji if you wish Middle Chinese? I believe, they were mistaken.
Here's the Middle Chinese:


I don't bring kirillic variant of mongolian, because I found it nothing interesting, but latin variant is interesting in the weird order it has:

But then here comes cyrillic,
but it is not its order, cyrillic goes along russian lines, with Ө after О and Ү after У.

but then the actual mongolian is much more a rabbit hole:


And the symbol I think everybody saw but little people know about what it is,

it is called Soyombo symbol, and it is called after this other writing system:
The Soyombo script (Mongolian: Соёмбо бичиг, Soyombo biçig) is an abugida developed by the monk and scholar Zanabazar in 1686 to write Mongolian. It can also be used to write Tibetan and Sanskrit.
A special character of the script, the Soyombo symbol, became a national symbol of Mongolia and has appeared on the national flag and emblem of Mongolia since 1911, as well as money, stamps, etc.
𑩐 𑩑 𑩒 𑩓 𑩔 𑩕 𑩖 𑩗 𑩘 𑩙 𑩚 𑩛 𑩜 𑩝 𑩞 𑩟‎ 𑩠 𑩡 𑩢 𑩣 𑩤 𑩥 𑩦 𑩧 𑩨 𑩩 𑩪 𑩫 𑩬 𑩭 𑩮 𑩯‎ 𑩰 𑩱 𑩲 𑩳 𑩴 𑩵 𑩶 𑩷 𑩸 𑩹 𑩺 𑩻 𑩼 𑩽 𑩾 𑩿‎ 𑪀 𑪁 𑪂 𑪃 
𑪄 𑪅 𑪆 𑪇 𑪈 𑪉‎      𑪊 𑪋 𑪌 𑪍 𑪎 𑪏‎     𑪐 𑪑 𑪒 𑪓 𑪔 𑪕 𑪖 𑪗 𑪘  𑪙‎      𑪚 𑪛 𑪜 𑪝 𑪞 𑪟‎ 𑪠 𑪡 𑪢‎




and what to do with this piece I found in that source, I can only guess:

oh, my bad! these were vowels, consonants and syllable structures for tibetan and sanskrit! here comes mongolian Soyombo:



And some Manchu to close this thing for now:
vowels:

consonants:

syllables:

numerals:


But back to mongolian, here's the main components:

hrb hebrew terminology kinda puzzles


How could I miss this?:

or I maybe didn't, maybe it is the second time I post it? maybe the third? not the last?
And here it is clear that ח amongst vowels is the greek (or rather troyan) influence (on both)
The hebrew letter tend to go alphabetically, and ה after ח may indicate the ח being inserted into the vowel line. But then why wasn't it placed at the place of י, which took its place? And that is not the only case, you know: צ and ש switched their places. Unless there were three, and צ and ר were added later (is it why in the front less of symbols than in the latter lines across the alphabets?)
(let's try and reconstruct what could be there:)



(these image are clickable, ckick them for more detail)
I can see the back of the head (with hair or a braid) and it makes me see (again?) that R is head on the neck with the beard. Is it why russians are known for cutting beards under Peter the Great? because they don't use R, but P form instead? It is a greek tradition. Were barbarians bearded? They were not influenced by degeneracy of Plato.
I don't know why, but this file is already seriously lagging. I restarted computer and it didn't help. I closed all other programs, it didn't help. So, even though this file weighs so little, it's time voor vol. 29
(I guess it is mongolian. Or svg's)