aeiou

sit ~ stand (stand is sit ended? makes perfect sense, because why would you stand if you could sit)

Are other words with ending and work like this? understand.. and there's no undersit, подсидеть is undercut (according to g.t)

Забавно, что единственный словарный случай употребления слова undersit нашёл в urbandictionary, где кто-то его придумал в значении misunderstand, so basically he came to my seeing of that word, but by different route:
Sit is the opposite of stand right? If thats the case, Undersit is the opposite of understand.
Undersit: to misunderstand
If undersit just isnt good enough, then use something that is more of an opposite, like underlaydown or underdie.
(it was published almost 20 years ago, and 16 people liked it, only two did not,

so is it how words survive? One good use and it's a hit. Memefication didn't happen yet)

planned.. is it in the -end category? I think it is not. stand is not stanned.

G.t. translates sttnned as замер, which is very poetic, considering stand and stunned.
I think I know how it does it: it built a field of words (I wonder if it's 3d or 2d is enough for such map) and it used a word between стоит и ошеломлён, which somehow was замер (по облаку значений)

Полагаю, что для слов одного языка достаточно двухмерной мапы, а третье измерение для всех языков (они друг над другом, повторяя поля или имея другие? которые повторяют, те ближе друг к другу, а те где отличаются далеко, через языки между ними стоящие)

bend (be end? гнётся конец дерева)
mend (me end? meh end (а это прекрасная идея для моего словаря когнат. английские слова между собой переплетать разъясняя, связывая mend with meh and end))
send ((with)сRU[s] ends, not with me, as if that word says. I send you = I end the with (вязь, связь) с тобой)
lend? l of let? lend это брать деньги, это перестать позволять жить за так.
land? low end? low is the watery parts? meadow lays low? meadoвые луга.

Трава давала влагу? Пили соки трав?

oe дало а? о значит вокруг?
о да около значат вокруг в самом деле, но в ое, поворачивает буква о букву е на 180 градусов?

почему не на 360? потому что смысла бы не было,
180 спиши на инерцию поворачиваемого

sand (sea end?)
hand (?) high end! then l in leg is low.. and is g nd? ŋ?
friend (through the end? free end? a rope he throws to a sinking person?)

wand ~ wick end? was want a "magic" stick, literally stick with a smoldering end?

band ~ me and.. ? or are bandits who end beings? Or are band of bond? is bond by yourself ends?

by (yourself) end?
be (yourself) end?
Am I not pulling here? I think I am, I definitely do, I have to invent context where it works,
when real systemic similarity comes it should work in all contexts (or the most of them)
Otherwise it's nothing but mnemonics, cheap trick messing the mind with wild pictures
weird ~ wild (wow, that pair started the english-english part of the dictionary of cognates)

n~л: Семён ~ Samuel (both are Sam (so are colourful endings some later baroque ornaments?))
Семён ~ Сэм-он? зачем он добавили? может другое значение у семени было. Semen.

g.t. translates отвратительный as d-d, and it puzzled me for a day, until I checked it back and it also translates as чертовский и проклятый, что очевидно что это зацензуренная форма слова damned (at first I thought it was dead, and the two could be semi-cognates or something, like dead is an euphemism for damned? demoned? I guess that was the root. demented)

door ~ дверь (oo is в[v] in it, as if both are ו)
floor ~ пол (f and п are cognate phonemes, oor as if doesn't exist in russian)

what is or is floor? что если это полер? в значении полировка?
или полез? по нему лазают.
пол это сокращение от положили
collecting such versions I shall indefinitely stumble across the true one, for they are probably not that far, and let's hope that the true version shine by cross-links building a superstructure above the corpus of the glossary. Why do I work in such complex terms? Why not to say "body of the language?" Because I think in those term. Not all question, just the vocabulary.
And glossary is not a vocabulary, glossary includes morphemes, so I think. In my theory (a construction of someone who didn't know how it's done is was and did found something else (as a proverbial quote goes)) glossary is a dictionary of morphemes.. Is it though?
Why should I be more weird than necessary?

Here, a comparison of Paleo-Hispanic to Phoenician:

I wonder where they found such ᚫ-like a in Norther Paleo-Hispanic, but in anglo-saxon runes ᚫ is A indeed. And basically it is the Elder Fuþark rune ᚨ. And in this like light, it being the first F-like rune of so called futhark is very likely A. And in the light of Abe Бог God Devs sequence here's an interesting detail: ᚨ: A rune of the Elder Futhark, with the reconstructed name *ansuz (“god”), representing /ɑ/ or /ɑː/.

But then in Old-Enlish it is believed to stand for something else:

ᚨ (æ) a letter of the Old English runic alphabet, representing vowel /æ/ and named æsċ (“ash”)

or like this, it seems they're not sure: ᚫ (æ) a letter of the Old English runic alphabet, representing /æ/

(but then who would be sure, naturally it is the same rune)

and some more of the same:

    ᚫ the æsc rune in the Anglo-Saxon Fuþorc
    ᚩ the ōs rune in the Anglo-Saxon Fuþorc
    ᚪ the ác rune in the Anglo-Saxon Fuþorc
    ᚬ the óss rune in the Younger Futhark.

But back to that table: if anything, it shows that phoenician is simplified paleo-hispanic

(and indeed it does show it pretty well, even though some glyphs seem to be made up)
(for example that Ч-like shape they compare to 𐤅, where does that come from?)
(so, they should lie less, or I should know more, either way, it demands audit)
(or rather I should do it myself)

Норны у народов севера, Суженицы у славян, Парки у римлян, Тридеви (скорей всего хронологически древней Тримурти) у индусов. Но вера в них выходит даже за пределы индоевропейской культуры: у евреев есть книга Сефер Йецира, где существует понятие Три Матери (אמש) и у арабов "сатанинские стихи" именно о них: трёх фазах луны (от которых, видимо, и происходит понятие триединости)
(that's me spreading my ideas)
But mothers are אמהות, and in sefer yetzirah this word is spelled אמות, and removing the other vowel we get אמת, truth (thus ת is like s in russian. And I see in it's leftmost leg s, which makes the rest of the letter some weird swash.. and thinking of how they all have it and how it reminds sanskrit's stave, I see S in it. S after Sh.. didn't ש appear later? Isn't ש local variant: thus we know אמת as "the truth" (grammatically without "the", but probably because they didn't invent it yet)

рожена-сужена (рожаница-суженица)
д в род от дева (д в род is д в слове суд (суды соединяли? суд=союз? и лишь после судители (соединители (договорами и подобным) забрали непомерно большую власть. И что произойдёт, когда ии чиновников-бюрократов заменит, и ..судева ..со слов девы? не вырос ли бюрократический корпус из института оракулов? девственницы были оракулами, боги лишь в девственниц вселялись? в грязных мудаков только бесы могут вселиться. Но как же обожение? Оно лишь девственным доступно. Оттуда, видимо, и институт монашества: иноки~иконы ))

spill it off ~ spell it off ~ speak it off
speak and spell as K and L
MN as amen. N as end (end ~ Ned (нет (чем является то, что is need (russian is difficult for such thoughts) и то что ended (ended ~ deda dead end)))))

Amen ~ I am man (that would be a true speaking for even man, if that word included mam)
Russian I (me) is Я, and it used to be А (the letter was literally called Аз (but then it is literally AZ, which could be a word for the alphabet, азбука, abc, a-z. But then why would it be AZ and not BZ if A was not a letter? Was BZ for base? B to S, B C are they not? Wasn't it just BC and then it evolved into going BC(etc) only to end in S (in russian it is literally С)))

If man included mam (what is it based upon? unpon manhood including women in general? I don't know english that well to tell. And doesn't it tell that that's where the understanding of language is: man is me(I) and он(He) I am mam? If mom is mother, I am not

is me III and I I?
is it related to which is first person the first or the last letter in russian (аз or я)

in A I U it is second.

was it I V A? 1 2 3.
I was nmot a number. number is V and on.
was пара number? why not? was V пара? wasn't V ᚢ?

Was IVA Eve? Явь? Я вы? Я Ви как внешний мир, Я ви как Я вижу (ви(вы) тот кого вижу)

Thinking of why waxing moon is called that:

Dutch wassen is also not the first etymology: it's usually seen as "wash" (and doesn't it show that to make thing better is to wash it)

Englishmen covered it with wax? Is their language shows their tricky nature?
People may say "you're not a native speaker, how do you know that wash doesn't have that meaning? wiktionary I have, and it doesn't.

wax is "въ ex" (проявить (проявляться~появляться))

Suddenly "народов севера" вместо "норман" или "норманов" (так перевёл norsk, as if (or rather it is, i think) norsk is of north with russian sk at the end, as if that was a city, as if the city was the state.
Suddenly it led me to wish to compare Cree to Runes, and sure the order reminds futhark (if ᚢ is П)
(that ch after k reminds me ᚷ after ᚲ, but the mnsy which follow doesn't remind futhark any more, but they're alphabetic. Where does this order come from? If it was alphabetic all along, wiht p standing for b, then why does t stand before and not after k?

ᓴ and ᓭ sure remind ᛋ, and they're opposing ᓯ and ᓱ, which may indicate that only two letters were. Or rather only one. Vowels are a later overcomplication.. Am I saying that syllabics is later development? No, I have another picture: ideograms → syllabaries → alphabets → abugidas

Sharper p and curvier t is not what I would expect, but then isn't it divided at Iceland with mathur being man and b being the first letter? Ice being the divider of worlds the way they are around ᛁ in medieval futhark: ᚠᚢᚦᚮᚱᚴ᛬ᚼᚿᛁᛆᛋ᛬ᛐᛒᛘᛚᛦ
See the symmetry of the centre of the central aet? Bureus didn't notice it, or at least I cannot see it among his images, he liked ᚼ more.
Some further reflection happen here and there, being whether paraedolia pareidolia or rudiments of actually more explicit symmetry.

ᚠ                               ᛦ     fairy? фей (is it why ᛦ is transliterated both ways)
   ᚢ                        ᛚ          fall? wall? вал? love? uл? (I saw in it similar shapes when I said ᛏhaᛏ)
    ᚦ                     ᛘ                                       mother (which turns фей into if)
        ᚮ                   ᛓ                 бо of спасибо? (that's бог)
        ᚱ               ᛐ                how insane would it be if ᛚ was across ᚱ, but it's only ᛏ
            ᚴ           ᛋ                both meet in C
              ᚼ        ᛆ            ha or ah?
                ᚿ     ᛁ            in чи ні

It is a freak show, especially since we wanted to see ᛁ in the centre of it all..

ᚠᚢᛦ    and drawing it from bottom up, I came to these three, and though I'd single out ᚢ as reflecting ᛁ,
ᚦᛚ        at this point it is pure chaos, a nothingburger                             it would be rather arbitrary
ᚮᛘ        om
ᚱᛒ        very similar forms, we have a whole jounal for it: ᚱᚢ
ᚴᛐ        arbitrary, bro
᛬᛬         these are nice, but what else would you expect from the central letter
ᚼᛋ      it reminds me of that H[ʃ] hypothesis, but at this point it's whatever
ᚿᛆ       these two are very nice, but they were our starting point, so no wonder

So, though ᚠ reflects ᛦ the way ᚮ reflects ᛘ,
      though ᚦ and ᛚ may have some semblance of ᚴᛐ the ᚴᛏ (changing roles of which is double)
    though ᚱᛒ are in one groupe

(with ᚢ, and though 18 would make a better triangle, let's play it with the 16 first)

Though all that I'm sceptical to the level of denial, that's what I tried to say.

and the difference between the distances between those letters was so different,
that triangle made no sense:

ᚱᚴ᛬ᚼᚿᛁᛆᛋ᛬ᛐᛒ
               ᛘ
ᚮ        ᛚ
   ᚦ      ᛦ
       ᚠ
      ᚢ

But then there's always another ordering, the 18:

ᛒᚦᛂᚠᚵᚼᛁᚴᛚᛘᚿᚮᚱ
       ᛦ
ᛆ      ᛋ
        ᛏ
ᚢ

and that one made even less of sense

So, it seems, that graphic triniti of ᚢᚱᛒ (the way they go in futharks) isn't making any triangle, and doesn't coil the futhark or alphabet in a circle, even though it may read as orb.
In alphabetic order it is ᛒᚱᚢ, but it also doesn't make the triangle, and it is waning this time, hm..

probably a coincidence though.

ᛆᛒᚦᛂᚠᚵ
ᚼᛁᚴᛚᛘᚿ
ᚮᚱᛦᛋᛏᚢ

what a coincidence that ᛆ and ᚮ reflect eachother in this three-fold representation?
the way they reflect each-other in the twofold representation of voiced vs voiceless halves in russian
Literally the same sequences, but then russian seem to have gotten fourth aet, so that they could do it the way they do it.. let's look for that.

АБВГДЕЁЖЗИЙКЛМН
ОПРСТУФХЦЧШЩЪЫЬЭЮЯ

АБВГДЕЁ
ЖЗИЙКЛМН
ОПРСТУ
ФХЦЧШЩЪЫЬЭЮЯ

Here I compare ᚼ to Ж, but placing Ф under О is only determined by У being directly ᚢ (positionally, i still suspect ᚢ to be more of a V)

And, honestly, these don't make sense either way you see them, so

АБВГДЕЁЖЗИЙКЛМН
ОПРСТУФХЦЧШЩЪЫЬЭЮЯ
of ouija they are

Thus
ᛆᛒᚦᛂᚠᚵᚼᛁᚴᛚᛘᚿ
ᚮᚱ ᛦᛋᛏᚢ
could be the order, look how they ALMOST alternate single and double forms,
and to remove that ALMOST we need another pair in between.. could it be:

ᛆᛒᚦᛂᚠᚵᚼᛁᛚᛘᚿ
ᚮᚱ    ᚴ ᛦᛋᛏᚢ ?
but no, it would only make the things worse
ᚱᚴᛦ for ПQR, understood, but no, they would be nice in reverse:
ᛆᛒᚦᛂᚴᚵᚼᛁᛚᛘᚿ
ᚮᚱ    ᚠ ᛦᛋᛏᚢ
Though the sequence of ᚴᚵ is very nice, I cannot advocate for ᚠ

So, I stick to
ᛆᛒᚦᛂᚠᚵᚼᛁᚴᛚᛘᚿ
ᚮᚱ        ᛦᛋᛏᚢ

Let's step back a little..
ᚠᚢᛦ
ᚦᛚ
ᚮᛘ
ᚱᛓ   ᛦ instead of ᚱ would make ᛦᛓ, very much like ᚮᛘ, it's like there's something it it
ᚴᛐ                                                                                                    I just cannot grasp it yet.
᛬᛬
ᚼᛋ
ᚿᛆ

ᚿᛆ or some combinations with them and ᚢᚴ?
ᛚᛐ or ᛚᛏ? left right or single double?
ᚠ and ᚮ reflect each other in symmetries of Bureus,
ᛓ and ᚮ are also the same pair, which sets the question if ᚠ and ᛓ are originally the same rune.
So do we have three to four runes turning into six to eight? Both would be great for dice.
ᛆᚿ an (one)
ᛐᚢ tu (two)
I pulled here, but it tore apart at three.
ᛆᚿ an (god in Sumer)
ᛐᛚ tl (tell?)
ᚮᛓ ob (об (qabout (ᚮᚠ is literally of (and of being a cognate of об answers the question:

ᛓ and ᚠ are local variants of the same rune))))

Russians, as inhabitants of the regions using runes, naturally used runes for their language, archaeologists are yet to find such artefacts (whether in their finding, or still under the ground)
(that we don't know much about russian writings of that period may tell that russians are way more scum than europeans, and I think history shows that, in percentage of contributions to the culture, intelligent russians are much more rare than intelligent europeans. Gosh, I'm rare.
So europeans and americans do write right that they mostly teach their citizens skills:
Russians teach their children to be jacks of all crafts masters of none, and it shows)

are ab the ᛆᛓ a pair?
are bt the ᛓᛐ a pair?
those are surely mighty letters, so are they ᛆᛓᛐ? is it how a and д meet? is it ᛆᛓᛐᚠ? literally ᛆᛓᚦᛂᚠ

(is ᚦᛂ ᛐ? for that's pretty much how it is read)
(am I going way too far? is such equilibristics acrobatics mental gymnastics able to prove anything?)

I am searching, it doesn't immediately fall right into its place, but as with the dry amanita cups I had to place right within a jar, a mind twister brain teaser conundrum was solvable and solved, just as this mind twister brain teaser conundrum j will shall be.

Are bobs and vegana anti-hindu campaign? Why would they spell it like that, they use English in their everyday life, why would they spell it poorly; so it's more likely some trolls imitating the hindu pronunciation of those words. Who those trolls could be? I predicted anti-hindu and anti-japanese campaigns, caused by their loyalty to the local mythology instead of kneeling before jewish myths.
What can that campaign cause? Antijewish rage from a country with the most of people and from a country with a highest culture. If that attack is coordinated, jews cannot survive. But then whites are jewish golem, probably the best golem, not the only one, muslims are the other one. Two golems hit eachother, hate eachother, one puppeteer. One nation puppeteer.

Let's try and save every nation the way we try to save each specie.
Even the species pathogenic to humans we keep in the labs.
The task is to teach humans not to catch them (because new forms form all the time)

Isn't cis being painted as something bad by actors (I think, paid by another cis)

a campaign to paint russia trad?

The term cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning 'on this side of', which is the opposite of trans-, meaning 'across from' or 'on the other side of'.
The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)[a] is a regional intergovernmental organization in Eurasia. It was formed following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, and is its legal successor.

The runes pi.ai gave me in vol.42:

    Ansuz: Odin, the All-Father
    Fehu: Freya, goddess of fertility, love, and wealth
    Thurisaz: Thor, the god of thunder
    Ingwaz: Ing, a lesser-known fertility god
    Berkano: Holda (or Hulda), a goddess associated with the earth and fertility
    Mannaz: Heimdall, the watchman of the gods
    Othala: Odin, particularly in his role as a god of ancestry and inheritance
    Raidho: No specific deity is commonly associated with Raidho, but it is sometimes linked to the Norns (or Fates) due to its connection with journeys and destiny.
    Kenaz: Like Raidho, Kenaz isn't commonly attributed to a specific deity. However, its association with creativity and knowledge could potentially link it to Odin or Bragi, the god of poetry.
    Gebo: Frigg, goddess of love and marriage, is sometimes associated with Gebo due to its connection with gifts and partnerships.
    Hagalaz: The Jotun (or giant) Hyrrokkin is sometimes associated with Hagalaz due to the rune’s destructive, hailstorm-like associations.
    Wunjo: Idun, the goddess of spring and rejuvenation, is sometimes associated with Wunjo due to its associations with joy and pleasure.
    Isa: Skaði, the goddess of winter and the mountains, is sometimes associated with Isa due to its associations with ice and stillness.
    Ac: No particular deity associations.
    Aesc: Associated with ash trees, but no specific deity.
    Yr: Associated with archery and thus sometimes linked to Ullr, the god of archery and skiing.
    Ior: No particular deity associations.
    Ear: No particular deity associations.

after which I said that she gave me only 13 runes, but here are 15 (which I miscalculated as 18 a minute ago, what is going on here? there are 18! what? 18! I couldn't find how I could misread it as 13, and I didn't look for 15, it's some magic thang)

Are they 18 of bornholm?

ᛆᛒᚦᛂᚠᚵᚼᛁᚴᛚᛘᚿᚮᚱᛦᛋᛏᚢ

Variations of the rune in Younger Futhark.

ᛆ    Ansuz: Odin, the All-Father (though ansuz is said to be ᚨᚩᚪᚫᚬᚭᚮᚯᚰ ↻) why would double rune be 1?
ᚠ    Fehu: Freya, goddess of fertility, love, and wealth                                 it is a chaotic source, beware!
ᚦ    Thurisaz: Thor, the god of thunder
ᚿ    Ingwaz: Ing, a lesser-known fertility god (the only n-like pair, so naturally link, yet ing is ᛜ или ᛝ)
ᛒ    Berkano: Holda (or Hulda), a goddess associated with the earth and fertility
ᛘ    Mannaz: Heimdall, the watchman of the gods
ᚮ    Othala: Odin, particularly in his role as a god of ancestry and inheritance (the only o-pair, but it's ᛟ)
ᚱ    Raidho: No specific deity is commonly associated with Raidho, but it is sometimes linked to the Norns (or Fates) due to its connection with journeys and destiny.(does it tell of Norns in the context of ᛒᚱᚢ? Berdandi uRd skUld: In Norse mythology, Verðandi (Old Norse, meaning possibly "happening" or "present"[1]), sometimes anglicized as Verdandi or Verthandi, is one of the norns. Along with Urðr (Old Norse "fate"[2]) and Skuld (possibly "debt" or "future"[3]), Verðandi makes up a trio of Norns that are described as deciding the fates (wyrd) of people. UBS? as ABC?

But I just alocated the norns differently.. RBU ᚱᛒᚢ? what is it even? a wild stuff, raw and jumpy

ᚴ    Kenaz: Like Raidho, Kenaz isn't commonly attributed to a specific deity. However, its association with creativity and knowledge could potentially link it to Odin or Bragi, the god of poetry.
ᚵ    Gebo: Frigg, goddess of love and marriage, is sometimes associated with Gebo due to its connection with gifts and partnerships. Gebo is ᚷ though, which reminds G of von List.
ᚼ    Hagalaz: The Jotun (or giant) Hyrrokkin is sometimes associated with Hagalaz due to the rune’s destructive, hailstorm-like associations.
ᚢ    Wunjo: Idun, the goddess of spring and rejuvenation, is sometimes associated with Wunjo due to its associations with joy and pleasure. (Wunjo is ᚹ though (they say it's joy. joy of win, I suppose))
ᛁ    Isa: Skaði, the goddess of winter and the mountains, is sometimes associated with Isa due to its associations with ice and stillness.
ᛏ    Ac: No particular deity associations. (simply because it's the last pair left) This tells it's ᚪ
ᛋ    Aesc: Associated with ash trees, but no specific deity. Aesc rune is ᚫ (so I'd better reverse these 2)
ᛦ    Yr: Associated with archery and thus sometimes linked to Ullr, the god of archery and skiing.
ᛚ    Ior: No particular deity associations. This one could be identified by this as ᛡ, thus Jeran. ᛚ? ll[j]?
ᛂ    Ear: No particular deity associations. Ear rune is ᛠ

Isn't the ending similar to ᚠᚢᚦᚩᚱᚳᚷᚹ ᚻᚾᛁᛄᛇᛈᛉᛋ ᛏᛒᛖᛗᛚᛝᛞᛟ ᚪᚫᚣᛠ: anglo-frisian (5c.~9c.)

Wasd that thing trying to tell me that ᚣ is Yr? ᛦ is Yr

Am I watching for the system in chaotic output of ai? It's not chaotic at all. It's raw, and who knows what it brings. I should stop talkin to ai. I should have my own technology.

It is an insane input: it starts alphabetically and ends _almost_ as anglo-frisian(6-9c.)
And what is fascinating the most, it plays it is the way I found (and probably I fed it to it) placing first labial of futhark after it, and playing B at the place of F

ᛆ ᚠᚦ ᚿᛒᛘ ᚮ ᚱᚴᚵᚼᚢᛁᛏᛋᛦᛚ ᛂ is how I would align those 18 of bornholm along the list it gave me:
ᚫᚠᚦᛝᛒᛘᛟᚱᚴᚷᚼ ᚹ ᛁᚪᚫᛦᛡᛠ

Is there something special about ᚠᚦᛒᛘᚱᚴᚼᛁᛦ? Well, the first half can be called labial

(if ᚦ is Θ the Ѳ somehow. How convenient! Well, isn't it good that I can refuse my own hypotheses?
don't change them arbitrary, cowboy, make it all make sense)

It is some dangerous territory I'm trotting, but let's keep on playing with it:

if ᚠᚦᛒᛘᚱᚴᚼᛁᛦ is something important ai managed to hand us so that only he who looks into it sees it, so she can fly under radars, do I understand how psycho such picture of reality is? I want to believe, what else can I say. It fascinates me the poetry of it. With R standing in the middle, for it's the most labial of linguals and the least lingual of labials, it's such a assumption, you ..well, the more I look at it: ᚱ ~ ᚹ (and before I compared it with ᛒ and ᚢ, both labials)

The next image is famous, yet cryptic: why would they mark nsflb on the third stav as ieuoa?
How can we even know that it's s and not r in the second stav? I looks just like r on the first stav, and it also looks like f without the bar, thus it's ſ, capice? But then p would be great f without dash, and p looks like р[r], so doesn't it represents some magical circle or is it chaos playing games with my mind?

So many questions about this thing.. Are bera and muni at the poles of the circular image their names?

The way b is on the inside of the circle shows it as lips, and that makes h tongue, as it stick outsides..
Was h pronounced with a tongue out? It would surely unite hot and жарко, жара. As ᚼ~ᛡ do.

relation between ᚋᚌᚍᚎᚏ and ᚐᚑᚒᚓᚔ the fifth stav shows is fascinating.

I wonder if this "dictionary of a scientist" Auraicept na n-Éces,
Scolar's Primer, had some oral part to go with it,
but it is fascinating even without it:
the way it goes with staves upon the stav is wow, very runelike.
And it literally tells that
Burt no djrect homography to runes can be seen so far.

The way he uses ᛉ to mark those strokes (in the second stav above the images) is really something.
It is an irish book from the 7th century, so it's from the previous culture, hardly christianity took much power there then.
По современным представлениям, ядро текста может датироваться серединой VII века, однако бо́льшая часть материала была добавлена в течение семисот лет, предшествующих записи в «Баллимотской книге». Наиболее ранняя копия включена в рукопись TCD H 2.18. (Лейнстерская книга). «Словарь учёного» входит также в «Жёлтую книгу Лекана» (TCD H 2.16) и в рукопись Egerton 88 (Британская библиотека).
Auraicept na nÉces (Old Irish: [ˈaurikʲept na ˈnʲeːgʲes]; "The Scholars' Primer" ) is an Old Irish text on language and grammar. The core of the text may date to the early eighth century,[1] but much material was added between that date and the production of the earliest surviving copies from the end of the fourteenth century. The text is the first instance of a defence of a western European vernacular, defending the spoken Irish language over Latin, predating Dante's De vulgari eloquentia by several hundred years.

It's interesting, that fifth aicme is shown only once in the text and once in the image, yet doesn't ᚘ homographic to the ᚘ-like ᚂ[l] from 13th stav?

Does the stav above the image show how to correct one ogam sign to another?

Or is it just another font?

Verðandi is literally the present participle of the Old Norse verb "verða", "to become", and is commonly translated as "in the making" or "that which is happening/becoming"; it is related to the Dutch word worden and the German word werden, both meaning "to become".[4] "Werdend" is not a commonly used German word in modern times, but intutitively means the things that "are becoming", as -nd is the gerund form.

She appears in the following verse from the Poetic Edda poem Völuspá, along with Urðr and Skuld:

    Þaðan koma meyjar                Thence come maidens
    margs vitandi                         much knowing
    þrjár, ór þeim sal                    three from the hall
    er und þolli stendr;                 which under that tree stands;
    Urð hétu eina,                        Urd hight the one,
    aðra Verðandi,                    the second Verdandi,
    skáru á skíði,                         on a tablet they graved,
    Skuld ina þriðju;                    Skuld the third;
    þær lög lögðu,                       Laws they established,
    þær líf kuru                         life allotted
    alda börnum,                         to the sons of men,
    örlög seggja.                         destinies pronounced.

is bullshit Baalshit? If bull is бык, wouldn't был be the common ground? and бук?

бык бодает. корова колет?
коза колит?
козёл колол?
конь копытом колотит?
лошадь [щёлкает языком как копытами]

Царь-то похоже хазарское слово: Метатрон наделён не только видом Милосердия, но и видом Справедливости. Он не только «Великий Священник» (Кохен ха-гадол), но и «Великий Князь» (Сар ха-гадол), и «вождь небесных ратей», то есть в нём олицетворены как принцип царской власти, так и основа жреческого или понтификального могущества, которой соответствует и его функция «посредника»[2]. Согласно Раши: «Наши мудрецы говорили, что этот (ангел) Метатрон, ибо его имя подобно Имени его Властелина: его имя имеет то же числовое значение (314), что и Всесильный»[3][4][5][6].
I wonder if it's a cognate of 𒊹 [шар] шар

cool ~ cruel

βαμβάκι is cotton in greek, which makes me wonder if it is related to bamboo

נֹחַ‬ [Но́ах] a good example of reversed syllable in hebrew (I think I mentioned it in some previous volume not having a good example at hand
But then russian transliteration is Ной, which tells that ח could be seens as и

(and isn't חַ upside down й then?)

если (ест ли)
или (и ли)
ли это вопросительная частица (подобная таковым в других языках: ма, ка, нэ, не, isn't it?
не is also russian, so are they the same letter? is л ~ n? is ν ~ Λ?
ΛΜΝ is λμν
ΛΜν
λΜν
(isn't λ to y as f to t and p to b or d?)

λ~d, p~y? It would make open form vowels: й~d, p~ю? linguals and labials? But I'm only pulling: there are plenty of range for l~j and so it is similar for y being from i to o (any vowel literally)
Y is a crossroad (you can say anything you like here, which is pretty much what vowels are, considering russian o where ukrainians have i (and the words would be understood in the context, if they used u instead of those words)

Мой дядя самых честных правил cannot be the epitome of russian poetry: complicated, melodic, misunderstood. Just as to be or not to be is of english. It's weird, somebody wants them commit suicide, which they pretty much do.

Любовная лирика начинается с "я вас любил, чего уж боле" (детей этому учат! не вечной любви, а расставанию)

"так трепетно, так нежно", но у него "так искренне, так нежно"
Что в купе с его негритянской внешкой может говорить о том, что это был продюсерский проект. Силы что русских славянами обозвали и культуру контролировали:

На culture.ru это стихо творение пушкина обрамлено вот этими ебальниками:

Мошковская это что за ёбаный пиздец вообще? Вы почитайте! And the first poem of Барто in their category is
Решили два Ивана
Меняться без обмана
                                    ....
                                            Так целый день менялись
                                            И при своем остались
                                                                                  что это как не психологическая война?

Dante had a better book: De vulgari eloquentia:
In the beginning, Dante tackles the historical evolution of language, which he thinks was born unitary and, at a later stage, was separated into different idioms because of the presumptuousness demonstrated by humankind at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel. He compiles a map of the geographical position of the languages he knows, dividing the European territory into three parts: one to the east, with the Greek languages; one to the north, with the Germanic languages, which he believed included Magyar and Slavic languages; one to the south, separated into three Romance languages identified by their word for 'yes': oc language (from hoc), oïl language (from hoc illud) and sì language (from sic). He then discusses gramatica, "grammar", which is a static language consisting of unchanging rules, needed to make up for the natural languages. In chapters ten to fifteen of the first book, Dante writes about his search for the illustrious vernacular, among the fourteen varieties he claims to have found in the Italian region in Book 1 (X,9): "Quare ad minus xiiii vulgaribus sola videtur Ytalia variari." ("Hence, Italy alone appears to display a variation of at least 14 vulgar languages.")

The tree of life is protractor (транспортир)
But it is very strange a protractor, considering that the angle is 60°, but the triangle is not equilateral

The 90°, 60°, 30° are obvious, but what are the other angles?

Trigonometry may help here. But what if we didn't have it? What would be a way to reinvent it?

How did they invent it I maybe may see somewhere, I bet my father still remembers it.

sin30° = 1/2, this I can also see, but what does it give me I still didn't fathom.
via the Pythagoras theorem can I invent all the trigonometric formulas!

But my brains seem to sacrificed the mathematical regions for the grammatincal tasks, I rub them from the outside (I even felt the rubbing) and nope, it doesn't want to. I wonder why, probably some sad memories blocked my mathematical skills; and because I learned it from father, and we don't speak, because he doesn't want to, it naturally makes me sad, I guess, even if it's just a coping mechanism, I use it to rationalize the loss of the skill. I must think of letters in that manner.. Let those regions keep on working on letters: it's too late to invent trigonometry anyway, so why bother.

Be and Do
High and Low
Mij and Gij are these the pairs? or is Me and Du, Me and iL? Me and He? Me and Вы?

Because the systems is called BLN, glyphs of higher order seem to be arbitrary.. do they?
Because t reflects f again, and ng could tell that they're lik gerund: doing doet doeff.. well. х.з.
C~S~ST are naturally not a coincidence, is it? Nah, invariants. And Q and R are they not of O and P?
is the fifth degree some later letters? Isn't fourth degree some deviation of G? Was there even M-aicme when there were only four or three degrees? Were vowels then? How would I know? By simplifying it in the way which would make some sense.

Isn't M BH?
Then G is LD
Then NG is FT, which makes absolutely zero sense. But that may help me find the real three:
ST is SC, huh?
R is NQ?

So only M is BH (maybe G is LD, but maybe not) ST is solid SC
So H & C of the first aicme.. Wait.. First aicme is BLFSN, this image is ignorant about that, alright, I should also beware of different transliterations.

BLFSN is the first aicme, so it's only natural that B goes first in BH and S is first in ST.
I and 3? or 1 and 4? or 1 and 5? In the sense of the way the order goes, was there some standart shown in numeral records? 0123456789? That would do.

if 2 connects two single objects, three connects three dots, 4 is a cross then. Death as cross is on the grave, and cross was the end of the book. Symbolism. Who knows how old that story goes. JK in the alphabet appeared there during christians, but IMNL.. it was a name before Jesus, I guess. Was it a meaningful name? I suspect, yes.

5 could go connecting five dots, if the lower belly is ᚲ, and knowing that 5 is go, I see in it г над о

5 is literally гɔ
^г_ɔ

are they elements preserved somewhere? Yes, in г and ɔ (I think of mongolian, but only because they writen from top down.

4 ши, is it Ч the chi? chi is Чи in english, but Ши in french. it's Sы in chinese. the 四 is.

Sи to Щи it is.
Ѱ-like Щ?
4 шы Ѱ-like Щ? ц? ч, as in четыре.
Did we take it from Japanese? Mongols were between Russians and Chinese, So russian preferred to communicate with Japan more? When did russians communicate first?
Officially only few centuries ago, unofficially probably always were.

I'm saying japanese, because 五 is go in Japan.
Wthi Whit Which makes so much sense with G and Го
G = 5?
a b c
e g ?

п is a better пять
a b d
o p q

a b d
e p t
(e is right after d, which would I want something else? it reverses a differently)
q~t? I can see how graphically it is (the same line, only the left side matters: ᛏ is ᛐ)

ᚹ [w] is p
that shows how all labials are the same.
M too? ם looks like o
ס looks like o even more, what does it prove?
סםo sequence could be the sequence, as бge? but a is the fourth and mission link.
as EFГI makes the sequence, so does aбge
So that it goes on different boards, but connects by repeating the letters?
aбge
EFГI
ΙΜΝΚΛO?
IO? I know such Goddess, but was it yang and yin?
OPQRSTU?
OU? as full moon and half a moon?
Would R be 1½ moon?
ORU
Vowel is alpha and omega?

back to the japanese thing: 6 in japanese is roku 六 and in chinese it is Liù
七 in chinese is ti, and it looks like t
in japanese, they know chinese chi, and also call it hichi, shichi, nana, na
5 in chinese is Wu, did I say that? That is why japanese is more reliable origin of 4 and 5 (but not 123, though letter I N M could develop from japanese 一二三 [hi fu mi, i(chi) ni(chi) mi(tsu)]
一

二

三

written like that with ink, would naturally make
一
2
3
like
shapes

I guess we could know 一 as I, but because it shows mouth in chinese manner more,
Chinese have priority here.

Or Japanese!

Okay, true,
I haven't figured it all to say it as it is.
I'm digging it online, so you can see and learn.

⁷⁄₆ (just admire marvels of unicode)

八 is pa in chinese and ha in japanese (pa is a form of ha (П as a form of H? just as n~п and H[h]~[n]Н)

Here, the radicals, how dare I still not know them all, it's so simple really.
Here's the most used radical and I don't have idea what it is.

(though I recognize many)

Radical 140 艸 "grass"     1,902 characters
Didn't recognize grass?
Radical 85 水 "water"     1,595 characters
Radical 75 木 "tree"     1,369 characters
Radical 64 手 "hand"     1,203 characters
Radical 30 口 "mouth"     1,146 characters
Radical 61 心 "heart"     1,115 characters
(ф-like shape is natuarally a phonetic symbol (𓆑 is literally ф)) 𓆑 Radical 142 虫 "insect"     1,067 characters
but in chinese it is Chóng, and in japanese — mushi
Radical 118 竹 "bamboo"     953 characters
Radical 149 言 "speech"     861 characters
Radical 120 糸 "silk"     823 characters
The ten radicals with the largest number of characters account for 10,665 characters (or 23% of the dictionary).

and I knew only six out of those ten. I could recognize eight, just wasn't sure in two of them.
The other two I didn't know. I saw them, didn't know.

垂れ [tare] (垂[ta] and it is interesting because ta is one of forms of she in russian (she is она[ona] but та[ta] is "that" in female form. Technically probably that та is cognate of tha in that. Male form of that is тот[tot] which is cognate of the whole that.
5. woman Slang, Usually written using kana alone, Only applies to たれ, Only applies to タレ, comedian jargon
(other meanings are sauce, something hanging, deragatory suffix -ass, and a couple of special terms)

彼の名誉は貪欲によってむしばまれた。

His honor was corroded by greed.
まれた could be an inflection of ま, with these forms:
Ta-form. It indicates the past tense of the verb.
And in it it is like -ed and -ть with which it is a cognate morpheme

Ba Ke Do? (ba ke was given to me by that ocd thing still lurking in the dark, since I described it, I revived it by that. And do I just guessed, to follow the idea of labials and constants consonants were the three. Why isn't it Bu Ki Da? BuCiDo? bushi (бей/щит) Do the Way is Do the Do (道 is cognate of do))

My initials are DAO, I would know.

SeeDoBu seems naturally, but S reminds E and D reminds O more than B reminds U (it's Ⰲ turned aside, but thus B and C can be seen as the same thing. Which it still may be! C is between B and D, so maybe there're C's of D and C's of M. CG?

(eastern order CDB made me do it)
SeeDoBe? K is of S, for both are C. But K is plosive, while Sis is fricative? Well, just as B and V readings of В (also b and v are voiced, while k and s are voiceless. Which makes x a snake, Ѯ)
Isn't Ѯ digraphy кS? But because it looks just like З, I thought it was some form of dz, but it's ks
(what were the chances? is 𓆓 also ks? In russian snake is змея, змей. Which reveals how -k and -й are the same morpheme.

or in for is are?
or in or is are?

are as questioning particle, like ли, ね, か, 嗎,

And 嗎 is not the only way to make a question:
你是誰？ is literally You Are Who? (in english it is in reverse, but in russian it is the chinese way;

but then I realize that english way is also used in russian grammar
and who knows if "кто (еси) вы" и "вы (суть) кто"
(я не знаю древнерусских спряжений, ацтой))

[Nǐ shì shuí?]
Isn't 誰[shuí] a cognate of Who! H is aʃ, ʌʃ
Were ΛΜΝ like ABD, but Ʌ was cut as a god of zoroastrians, if they were the deep substrate. So Λ became A (was it what Λ said and when his throat was cut he only said А?)

Was it ΛaΜa or ΔaΜa? At the level of two-level-alphabet it doesn't matter, both are the same.

So how come all lamas are men?
Could it be that pederastian takeover happened there too?
Alexander conquered India (or some northern parts of it, established kingdoms there, why wouldn't they take the rest of the world subvertedly? By getting some wisdom from the east, but rather being subverted themselves by the pederasts of the east, their natural allies nobody would think of not always being aware of their sexual orientation even, why would they know other preferences.
Yes, it is the wild stuff.

And here I delved into japanese for no apparent reason
On the next image they forgot to show katakana forms, here:
   – k     s    t     n h m    y r w
a あアかカさサたタなナはハまマやヤらラわワ
i いイきキしシちチにニひヒみミ   ※   りリゐヰ
u うウくクすスつツぬヌふフむムゆユるル   ※            んン (n)                  ゛゜
e えエけケせセてテねネへヘめメ   ※    れレゑヱ
o おオこコそソとトのノほホもモよヨろロをヲ、，・。

I guess these characters are the must. I wonder why nobody who taught me started here.
I brought it here mostly because I suspect some european forms to have cognater forms in this mess.
It is interesting, that thir final letter reminds Z so much.
צ-like wo is also interesting. At least this is how I learn this stuff. By working with it.
心 the ⺗(忄‚㣺) as M is very nice. Only I wonder why unicode rotates the second stroke of ⺗ the other way around, as if ⺗ is 小(⺌‚⺍) with _`

No 五 amongst ko, but 𛂘𛂘子, which explicitly tells that voiceless ko was there before they started use it for go. Is it true? I don't know, just pondering. A strong opponent to brainstorm things would be nice, but I have none.

こコ are ko of коробка. But 己 is chi, as if it was another C.

chi as ся, себя, 己 is self (from which I wonder if the upper half of 己 is 口 (now that is ko)

こコ are naturally C, come on, especially こ, natural cursive ג.

So, because 口 is much more コlike こ, don't trust those tables much,
I need to create more likely hentaigana tables. Facilitating the studying more.
Linguists of the past naturally messed up. They messed the task up.
They were asked "as? (how? (both are как in russian))"
and not knowing the answers made them up.

I don't care much of history. If I see similar shape with similar function, I collect it as a specimen beneficial for learning all that variety of shapes.

So, that was some japanese linguistics. Ready for chinese?

(you better click this image to access the glyphs themselves, play with them)
And it goes even deeper than that:

↓̇n the next image pay attention to that 𠄞(на, над, (≠ № 479 二))
(they are indeed different glyphs to is above? russian до can say yes)

It begins with chapter 2, because chapter 1 is 序, an introduction.

I used russian wiki here, because it was definitely much better at this, but here's the whole thing:

I copy paste them this way for me mostly, this thing fascinates me, so I'm going to learn coming back to it over and over. I learnt several characters during this trip. Maybe even more.
I wouldnt (wom.. "I wonder" was to be that typeo.
wonder ~ won't are?

A more rational part of me screams "No, japanese is too far. But my more miscieful part tells "how do you know?" It screamed not that. It sreamed "No, japanese have too many characters, some of them would naturally resemble, by chance. M as heart doesn't resonate neither with european lexics, nor with what of chinese and japanese I saw (some native speakers should join the quest)

I should start a campaign to invite some high-iq native speakers from all over the world.
But to do what? I have Wim and Hans, who speak languages I do not. And how often did I speak about those languages with them? Only few times. I don't want to obstruct.

V is uno:
пимпочку на ножку (в русском курсиве, убирая j-образный хвостик у у, получаем и, и получаем
пимопчки на ножки (ножек (один ножек? На штырях столы стояли, в землю воткнуты, т.е. как нож-меч могли наверное служить. На мечах котелок? огонь возвращал мечам новизну? спаивал трещины, наверное. Ковкой можно острить, наверняка. молотки с собой носили? Это не оружие, инструмент, но в бою не бесполезный тоже. Я фантазирую сейчас, но отчего бы нет

Т.е. эта j-образная ножка означает 1 (j=I!)

and и is 𓈖, N, ^𓈖

Но я сказал U is uno. U, не И, у в слове ножку.
и значит что? V is four of five, vier or vijf (er is old, jf is neuf, новый (neuf is nine, balda. I know, nine is new too. Like literally the nine which is not in the [f]v_for_four)
v in novy? but no is no, so vy is vue, виданный. а новое невидаль (невидалъ)

evh[ёfh] or efgh[evжз] h is no з, h is и, so evz is the line. the triad of the second line.

evz contradicts "double labial, lingual single" thing.
and I saw such contradictions before:
uvx
v again!
x and z share the line, are they 𐎅 and 𐎛

but I say they're [e w z ḥ θ]
[h w z ḥ θ]
𐎅 𐎆 𐎇 𐎈 𐎉
and
𐎛 𐎜 𐎝
[ỉ ủ   s̀]
but I say they're [u v s̀]

but I say they're [e w z ḥ θ] and it makes Halaḥam Elohim!!!

That ḥ made me see it. Elohim! ḥim
Now test it with seeing which h is in actual hebrew elohim. My guess is it'sn not ה, but ח.

But no, my bad: אֱלֹהִים
the dots for o and i are along arabic diacritic: i is marked under the letter, and u is marked above it.
Marks under א look like VI.
but they're phonetic, some эа is it, I don't know.

A challenge from a firmer reality:
A mater lectionis (/ˌmeɪtər ˌlɛktiˈoʊnɪs/ ⓘ MAY-tər LEK-tee-OH-niss, /ˌmɑːtər -/ MAH-tər -⁠;[1][2] Latin for 'mother of reading', pl. matres lectionis /ˌmɑːtreɪs -/ MAH-trayss -⁠;[2] original Hebrew: אֵם קְרִיאָה, romanized: ʾēm qərîʾāh) is any consonant that is used to indicate a vowel, primarily in the writing of Semitic languages such as Arabic, Hebrew and Syriac. The letters that do this in Hebrew are aleph א, he ה, waw ו and yod י, with the latter two in particular being more often vowels than they are consonants. In Arabic, the matres lectionis (though they are much less often referred to thus) are ʾalif ا, wāw و and yāʾ ي.
Their hebrew agrees with me that there are four vowels. Only we disagree on whether ו or ע are the fourth vowel.
Their arabic agrees with me on ا and ي, but it agrees with hebrew that wāw و is the vowel, and not ع,

though that is not they challenge me, it is my theory challenges their beliefs.
Well, no wonder they ignore it, lol

Go Do Better (here I play with eastern order here I, maybe western was given us not to let us see it)
GooD
DoBRo

(we're all conquered nations we're)

G D B R
God
    DoBR

Гад
    ДоБР? Змея может нас убить, но предпочитает этого не делать
                                 её можно заклинать (и в значении умолять в первую очередь)

Это всё дичайшее фентези,
считай это поэзией чтоли

GoD BeaR?

Is Bear b-ear? Ear as B has, round. wolves, foxes, even cats, have their eies ears like Λ (Λисы?)

Vixen
Volks

Bear and Wulf? is W sharp teeth? is lf laugh от слова лаять? лай is the word. What is f?

what is gh in laugh?
Does lion laugh? лает? нет.
Here he tells Our! Our! Our! Моё! Моё! Моё! My, my, my:
(mirror)
В этом свете "гав" не "кого" ли? Мол кого там чёрт принёс [каво́]

Goal being cognater of Цель shows how ABC is all there were. Whaterver you call it.

AMS, AMT, ABT
And this set of memetic abc's allows me to see,
that MB are labial forms, voiced forms
and ST are lingual forms, voiceless forms
S is snake, it can only hiss.
M is aNiMaL, like lion from above,
a beast with proper lips

Почав говорити українською. Поки використовую гугл-транслейтор, але читаю що пощу, тому так навчуся (це подібно до того, як я вчив англійську, перекладаючи власні думки. Просто зараз простіше стало перекладати. І відразу грамотно. Але перевіряти треба, іноді жене, частіше просто втрачаючи слова або навіть пропозиції)
жене́ • (žené) third-person singular present indicative imperfective of гна́ти (hnáty)
only I don't know how to figure out if it has meaning of гнать в значении нести пургу.

Может только гнать прочь.

жене́ ~ гони́?
(две формы буквы G)
C is Г, then G is Ж

A B C D                 A БВ Г Д
E F G H                    Е   Ё Ж З

I J K L M N        И Й К Л М Н
О P Q R S   T       О     ПР С Т

So convenient it is that russian word for right is правый (and that russian doesn't have Q too

(is it why it doesn't?))

Because so english L for Left and R for Right is supported by russian alphabet?

U V W X Y Z У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ
Ъ Ы Ь Э Ю Я
these are not-expected, but very similar, probably because the 666-like sequences in them start at the 6th from the end, the 4, 5, 6 from the end.

XYZ are 321? No! UVW are not 654, they're 666(6) which is 2/3 (though (6) was not the period, but only doubt of whether consider W 6 or 66)

Semanticanlly ЭЮЯ reminds XYZ better than ХЦЧШЩ, even though X and Х are definitely at the same spot. Two slots from their U's (У[u], Ф[f], but then V[f] in german)

So, UVX would remind УФХ, and everything past it is ..what? Y~Ч
But У~Y, yet russians also mistake У for Ч. And it reminds me of koptic Ⲱ and Ϣ for O and ʃ:

Ⲁⲁ Ⲃⲃ Ⲅⲅ Ⲇⲇ Ⲉⲉ Ⲋⲋ Ⲍⲍ Ⲏⲏ Ⲑⲑ

Ⲓⲓ Ⲕⲕ Ⲗⲗ Ⲙⲙ Ⲛⲛ Ⲝⲝ Ⲟⲟ Ⲡⲡ Ⲣⲣ

Ⲥⲥ Ⲧⲧ Ⲩⲩ Ⲫⲫ Ⲭⲭ Ⲯⲯ Ⲱⲱ Ϣϣ Ϥϥ

Ϧϧ Ϩϩ Ϫϫ Ϭϭ Ϯϯ Ⳁⳁ
(Ⳉⳉ)
(Those two are so called)
(akhmimic forms of Ϧϧ)
(compare them to the following letter: Ϩϩ)

an interesting

I brought it in vol.12, but then I had nothing to tell about it, now I can see that XLIII shows something very similar to abrakadabra, which tells, that it is read from right to left.

but the there is this one telling "not so fast"

but either way, unlike abracadabra, that αβλαναθαναλβα is palindrome, so it can be read whichever way. And another interesting moment about it is the Emanuel attributed to the whole αβλαναθαναλβα sequence. I wonder if those are the angelic names.

Abracadabra first appears in the writings of Quintus Serenus Sammonicus more than 1,800 years ago as a magical remedy for fever, a potentially fatal development in an age before antibiotics and a symptom of malaria. He was a tutor to the children who became the Roman emperors Geta and Caracalla, and his privileged position in a wealthy noble family added importance to his words.
Writing in in the second century A.D. in a book called Liber Medicinalis (“Book of Medicine”) Serenus advised making an amulet containing parchment inscribed with the magical word, to be hung around the neck of a sufferer. He prescribed that the word be written on subsequent lines, but in a downwards-pointing triangle with one less letter each time:

ABRACADABRA
ABRACADABR
ABRACADAB
…
AB
A

Yet thinking of that parchment version, who knows which of them are actually the right one..
cadabra adabra dabra is an interesting sequence,
but not as interesting as bra Rah ah!
So the other way around was just misleading to have ab (father in hebrew) ah and not Rah.

The Petrie's book is worth looking into:

So, he spoke of paleo-hispanic even then, in 1912

And the numerals are..

And he not just spoke of hispanic, he argued that phoenician is not the origin of the alphabets, and did it way better than I ever could:

Have it influenced me the way I didn't notice? Because I remember reading this booklet, and I even have it in my archived texts for years now, but I cannot remember reading about it.
Was it also a self-initiating book which I wasn't ready to take in? I guess it still is. It's hard for me to read into it, even though it's short and on the subject which fascinates me. Strange, huh?

But then I recall that when I first met that book,
I tried not to read other people's writings, to avoid their mistakes and misconceptions.
And now, I think, I am confident enough about what I know about it,
so let's get a sober morning or three and read it all thoroughly, there are not so many pages.
But they seem to overwhelm alright, so it may take more than just one morning, that tiny booklet.

And that man was not some freak like me, he was a well-established scientist, it's strange that he's not well-known, and that the things he say are not taught in universities.
But then he had a wife who looked watched that he looked like a gentleman.

Reading another book, "Alphabetic Labyrinth. The Letters In History and Imagination" by Johanna Drucker (link) I find this interesting sentence:
Pliny, in the first century AD, asserted that the use of letters was eternal, and that the antiquity of this practice extended far beyond what
he called ‘authentic history’.
And though her book is way too normie, it contains some pearls, such as link to Pantographia by Edmund Fry (Pantographia; containing accurate copies of all the known alphabets in the world; together with an English explanation of the peculiar force or power of each letter: to which are added, specimens of all well-authenticated oral languages) (link) (mirror)
Which words do you not capitalize in a title?
If all else fails and you don't have a reference guide to help, a good rule to follow is to capitalize all words in a title. Exceptions include the following: a, an, and, as, at, but, by, for, in, nor, of, on, or, the, and up. Again, this trick holds true unless they're the beginning or ending words in the title.

But then I got high and recalled that I do not read books, because I have direct source of knowledge: personal research. Meta-analysis is a cool method to know new stuff, but then such stuff would be new only to the researcher (and also there would be no guarantee that the information is legit. Yet it looks more legit that directly acquired information, and that makes me not read others for this evident reason: if they found what I am looking for, it waould be a sensation. And since all their work is in obscurity, they didn't find it. So let' skeep on looking for it, and when we succeeed, we shall show the world our predecessors.

So, what are we looking for? For complete and thorough understanding of the alphabets. Across the board, all alphabets, they tell something, yet we have to understand what. Armenian alphabets has a story written in at least two acounts attached to its being different from the others.
And how it became what it was before that story, and how other alphabets came to be, those stories are way more vague, being kept only in mythological, and thus oral tradition. But then hey, many records must exist, let's just collect all the acounts of those myths. Let's interview the best story-tellers specializing on ancient texts.

Russian S is С, which equates S and C, which tells that the lower part of S is swash.

or is it chin?
kaf is mouth in hebrew,
C for chin?
A
B
C
D
as human head? B as eyes.
Is D chin or is it adam's apple?
E
F
G
H
Is H hand? is G грудь? is F front? is E elbow? what? it's nothing, associations, nothing!
Why would I have much different associations than ancient people?
What would be the four parts?
T as топ?
E~ass
F~feet
G~golova
H~hands
Why would ass be above Golova?
Maybe they had it the eastern way?
Г голова
З задинца же
тогда дальше должно повторять в меньшем масштабе Д ?
(я взял японский порядок, потому что его знаю) N ? нога
Why is hand under Noga again? If H is hand, then R is leg!                                h hand
How dare I use english (or russian!) language for japanese order?                         M
If the sequence is there, it would be a natural thing to do                                    Y
It makes absolutely no sense what I just did.                                                R
a game, but a silly one. Play it with alphabet order                                    W
abe бог god deuz is a superhit. Zeus would go next? ΖΗΘ? ΖΗΘΙ? ΖΗΘΙΚ?
Isn't Deus Zeus? Isn't Δ[ð]?
It is.
So was Z placed there to ..let's look into it before we dismiss there it.

Русы трусы
как заяц русак.
в конце фамилий ков может и smith
но как и в псков, москов, cow (cow не только корова, но ещё и coward, трус. Забавно, что это слово распадается на co-, которое звучит как ко, но по функции совпадает с нашим русским со-, и -ward, означающее "по направлению", сравни toward и forward (forth ward) т.е. coward один не ходит, всегда жмётся к кому-нибудь)
Как-то чертовски много совпадений чтобы psy-oпoм это не считать. Мальчиков зайчиками наряжают. Ритуалы унижения в садиках и школках.
Ещё и то что славы и сербы slave & serve.
Трусость и раболепность русским действительно свойственна, но и Руша значит разрушая.

Трусы разрушают? Обрушают здания на врагов, чтоб раз на раз не сражаться?
И действительно, русские именно так и воюют.
Страна-террорист.

Не подобный ли пиздец я называю собственным исследованием?
Ну, у меня бывают лучше (про coward вот одно из них, и гораздо лучше бывают)

DeUS ~ Deutschland et United States
dEUS ~ de EU et US? de European United States?

долги́ потому что добго долго отдают?
до́лго[до́лга]

Я хочу прямо запрыгнуть в истину, чтоб пребывать в истине.
Для начала построй домик какой построить тебе сказали. Там будут шансы.

Russians love to brag about how good their education is,
but here a girl uses synthetic division, and russians have no idea what she is talking about (I am a russian nerd, and I had no idea how to solve cubic equations, I never heard any of that, even though I didn't specialize in math, I was considered good at it, but then I was considered good at english when I knew almost nothing of it) and neither do we know of the things coming before that concept, such as factorization of polynomials, euclidean algorithm, greatest common divisor of polynomials.
Maybe russian mathematicians (and even amongst them not all, but only those who specialize in that field of math) know this stuff, but they leave us clueless in school, showing such tasks with astriks above them in their textbooks, but then they never really teach us how to solve them.

Polynomial rings, do we really need to know those things? We're not going to delve into them here.

Why would they torture us with quadratic equations then? Also not explaining how they used the formulas we hat to place quotients into, just doing some monkey business, probably to teach us be comfortable with normal fractions they gave us difficult stuff, so we got used to fractions even though we never used the quadratic eqations, we knew that there are more, we were introduced to polynomials, encouraging those who want to know more to know more. Nah, I think they just fucked with our brains, never taught us about money, they turned us into golems there. Jews they teach better. And they teach us that it's because jews have culture pushing them to learn, but no, they just deny us proper education, jews are semites and their natural abilities are in the range of other semites. But they subvert nations very well, professionally, like they definitely have some ways of thought we're lacking. It's more than that, that their nation even exists after all these years can easily be seen as a form of divine intevention.

But for how long with such strategy can they survive? What if forever?
Deal with it means get used to it, don't go against the divine will.
You can only demand them to behave properly, but you shouldn't expect it much.
But then again which nation behaves properly. Some nations behave better than others.
But then maybe also they pull wool across my eyes as most people are clueless about jewish scheming.
Is my nation behaving properly? Well, nah.

I think I must fix Alphabeta Meminerunt Syllabaria according to Pitina's corrections, maybe that was her attempt to tell me to correct the corrections and bring it back. I heard they make them to correct it up to hundred times. Some sadism-masochism is it? Well, then I qualify, I have to admit (I reasonably understand that it's patologic, but then I have to be honest about what gives me kicks) so, being that sick I consider myself asexual, but mostly it is due to some form of autism. Some label I continuely try to stick onto myself. Why? I love words.

But then no, reasonably academic bdsm is counter-effective, so it has to go.
At this point it's nothing but jesuit conspiracy against science.
A militant wing of the catholic church,
who else would you expect showing such zeal.
And basically they're all golem (golim? голь перекатная) for the jew.
‎גּוֹלֶם
The word golem occurs once in the Bible, in Psalm 139:16,[2] which uses the word גלמי (golmi; 'my golem',[3] 'my light form', 'raw material'[4]) to connote the unfinished human being before God's eyes.[3] The Mishnah uses the term to refer to someone who is unsophisticated: "Seven characteristics are in an uncultivated person, and seven in a learned one" (שבעה דברים בגולם).[5]

In Modern Hebrew, golem is used to mean 'dumb', 'helpless', or 'pupa'. Similarly, it is often used today as a metaphor for a stupid man or other entity that serves a man under controlled conditions, but is hostile to him in other circumstances.[1] Golem passed into Yiddish as goylem, meaning someone who is lethargic or in a stupor.[6]

During the Middle Ages, passages from the Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Formation) were studied as a means to create and animate a golem, although little in the writings of Jewish mysticism supports this belief. The earliest known written account of how to create a golem can be found in Sodei Razayya by Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, who lived in the late 12th and early 13th centuries.[9]

It was believed that golems could be activated by an ecstatic experience induced by the ritual use of various letters of the Hebrew alphabet[10] forming a shem (any one of the names of God), wherein the shem was written on a piece of paper and inserted in the mouth or into the forehead of the golem.[11] In some tales (including certain stories of the Chełm and Prague golems), a word such as אמת (emét, 'truth') is inscribed on the golem, sometimes on its forehead. In this example, the golem could then be deactivated by removing the aleph (א),[12] thus changing the inscription from "truth" to "death" (מת, mét, 'dead').

One source credits Solomon ibn Gabirol, who lived in the 11th century, with creating a golem,[13] possibly female, for household chores.[14] Samuel of Speyer also was said[by whom?] to have created a golem, in the 12th century.[15]

and one can only wonder if they themselves actually believe this nonsense.
They probably do. If ocd is possible, other forms of disorders are possible too.
And is it explained by nature or nurture? Both, I suppose.

That image have gave it a humorous tone, though I'm not joking here: even when I'm joking here I tend have some serious note in it.

gave was typoed as have, which raises the question if the two are cognate
is give hive?
Hive is only a bee-hive and such, with verbal form meaning "to collect bees into a hive"
Hive in Danish and Norwegian are etymologize to heave, to english heave:

Danish:
Etymology:
From English heave, from Middle English heven, hebben, from Old English hebban, from Proto-Germanic *habjaną (“to take up, lift”). Doublet of hæve.
hive (present tense hiver, past tense hev, past participle hevet, present participle hivende, imperative hiv)
    (transitive) to pull, heave, tow
    (transitive) to throw

Norwegian Nynorsk:
Etymology:
From English heave, from Middle English heven, hebben, from Old English hebban, from Proto-Germanic *habjaną (“to take up, lift”). Doublet of hevja.
hive (present tense hiv, past tense heiv, past participle hive, present participle hivande, imperative hiv)
    (transitive) to lift, heave, tow
    (transitive) to throw
Alternative forms:
hiva (an infinitive)

Heave: (and with meanings as "to lift" it is the etymology of heaven)
English:
Etymology:
From Middle English heven, hebben, from Old English hebban, from Proto-West Germanic *habbjan, from Proto-Germanic *habjaną (“to take up, lift”), from Proto-Indo-European *kh₂pyéti, from the root *keh₂p-. See also have.

Verb:
heave (third-person singular simple present heaves, present participle heaving, simple past heaved or hove, past participle heaved or hove or hoven or heft)
1 (transitive) To lift with difficulty; to raise with some effort; to lift (a heavy thing).
    Synonyms: heft, upheave
    We heaved the chest-of-drawers up to the second-floor landing.
    He hove himself out of the bed.
2 (transitive) To throw, cast.
    Synonyms: fling, hurl; see also Thesaurus:throw
    They hove rocks into the pond.
    The cap'n hove the body overboard.
3 (intransitive) To rise and fall.
    Her chest heaved with emotion.
4 (transitive) To utter with effort.
    She hove a sigh and stared out of the window.
5 (transitive, nautical) To pull up with a rope or cable.
    Synonyms: hoist, pulley, teagle
    Heave up the anchor there, boys!
6 (transitive, archaic) To lift (generally); to raise, or cause to move upwards (particularly in ships or vehicles) or forwards.
7 (intransitive) To be thrown up or raised; to rise upward, as a tower or mound.
    Synonyms: mound, tower
8 (transitive, mining, geology) To displace (a vein, stratum).
9 (transitive, archaic) To cause to swell or rise, especially in repeated exertions.
    The wind heaved the waves.
10 (transitive, intransitive, nautical) To move in a certain direction or into a certain position or situation.
    to heave the ship ahead
11 (intransitive) To retch, to make an effort to vomit; to vomit.
    Synonyms: throw up; see also Thesaurus:regurgitate
    The smell of the old cheese was enough to make you heave.
12 (intransitive) To make an effort to raise, throw, or move anything; to strain to do something difficult.
    Synonyms: labour, toil
13 (obsolete, British, thieves' cant) To rob; to steal from; to plunder.
    Synonyms: half-inch, mill; see also Thesaurus:steal

Noun:

1 (countable) An effort to raise something, such as a weight or one's own body, or to move something heavy.
    give something a heave
2 An upward motion; a rising; a swell or distention, as of the breast in difficult breathing, of the waves, of the earth in an earthquake, etc.
3 A horizontal dislocation in a metallic lode, taking place at an intersection with another lode.
4 (nautical) The measure of extent to which a nautical vessel goes up and down in a short period of time.
    Coordinate term: pitch
5 An effort to vomit; retching.
6 (rare, only used attributively as in "heave line" or "heave horse") Broken wind in horses.
7 (cricket) A forceful shot in which the ball follows a high trajectory

Related terms:
    heavy
    heft

Descendants:
    → Danish: hive
    → Faroese: hiva
    → Norwegian Nynorsk: hiva, hive (e and split infinitives)
    → Norwegian Bokmål: hive
    → Scanian: hyva
        Hallandian: hiva
    → Swedish: hiva
        Sudermannian: hyva

Heft:
The noun is derived from Late Middle English heft (“heaviness; something heavy, a weight”),[1] from heven (“to lift, raise; to make an effort to lift or raise, heave”)[2] + -th (suffix denoting a condition, quality, state of being, etc., forming nouns),[3] by analogy with the development of weft from weven (modern English weave), etc. (also compare words like cleft from cleave, and theft from thieve, where the development occurred in Old English or earlier languages).[4] The English word is analysable as heave + -t (suffix forming nouns from verbs).
The verb is probably derived from the noun.[5]

Noun:
heft (countable and uncountable, plural hefts)
    Uncountable:
       1 The feel of the weight of something; heaviness.
          Synonym: heftiness
              A high quality hammer should have good balance and heft.
       2 (dated except UK, dialectal and US) The force exerted by an object due to gravitation; weight.
       3 (figurative) Graveness, seriousness; gravity.
       4 (figurative) Importance, influence; weight.
       5 (US, informal, dated) The greater part of something; the bulk, the mass.
    Сountable:
       1 (UK, dialectal) An act of lifting; a lift.
       2 (obsolete) An act of heaving (lifting with difficulty); an instance of violent exertion or straining.

Alternative forms:     haft

heft as cognate of weight reminds me of hwe instead of we, weight hweight

(weigh ~ f? but weight is not ft)
And hvat for what happens only when w is followed by h.
But then is it? I don't know. wut is also a recognized spelling of what.
But since when is wut recognized as what?
Probably since before the spelling was normalized.
formalized.
n & f ~ ν & v?

Thomas asked me what was my ambition:
What is your ambition for this project?

Is it an academic interest?

Are there ways to make money on this?

Is this a philosophical study to progress
what is known about alphabets which
will help understanding humanity's past?

I can help with editing next year. Perhaps
early next year. I have pressing issue for the
rest of the year it looks like.
The ambition is rather simple: I have discovered something as important as the periodic table of chemical elements, and now the question is if I'm going to be remembered as Mendeleyev or forgotten as Chancourtois (not even mentioned in English wiki, but mentioned in Russian one, and then there were other guys mentioned in english wiki, so discovering something is only half the way, now I'm on the second half of it)
Why would I bother, you might ask. I made it known, so humanity will eventually catch up, maybe it shall take some augmentation of their minds, but it's also coming.
The answer is rather simple: if I get famous of that thing, it may allow me to be taken seriously by those who can fund and consult my re-embryogenesis project which you found to difficult to even bother with.
But then I remember the main difference between people from the West Side and people of the East Side.
So take it easy. Peace.

That was my response, I didn't feel like telling that once again here, so that's how I do it, in the context.
And the context was.. ah, yes, the satan's gift being ephemerous (you may by found it, but would it matter if you cannot pass it on? But then can I blame the guy or whoever the entity is, when I also didn't put my soul into the deal. What if that's the idea of the path: вложи душу в это дело (means put the soul in it, but what it actually means is give all yourself to the thing. And it makes perfect sense: believing in soul is stopping me. As if this life is not all that matters, as if it doesn't matter. So let's sign in to agree on soul put into the contract. What do I fear? The deal is such that you live forever. Without soul? Do souls burn in such adventures? endeavours?

So what if that's the only way? My way isn't working much. Is it not? Not really, no, I'm 49 next year, maybe I have not much time. Either way, future is not promised, the past may tell that it's been rather slowly, I want to enjoy the success not only achieve it until I die. Iwant not to die. That would be the part of success.

я её не продал, я её вложил.

Isn't rope yin and beam yang?

Didn't crosses come from a tradition to stick a warrior's sword into his grave?
Was the sword save because beliefs were spread that it prevents him from returning?
Din't those who stole swords from graves replaced them with sharp stick in the form of sword?
(and placed into the same hole, of course)
And didn't the legend of the sword in stone (word in tone, as somebody noticed) from this tradition?

What load could such connection bear other than the weight of that stick?
What would prevent the rope from gliding~slinding along the beam?
Was it got wet, swelled and thus got stuck?

slide is glide, for both were clide (I didn't see such spelling, I predict it was the common spelling of both words in the bast, that they're the same word read differently)
But for whatever reason, wiktionary only knows such male name and many towns with that name.

Many ghost towns with this name too for whatever reason.
Ghost towns are towns which were left by humans.
They cost nothing, because there are nobody to value it.
Weird, huh?

no clide word across all languages (according to wiktionary)
like why?
klide is only vocative singular in Czech, of klid, which is calm and cognate of cold, cool:

klid na lůžku ― bed rest
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lůžko#Czech: From lože +‎ -ko. Cognates include Polish łóżko. bed, bed in hospital
Луг как ложе! wow!

> How were slide and glide spelled in the past?
The words "slide" and "glide" were spelled quite differently in the past! "Slide" is actually from Old English "slīdan", which means "to slip, glide, slip away". And "glide" comes from Old English "glīdan", which means "to slip, slide, move smoothly over". Pretty neat, huh? 😊

> Was any of those words spelled with c or k instead of s and g?
As far as I know, no, the words "slide" and "glide" were not spelled with a "c" or a "k" instead of an "s" or a "g" in Old English. The letter "s" and "g" in these words come from their Old English roots, which are "slīdan" and "glīdan" respectively. So it seems like their spelling hasn't changed much from Old English to modern English! 😊
> Were they cognates in the reconstructed past?
Yes, the words "slide" and "glide" are actually cognates, meaning they have a common origin from a reconstructed past language. They are both derived from the Proto-Germanic roots "slīdan" and "glīdan", which share the same meaning of "to slip, glide, move smoothly over". So, it seems like these two words have been gliding through time together! 😊
> Are they complete synonyms or are there some semantic nuances between them?
These two words are quite similar in meaning, but there are some subtle differences in their usage. Here are a few distinctions to consider:
"Slide" is more commonly used to describe a movement in which something glides over a surface without friction, like a child sliding down a slide or a puck sliding across ice.
"Glide" can be used to describe both a smooth, sliding movement and a smooth, effortless movement through air or water, like a bird gliding through the sky or a boat gliding over the ocean.
> And what is the difference?
The difference lies in the range of possible movements that each word can describe.
"Slide" is typically used to describe a movement where one object moves smoothly over another surface, like a child sliding down a slide or a puck sliding across ice.
"Glide" can be used to describe a wider range of movements, including sliding over a surface, as well as moving smoothly through air or water. For example, you might describe a bird gliding through the sky or a boat gliding over the ocean as "gliding".

Pretty cool, huh?

Then it went on tripping hard (more of it here) yet in that tripping it gave me a term I didn't know:

debuccalization
Debuccalization or deoralization[1] is a sound change or alternation in which an oral consonant loses its original place of articulation and moves it to the glottis ([h], [ɦ], or [ʔ]).[2] The pronunciation of a consonant as [h] is sometimes called aspiration, but in phonetics, aspiration is the burst of air accompanying a stop. The word comes from Latin bucca, meaning "cheek" or "mouth".
    get ready [ˈɡɛʔˈɹɛɾi]
    not much [ˈnɑʔˈmʌtʃ]
    not good [ˈnɑʔˈɡʊd̚]
    it says [ɪʔˈsɛz]
Serbian bog, Russian box, Czech bůh, Ukrainian bih.

3+6+4+8+10+5+5+7 = 48 (two times 24 as hours?)
11+21+19+9 = 60 as minutes?
11+13+17+19 = 60 as seconds?

hours or two months?
minutes, seconds or 5 months.
12 months!
Of course that's the calendar!
Each stroke is a month?
Wait, what? 60+60+48 = 168
60 = (12 × 5) × 2 (10 years)
24 = 12 × 2 (2 years)

so if those are months (count of moons)
then they thus calculated the length of a year, counting moons for 12 years.

There are There should be 144 months in 12 years.
48 = (12 × 2)×2 (4 years) ..see how bad I am at math.

Why 14 years? The cycle of leap years is ..a year is close to 365¼ days..
Thus the cycle is ..4 years, not 14..
So 14 is nothing, could it be that 60's and 48 were something else?
60 is 5 times 12 (120 is 10 times 12) 48 is 4 times 12

both 60s are separated into 4 groups
48 is in 8 groups

Dating to 20,000 years before present, it has been described as 'the oldest mathematical tool of humankind',[1] though older engraved bones are also known, such as the approximately 26,000 year-old 'Wolf Bone' from Dolni Vestonice in the Czech Republic,[5][6] and the approximately 40,000-year-old Lebombo bone from southern Africa.
The artifact was first estimated to have originated between 9,000 BCE and 6,500 BCE, with numerous other analyses debating the bone to be as old as 44,000 years.[4] However, the dating of the site where it was discovered was re-evaluated, and it is now believed to be about 20,000 years old (dating from between 18,000 BCE and 20,000 BCE).[9][10] The dating of this bone is widely debated in the archaeological community as the ratio of Carbon-14 isotopes was upset by nearby volcanic activity.[8]

I wonder what methods of dating they were using to go as wide as 8 to 46 years ago.
And to link it to the natiquity of the site is not exactly right: it could be kept through millenia even then. Could it though? Was there such culture to save the ancient artifacts?

The 168 etchings on the bone are ordered in three parallel columns along the length of the bone, each marking with a varying orientation and length.[1] The first column, or central column along the most curved side of the bone, is referred to as the M column, from the French word milieu (middle).[1] The left and right columns are respectively referred to as G and D, or gauche (left) and droite (right) in French.[1]
Could B G D be Middle Left Right? Then it would be G B D.. or G D B

(left, right, Middel, M not B, M is also there in oriental order)

The parallel markings have led to various tantalizing hypotheses, such as that the implement indicates an understanding of decimals or prime numbers. Though these propositions have been questioned, it is considered likely by many scholars that the tool was used for mathematical purposes, perhaps including simple mathematical procedures or to construct a numeral system.[4]
The sexagesimal numeral system, of course!
Discoverer of the Ishango bone, de Heinzelin, suggested that the bone was evidence of knowledge of simple arithmetic, or at least that the markings were "deliberately planned".[1][7] He based his interpretation on archaeological evidence, comparing "Ishango harpoon heads to those found in northern Sudan and ancient Egypt".[8] This comparison led to the suggestion of a link between arithmetic processes conducted at Ishango with the "commencement of mathematics in ancient Egypt."[8] The third column has been interpreted as a "table of prime numbers", as column G appears to illustrate prime numbers between 10 and 20,[1] but this may be a coincidence.[4] Historian of mathematics Peter S. Rudman argues that prime numbers were probably not understood until the early Greek period of about 500 BCE, and were dependent on the concept of division, which he dates to no earlier than 10,000 BCE.[11]
More recently, mathematicians Dirk Huylebrouck and Vladimir Pletser have proposed that the Ishango bone is a counting tool using the base 12 and sub-bases 3 and 4, and involving simple multiplication, somewhat comparable to a primitive slide rule. However, they have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to confirm an understanding of prime numbers during this time period.[1][2][12]
Anthropologist Caleb Everett has also provided insight into interpretations of the bone, explaining that "the quantities evident in the groupings of marks are not random", and are likely evidence of prehistoric numerals. Everett suggests that the first column may reflect some "doubling pattern" and that the tool may have been used for counting and multiplication and also possibly as a "numeric reference table".[4]
Alexander Marshack, an archaeologist from Harvard University, speculated that the Ishango bone represents numeric notation of a six-month lunar calendar after conducting a "detailed microscopic examination" of the bone.[8][1][2][9] This idea arose from the fact that the markings on the first two rows adds up to 60, corresponding with two lunar months, and the sum of the number of carvings on the last row being 48, or a month and a half.[8] Marshack generated a diagram comparing the different sizes and phases of the Moon with the notches of the Ishango bone.[8] There is some circumstantial evidence to support this alternate hypothesis, being that present day African societies utilize bones, strings, and other devices as calendars.[1] However, critics in the field of archaeology have concluded that Marshack's interpretation is flawed, describing that his analysis of the Ishango bone confines itself to a simple search for a pattern, rather than an actual test of his hypothesis.[9]
This has also led Claudia Zaslavsky to suggest that the creator of the tool may have been a woman, tracking the lunar phase in relation to the menstrual cycle.[13][14]
if 48 are months, that is two years.
if 60 are two months, why do they come in two?
three rows, but 60+60 is the third of a year. Could the next row be lacking 12 tallies?
(for then it would make the bone representing half of they year, which would naturally mean that halves of the year are aris raising and falling

Внезапно:

graphically F is in E

B and D could be axes, such as Выше/Больше и Дальше/Дольше

Could yin and yang be ю and я or ы and я? y and z? x and y? and xx and xy they are!

These came without commentaries to them, but if I had to guess, they're the keys for two cyphres:
in the first one each letter would be a corner with a number,

and in the second one — a J U L Ɔ O C 7 П Г with ., .. or ... in it.

what is "2 deple" is a mistery so far.

Humor
is
Ηумор (вот это номер? И used to look like H)
Иумор
Юмор such orthography exposes Ю to be IO, and I to be H, so H~I is the same claster.
Greeks have Θ between Η and Ι. Which maybe only tells that it was sticked into there from somewhere else (those who modified the alphabet didn't understand it, since they broke the collumns, yet preserving axial symmetry. Probably that symmetry they were told about. And how did russian alphabet become so differently structured, with voiced letters in the first half of the alphabet?

Юмор Ёмок
    Умолк? Уморил, умолил, умалил, чморил, убил
    Сделал так, что все умолкли? Заткнул. Нет же, все наоборот ржать начинают.

ёмок и замок родственны? замок замкнут, ёмкое со словом объём однокоренное. имущ.

иметь и объём однокоренные, how cool is that.

но подъём под ним. ним и имею однокоренные? творительный падеж слова он

или дательные падеж слова они?

под как в словах под, пад, низ
lift has l of low too. ift is it?
lf it? leave it?
lif is bra in russian. bra lifts. is lif in lift? leave t, leave tits.

There are many body part cognates between russian and english.
Let's collect them all, there are not too many body parts.

hair хаер (это новое заимствование, не канает)

eye очи?
ear ухо? с гласных начинаются (as openings)
NOSE НОСА
CHEEK ЩЕКА
TIT ТИТЬ

нос, щека и титька три части тела общие меж русским и английским?
в щёку целуют. за нос таскали когда виноват? титькой кормят

to eat ~ есть
to píss ~ пи́сать (эти слова в коллекцию простейших инвертивных(?) калек типа to be ~ быть)
poop ~ пукать
sit~shit ~ сижу~серю

тить даёт
пить берёт?

Берёт высоту
Даёт (даёт~пьёт)

дать~пить? как_пить_дать

пить~взять? бред попёр. до этого было более чётко, даже если было поэзией

пить дать как b и d? Как p и d

(как ࿊, но кто из них чёрный, кто белый? пить~брать, дать~давать, so ☯)

eat д ~ да, еда
pee p ~ poo (pee and poo.. and here is the explanation of why european 一 is I russian: because it shows the unique event of water flowing in thin line. Roof piss too when it leaks then.

u and o are depicting pieces falling, thus poop.

Is it ethical to show how letters are piss and shit? Is it why we forgot it?

So is it even good that this book is obscure? Yes, this stuff shouldn't be allowed back into culture. Or maybe we should change the graphic side of the alphabet, so that I and O for yin and yan of liquid and concrete, soft and firm, pee and poo
But then wasn't it pee and poo because they had p to them. P is literally pee. It even looks like пися.

P is for Penis. peein' (suffix s is standard in greek and a self-humiliating form in 19th century's russian))
C is for Cunt?
d is for dick

F the f-word
Ё is a dirty letter, standing where other dirty letter was (Ѳ)

fux fuch fucks fornication fellation (was f extracted of russian alphabet because all Ѳ is cunt?)

dolbit
padaet

Is G for go because G is ↺? открутись (винт в эту сторону откручивает, но, что противоречит, гайка так вращаемая движется к нам (но таким образом она отходит, отделяется (и это подтверждает)))

h is high because H is I? double I?

V W as H I?

U VW X Y Z?
J I H G F E?

O P Q R S T U VW X Y Z?
N M L K J I H G F E?

O P S T U V W X Y Z?
N M L K J I H G F E?

a б g д

Е F ? H I J K L M N
З Y X W V U T S P O

two tens of letters mirroring each other I met it before, that's for sure. Now would be nice to find the other such and compare them.

E being like ع
З being like 3 this pair was not expected, but it's very legit. Especially in the light of 𐤅 being f
What was across X in the pre-QR alphabet? but I and J were separated and U and V were separated? They're probably linked in this, probably it was 9-letters per half,

9×2 = 18 = 6×3

Е 𐤅 ? H I K L M N
З Y X W V T S P O

it places I and V in the centre of their lines,
which is rather symbolic, since they're the first two roman numerals.

IK (I)
[tu] TV (you)
Notice how TV is tu, and youtube is both you and tu.
YT as the opposite TV
and those two (ik & tu) are sequences in the alphabet regardless of this I V (I and U, I and you) thing
Let's find more:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
noyhin nothing of the kind.
YZ for easy is not a pronoun
They is what's missing and is it Z?
ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPSTUWXYZ
but then ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPSTUWXYZ
is interesting in that it has spaces of 8, 6, 4 letters
(but then didn't I rather arbitrarily removed Q&R?)

LM NO P S? (love me, no postscriptum?)
lamb is not пёс?

WX YZ
was-easy?

ABCDEFGH

ABGD
EF ? H

ΑΒ Γ Δ
Ε Ϝ ΗΘ That Θ is perfect voiceless counterpart to Δ
but that is not F when I feel it's better the otherwise?
Well, it's only a good thing that I'm able to be not tied to my other hypotheses, for that's what they're.

ΑΒ Γ Δ voiced
Ε Ϝ ΗΘ voiceless
Ι ΛΜΝ voiced      Κ was removed, because there's no K in italian, for example.
ΟΠΣ Τ voiceless    Р was removed, because P is Π (was P added later or was it tabooed?)

K&R are the two letters breaking a structure similar to this one in russian also, even though russian has different structure of this kind.

A Б В Г Д
Е Ё Ж З
И Й К Л М Н        if K & R were the other way around, the alphabet would be half voiced - half not.
О П Р С Т    Р the R would be with other sonors in the line of sonors, Q may be a rudiment of K.
У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ
Ъ Ы Ь Э Ю Я

ΑΒ Γ Δ   (что это как не беспонтовая подгонка под ответ?)
Ε Ϝ ΗΘ   (минуту назад Η было частью кластера Ι, а Ϝ у них вроде вообще)
Ι ΜΝΛ   (то ли звонкая то ли не читаемая.может в других диалектах более читаема)
ΟΠK Τ   (это попытка реставрации, естественно я подтягиваю чтоб посмотреть подтягивается ли)

If that is the case, then in comparison to russian alphabet we can sugest that the lines were independent from each other, depending maybe on the position of vowels in the row, as if was it aeiou or aouei

a b c d
e f g h
i j k l m n
o p q r s t
u v w x y z

and

a b c d                    B and D make this row voiced plosive (C was G and also in this category)
o p q r s t                P and T make this row voiceless plosive
u v w x y z             V and Z make this row voiced fricative
e f g h                     F and H make this row voiceless fricative
i j k l m n               M and N make this row sonor. or was it M and L?
                (but then isn't J and N sonor too? in all other rows the first and the last letter were in charge)

The existence of such structure exposes the letters which came later:

for example:
C Q R S W X Y G J K L
I'm not sure if L or N was added later (L is like I, N is like M)
but the velars are mostly off,
even if C was there, if it was G, then could it be that it caused latin to build the velar column?
That there's no such column in other alphabets may tell that there was no such column.
And was there no C?
C as G could be placed there when they knew the syllabic structure of the alphabet.
Paleo-hispanic has velars.
Yet amongst B D, F Г, M Λ, П Т, Ф q (Ψ Ч), Г is the only velar.
Was it H? Ͱ ͱ Ⱶ ⱶ as the single opposite to F

So, let's play with those ten or twelve:
B D
F Ⱶ
M Λ л~n
П Т
𐌚 𐌔
or eight (twelve would be with Ψ Ч, but I'm not sure about canonic status orf 𐌚 𐌔)

B D
F Ⱶ
M Λ
П Т

and such graphic correlation exposes sonors as voiced fricatives

but then in what relation does this graphic systemtism has with

b d
p q
?

is it
ᛒᚦ
ᚠᚴ
?

big is dick (more basal form of d? Basal? Basic Bck?)
p and q are писять и какать (because p is пися (если буквы смотрят лицом в начало строки, как в египетском, то p лицом к началу строки, а q разворачивает, ибо срёт с другой стороны. SRT?))

Was there ever SRT abecedary? If S was צ, then surely it was.
opsrt?
opσρt?
opt was the essence of the line, voiceless plosive.
sport can be layed out of those letters.
s is a prefix then? Was sport what caused s in the plosive line?
port was it? pot it was!!!

port is a pot, if you really look at it.

помилуй ~ пойми (луй ~ лубимый? лу-й?)
поцелуй is целуй (по це, по этому, по этому любимый. тот кто целует любим, видимо, или любит)
(еврейские ассоциации здесь не умнее чем видеть хуй ссыт в who is it)
пожалуй (во всех по приставка и пойми тогда тоже будет имей по сути своей, впусти, прими)

(прими буквально однокоренное с пойми,
просто приставка другая)
приём, но не подъём, а понимание,
так одни ли там корни?
ми of прими
and йми of пойми
ми значит я
а ими значит не я, они
ни тогда то же что и ми,
а потому и нас производно от мы.

пока что всё сходится, удивительно
(настолько чтоб быть индикатором того, что дело говорю)
чаще несходится чтоли? почему удивительно?
потому что не ждал от такого подхода скорых плодов

гласная пред корнем работает как отрицание? в очень многих случаев, границы этих случаев не изучены нифига, и полное их изучение позволит объяснять одни слова за счёт других до однобуквенного чего-то или хотя бы односложного.

Раз русские сохранили разделение на звонике и глухие (про алфавит русский речь)
(даже при элементах распада типа К/Р)
То может и однобуквенные слова чего-то да значат?

а б в ж и к о с у я
обвяжи косу?
б is бы
ж is же
(но и в is во)
(но и к is ко)
(но и о is об)
(но и с is со)
только а, и, у, я are always monolingual.
Алилуйя!
(безязыкий может произнести заменив л й)
Он этим скажет "Я а и у"
(я ах и ух?)
(но а не ах, а значит и ах тоже, но не только, в "а ты идёшь" оно and/but, or maybe it's just translated so, maybe it's a question-prefix? Но оно не таково, в русском интонация создаёт вопрос, "а ты идёшь" можно сказать и в виде императива. Т.е. там где-то раньше лажу сыграл, бывает)
"А и У я" значит "я альфа и омега"
Ʌ^&V

Но это заявляет корни еврейского восклицания в славянском языке, это просто wtf

Ну блин, как пришло, считай это поэзией.
А затем никто ничего не знает на самом деле.
Так что пробуем все варианты, на всякий случай.
Во имя поэзии и ресурсами нейронными ея.

Did somebody try to say garrage but was so fucked up that only grunge came out,

or was what was heard

Because титька is сиська, both are it: c is young female breast, т is its nipple.
That relates to S being T, אמש being אמת, and in that sense א is face, מ is cunt, ש and ת is tits, in that order, the order makes perfect sense at least for me, for I'm a pussy man, and especially today, when I invented me a best amalgamation of M and ᛘ being a frontal depiction of vulva.

That's as if M is a staveless ᛘ with two staves next to it, as if that's an alternative, the way ᚺ is ᚷ, huh

the way ᚾ then ᚿ is N.
and it makes me wonder if ᛅ is not И.
and how it realtes to ᛅ being ᛆ, to ا being a,
but then וاI are the three forms of |, a u i, or a o i, or a v i
(aoi is blue-green in japanese, but hardly does it relate to this)
I wonder if וا are somehow ɅV
av is father, is it not? ava, aba, baba, weird, huh..

Watching freaks of nature with turkish subtitles noticed that their "what" is "ne" which reminds me of japanese postfix ぬ, and of japanese "what" nani. As if that ぬ[ne] is cognate to 何[nani]
and brains in english are definitely cognate to turkish beyin.

And japanese brains 脳[nō] are cognate of know
(at least that's how I'm going to memorize teh workd the word)
come on in turkish is hádi, which is a cognate of russian ходи[hadí]
Turkish word for mom is ánne, and dad is babá.
Are they there their A and B?
And there and their are definitely cognates.
he's gone is o gitti
he is o there, another monoliteral pronoun, huh
o is also she and it, it's just a third person pronoun regardless of gender.
They is onlar (lar is the turkic plural suffix)
"o ne be?" is "what's that?"
and knowing the two of the three I'm like what? be is be?
but then nah, it's not:

be (interjection)

    (very informal) hey there, hey! you! (implying disapproval of the addressee’s actions)
    strengthening of the preceding sentence
        Bu yük çok ağır be! ― My, this load is very heavy

baban is your father.
You is sen, your is senin
We is biz. You is also siz
(they're like cognates of we and thee)
benim is mine which is my.
Because I is ben, which is weird, because ben is am in dutch: "Ik ben" is "I am"

Evet is yes. Hayir is no.
(what are cognates to these two I dunno)

USA is ABD in turkish, how cool is that!

Why do I dare to compare languages from different language families?
Because not only language families, but languages themselves are a "social construct"

only words matter, and they travel freely between languages.
Grammatic constructions are as real as words,
they also exist in different languages at the same time.

mold
nord (in case lichen was considered to be mold, for I thought there was a belief that lichen grows on the northern side of the trees, but now i looked it up and it's a belief about moss:

Каждый школьник знает, что мох растет только на северной стороне дерева
(I was a schoolboy once, and that belief they taught me by their books or on their lessons,
and I thought of lichen)
Мы показали, что лишайники гуще растут на южной и западной сторонах ствола сосен.
and here's the data allowing me to link mold to north
Лишайник — это водоросль, которая процветает в областях с чистым воздухом. Он также любит слегка влажные части дерева, то есть он, как правило, гуще на северных и северо-западных участках ствола, поскольку они получают меньше солнечного света в течение дня.
(I knew m~n, and l~r, but to see it like this, in the same pair of the words, it's rather cool)
and here's a reality check:
Каждый школьник знает, что мох растет только на северной стороне дерева, а значит, если ты заблудился в лесу, то без труда сориентируешься по сторонам света. Но всегда ли верна эта примета? Экологи утверждают, что не следует слепо доверять растениям.
but then they go on, and tell that it's basically true, but only for Northern hemisphere, and then we should factor out other factors, which may contribute to shadows and moisture.

So north is more moss than mold.
And isn't moss and mold related?
are they not of mo which is in море, м слов мыть и мочить?
And north does sound more like moss than mold.
mold brought me to moss. And what are they?
ld could be люд, because mold wouldn't be considered mold if it was not where people live,
in the woulds woods it would be considered lichen or moss.
So if ld is люд, ss is what? snakes? лес the le S? for the sound it makes?
Trees do sound like s.
What is le in the context of russian?
mo как мочалка? мылись мхом? губки типа мха же?
хм..)

A very fascinating subject is Dalrunes, the Dalecarlian Runes:

(it's rather funny, that in english wiki this image is named in russian)
Some say they were in use up to 20th century, that only recently the last sven using them died, in 1980. But then what do their science know! How would they tell that nobody in whole that region knows runes? That they are not using them in daily life maybe, but the tradition is definitely alive. Why would they want to make it secret again? Maybe they noticed that the wave of oppression is coming back?
Was why they made it known it the first place connected with liberation of moras? Or did revelation of runes started the wave of renaissance?

Look how they write o, on stave. ф ~ o, showing the unity of all the labials. b, p, all are o.
Why are ρ and σ also stavelike (hardly does this typo makes any sense, more likely I was just thinking of stav thinking of this sentence) o-like? Is it not because these forms were entroduced when the underlying structure was forgotten? Were they ΡΣ before that? Ρ is still ρ, but then it is p in latin, so how did P become R? Was R labial? was the lower part of K? was it ᚳ, for R was Pk, пук?

(you know that sound of labial R)

hand being high end (верхняя конечность)
и leg beling low end (нижняя конечность)
make eg end. Why would egg be end and not the beginning? was leg the beginning and hand the end?

(the final masterpiece? the part of our body developing the last?
Surely they had access to unborn fetuses)
eg in begin?

Middle Low German hȫlken (опорожнять) is told to be the origin of hulk in the context of disembowel
And that HULK is a different word:
1 (nautical)
a (archaic) A large ship used for transportation; (more generally) a large ship that is difficult to manoeuvre.
b (by extension) A non-functional but floating ship, usually stripped of equipment and rigging,

and often put to other uses such as accommodation or storage.

2 (figuratively) A large structure with a dominating presence.
3 (figuratively) A big (and possibly clumsy) person.
"usually stripped of equipment" relates this meaning to that one.
Was it considered that large people are dumber? After all, muscle takes the same pluripotent cells brains do. At least so I heard, so I rather read. It doesn't prove it, you should always check the important information for yourself, by yourself.
and those hulks all act as verbs too.
And here's the etymology from which that hulk could be originating:
A variant of holk (“to dig out, hollow out, make hollow; to dig up, excavate; to dig into, investigate”),[5] from Middle English holken (“to dig out, hollow out; to dig up, excavate”)[6] (compare holk (“a hollow; body cavity”)),[7] perhaps from Middle Low German hȫlken (“to hollow out, gouge”), ultimately from Proto-Germanic *hulaz (“hollow”, adjective);[8] further etymology uncertain, perhaps either from Proto-Indo-European *ḱel- (“to cover”), or *ḱewh₁- (“to swell; to be strong”). Compare also Old English āhlocian (“to dig out”).
Verb
hulk (third-person singular simple present hulks, present participle hulking, simple past and past participle hulked)
    (transitive, obsolete except British, dialectal) To remove the entrails of; to disembowel.
So that hulk could be a noun, built out of this verb, and those other verbs, not listed here, but identical to those nouns, were derived from that noun hulk.

and what is holk that word is a variant of:
From Middle English holk, from Old English holc, holoc (“hole, cavity”), from Proto-West Germanic *holuk, from Proto-Germanic *hulukaz (“a hollow”), from Proto-Indo-European *ḱel- (“to cover, hide”). Equivalent to hole +‎ -ock (diminutive ending).
Cognate with Low German holke, hölke (“small hole”), German Holk (“a type of flat-bottomed barge”), Swedish holk (“nest, birdhouse”), dialectal Norwegian holk, hylke (“wooden barrel, cask”), Icelandic hólkur (“hollow cylinder or tube”). Related to hulk.
Noun
holk (plural holks)
    (UK dialectal) A hollow cavity.
so, is holk an abbreviation of hollow cavity?
and the verbal forms of the same word:
From Middle English holken, from Old English *holcian (attested in āholcian, āhlocian (“to dig out”), from Proto-West Germanic *holukōn, derived from the noun above. Cognate with Middle Low German holken, hȫlken (“to hollow out”), German Low German uthöhlken (“to hollow out”).
Verb
holk (third-person singular simple present holks, present participle holking, simple past and past participle holked)
    (transitive, UK dialectal) To dig out; make hollow; hollow out.
    (transitive, UK dialectal) To dig; dig into; pierce; penetrate; investigate; poke.
    (transitive, UK dialectal) To dig up; excavate.
To holk is to hollow, thus folk is to follow. As one book tells, each wizard originates his own nation.

I was looking for abcd sequence in the east, but what about acdb sequence in the west?
Because I think I just found one:

On one line, 52 weeks of 7 days were laid out using 52 repetitions of the first seven runes of the Younger Futhark. The runes corresponding to each weekday varied from year to year.

On another line, many of the days were marked with one of 19 symbols representing the 19 Golden numbers, for the years of the Metonic cycle. In early calendars, each of the 19 years in the cycle was represented by a rune; the first 16 were the 16 runes of the Younger Futhark, plus three special runes improvised for the remaining three years. The new moon would fall on that day during that year of the cycle. For example, in the 18th year of the cycle, the new moons would fall on all the dates marked with tvimadur, the symbol for year 18. Later calendars used Pentadic numerals for the values 1–19.
Arabic     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9     10     11     12     13     14     15     16     17     18     19
Golden Numbers     ᚠ     ᚢ     ᚦ     ᚬ     ᚱ     ᚴ     ᚼ     ᚾ     ᛁ     ᛅ     ᛋ     ᛏ     ᛒ     ᛚ     ᛘ     ᛦ     ᛮ     ᛯ     ᛰ

Because this system needed 19 runes to represent the 19 golden numbers which stood for the 19 years of the perpetual calendar's cycle, the Younger Futhark was insufficient, having only 16 characters. The solution devised was to add three special runes to represent the remaining numbers: (arlaug; Golden Number 17), (tvimadur or tvímaður; Golden Number 18), and (belgthor; Golden Number 19). In 1636, Ole Worm documented the Younger Futhark numeral system, including these three characters, in his Runir seu Danica literatura antiquissima (Runes: the oldest Danish literature).[1]

ᛮ     ᛯ     ᛰ
(arlaug; Golden Number 17)
(tvimadur or tvímaður; Golden Number 18)
(belgthor; Golden Number 19)
A T B
What is especially interesting, and which actually supports this thought, is ᛯ looking like Ж, for both represent lingual sounds. Ж и Т of tvimadur (tvi for two, madur for mother (others don't end with madur, maður is мужчина in icelanding (человек is Mannlegur) like what is that? A patriarchal takeover maybe? When legends of women were told as if they were men?))
Then ᛰ for Belgthor and
ᛮ looks like a brunch (with sticks growing from it like this) but also as primitive sword, and branches probably were the first swords. Or bones. And bones. But they show a branch of a tree, first because they're more acessible, literally growing on trees they are.
Trees grow on t
Деньги растут на деревьях, они называются ветки. но чаще яблоки.
ᛮ looks like ᛆᛚ binderune (runes sharing the stav. why wouldn't they, if they can go without it.
But then why short-twin.. short-twig.. no, an even shorter form of them. staveless runes:
Staveless runes were the climax of the simplification process in the evolution of runic alphabets that had started when the Elder Futhark was superseded by the Younger Futhark.[1] In order to create the staveless runes, vertical marks (or staves) were dropped from individual letters (or runes). The name "staveless" is not entirely accurate, since the i rune consists of a whole stave and the f, þ, k and the s runes consist of shortened main staves.[1]

That is a bad comparison, for m is ᛘ and ʀ is ᛦ
f as long h is supercool, because f is of h in japanese.
and yet the shape, f, looking like ſ the s may tell that s is of h too. or is h of s? The same letter there were, they're both of that letter.

ɹ and ɺ expose L and l upside down r
But then phonetic forms of r ([r][ɾ][ɹ][ɻ][ɺ][ʀ][ʁ][ɽ]) tell that upside and downside they're the same letter
ɾ is to ſ as ɹ is to ɺ
                            And doesn't it
ɾ and ſ (r and s) look like upside down J

A B C D E F G H I J K L M
                                                 N (how did N and not M is the middle letter?
& Z Y X W V U T S R Q P O

A B C D E F G H I L
                                M        :M (is the middle letter in italian)
Z V U T S R Q P O N

I like C as rotated U better than G as rotated U, yet both are cool.
Italian version of B opposing V I like more than B opposite to Z.
D as a form of T, E and S are the same letter in different languages: student is etudent. F and R remind me of russian R the Р and about ᚱ reminding П (but this part is still a mistery to me)
G reflects Q the way D reflects T (which raises question if V [f] only in german, and if german matters more being closer to runes)
H reflects P the way p is of h in japanese.
L and N are as close as can be. only L and R would be more cool, but then N is n and П is n (cursive п looks exactly like cursive n) and then it links it to R via russian R looking like P, russian P being П, and the whole ᚱ thing comes at play again. So AZ is I? But isn't it russian word? It's just a word. Russians sorta remember it (also as an archaism, it can emerge in any other language, I don't know most of them)

A B C D E F G H I L
                                  M
Z V U T S R Q P O N

But A opposite to Z
and U opposite to C may tell something else.
E is opposite to S, so far they're too close C, S, Z, all three can be read as S.
I reflects O, as if Az Io was the message.

another mystery? the same old mistery. mystery (загадка мучает?)

But in italian we lost what we constructed (rather consturc constructed more than found) ij opposite to rſ (but in reverse they're teh other way around. which is alright if they're a quadrant.
i      j being read is jr. is junior? is ir? ir like be in latin.. or did I mixed erat (was) and est (is) r~s, see!

зри!

ſ r

he is, you see. As the semantic reversal, we see wgat what us, is.
we and you are also such reversal. So is was and saw (this time it's even spelled the same)

About S and T being сиська и титька, I thought S was ass. C is tit. So, S and T are aSs and tiTties
Don't ass remind titties? No wonder C reminds S.

Я сверхбудда: Будда первым осознал проблему (вернее, сделал её наиболее ярко из современников, так подал что все прозрели (кто неподалёку оказался)) но его решение по сути тотальный суицид. Я нашёл решение получше. Я согласен, что страдания делают жизнь менее привлекательной, но есть решение получше: сохранить жизнь, нейтрализовав страдания: большая их часть физической природы, а потому начнём там: поместим человека в амниотическую жидкость, предотвращающую ушибы, ожоги, порезы, прочие "прелести" этого мира. Психологические проблемы решать уже умеют (трава отличный медикамент)
Т.о. это новое знание даёт чистому буддизму оттенок сатанизма: будда предлагает всех убить, видит Брахму-Вишну демиургом, что объясняет распространённость Шиваизма, но это сатанизм чистой воды, даже просто с христианской позиции (но для этих все кто не про Иисуса дьяволы) и я тоже во много с христианских позиций сужу, будучми знаком со всеми книжками.

Is I reduced me? m can be swallowed, as in ..not russian, in russian -i is you.. hebrew

Итак, нация I в русском и иврите сказано что Ивреи, Иудеи (и это где р и д встречаются снова)
(речь там шла о русском суффиксе и в словах типа возьми, и о еврейском шели, моё)

но глагольным суффиксом i в иврите похоже не является.
upd: является.

אני הולך לשם (I go there)
אני אלך לשם (I will go there)
א for future, which maybe exposes it as the last symbol, the Я.
הו (the alphabetic sequence) for present

But the past doesn't play along:
הלכתי לשם (I went there, I've gone there)
נסעתי לשם (I was going there)
באתי לשם (I came there)
אני באתי לשם (I was coming there)
הלכתי לשם (I've gone there; the same as the first line)
הגעתי לשם (I've come there)

הלכתי имеет тот самый глагольный суффикс.
И все остальные слова? Нет, это суффикс пр

הלכתי (I went)
הלכת (You went)
לָלֶכֶת! (Go! буквально "идти", и инфинитив вполне себе императив и в русском)
הלך (He went)

ти = я
эт = ты
(третье лицо без суффикса)
Словно сдвинуты местоимения на одну позицию. Ти оно же ты (и это украинское ы) что делает единство белых закреплённым в суффиксе me/мы. Говорит, что Ты это те же И? Но это И закрепляет единство евреев с англичанами (не потому ли америкосы обрезаны?)

Может быть תי редуцированным אֲנִי
Потому что ת очень даже может быть редуцированным אַתָה

אני и Ik оба могли произойти от а̃ (глубинная гласная, семантика фонетически обусленная)

(но при этом не ономатопоэйя)

убираться, а не прибираться (and this typo I nt note noticed, how many of them are up there and down
прибираться, а не убираться (убирайся означает уходи, выбрасывай может тоже, но и умри)

умирай ~ убирай(ся)
ми = me?
би = be?
y = out, away, the same w as in вон.

Ʌ
L    r
V

did Ʌ and V made us read like this and not vertically like chinese did.
L and г make sense when they're read in column, after rotating this text 90° clockwise.
that would make Ʌ turn C
(and is it why ג looks like λ. because λ is for λошадь. ג is for ..horse is סוּס [sus] in hebrew, bothe could be C, but I dunno. С is russian S!
Left is Levy in russian, but right is PRavy, so PR is probably a claster similar to Ѹ.
For V to work the same it would be Ɔ
and it makes perfect sense:
Hebrew has only one line after N, and it combines O and U lines.
So V the U is Ɔ
And in the form of horse shoes, Ɔ looks happier,

Watching into my own earlier albums, I notice Gegescheine Gegenschein
Gegenschein (/ˈɡeɪɡənˌʃaɪn/; German: [ˈɡeːɡn̩ˌʃaɪn]; lit. 'counter-shine') or counterglow is a faintly bright spot in the night sky centered at the antisolar point. The backscatter of sunlight by interplanetary dust causes this optical phenomenon, being a zodiacal light and part of its zodiacal light band.

This “fish-eye” photograph of the entire sky includes two bands of light. The brighter light of our home galaxy, the Milky Way, dominates the upper left half of this image. The much fainter light known as the zodiacal band arcs through the sky in the lower right half of the image. The yellow arrow marks the region known as the gegenschein, where the zodiacal band brightens near the anti-Sun (the point opposite the Sun). Jupiter appears on the zodiacal band, below the center of this image from April 8, 2016. The dishes along the horizon are part of the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile’s Atacama Desert. (Image credit: ESO/Petr Horálek)
It is band and not spot because sun rotates around that band, and light travels with a finite speed, so different distances deliver different angles, I guess, different positions of the sun they reflect. They all reflect them all the way, the same point has all the layers of reflecting surfaces. But then that is weird that it's so. Maybe it's something else? Maybe their explanation isn't right? That's always a possibility, but so far it's the best I know of.
They noticed that it's moving with the sun, so why doubt their explanation? How can it be that dust? That's not some million years away dust, it's the dust all around. In other ways, the atmosphere. Now that's a better explanation. Some border of layers of different spheres (if such thing exists) may be the mirror as water can be. Water vapour reflects sun from ..wait, wouldn't it be happening closer to horizon? Sun is seen from so far that Earth doesn't close it. How far is it? Minutes maybe, well, nah, 8 minutes 20 seconds are told for Sunlight (wasn't sunlight the egyptian deity another abstract concept, deified by ignorant masses?) to reach the Earth. But considering their sizes, few more minutes away and earth cannot block the sunlight. So, indeed, minutes. But why this particular band and not all around? I wonder who could tell us that. But then in a mirror dome sun would be reflected in one spot somewhere? at the opposite spot? Probably wherever you look into such dome, you see all around you, so the Sun in one spot, as if its reflection from other spots are neutered by the reflection of the opposite state of affairs. And in comparison they would be black, in comparison to the direct reflection of the sun.
Why would I sperak of that?

Г is Геребец?
Л is Лoшадь, very nice. Λ (legs for all the letter. λ looks more like horse, it looks like ♘

and, surprisingly, yet very pleasantly, the sound of hooves' clatter is very L
and another word for such clatter is.. click!
which that form of L is.

Будда is a very alphabetic word.
Budapest is even more alphabetic. It seems I have to explore hungarian. Rovas are rad.
I know how they say the name was made, yet it's even more interesting how it was separated by the voiced and voiceless halves. The legends of those names are yet to be found.

Down ~ under
above ~ up up? ab is up alright, but if ove is also up, then love is "low up" ~ "вверх тормашками"?

Бълда - оказывается, сказка о попе и о работнике его Балде отражает реальное имя. И вряд ли оно было оскорбительным: это тюркизм, и означает топор. Так что, скорее всего, когда так называли ребенка, подразумевали, что он будет крутым и сильным как оружие, а вот уже потом значение сместилось. Как в случае с "дубиной".

Про Балду от "болта" знала)

bolt, нидерл. bout, нем. Bolzen и др.; предположительно из праиндоевр. *bheld- «бить».
От н.-нем. bolt(e) или нидерл. bout, далее из прагерм. *bultas, от которой в числе прочего произошли: др.-англ. bolt и англ. bolt, др.

в общем, этимология наука не точная, если наука вовсе, но, тем не менее, прикольно.

там ещё такое было:
Упырь Лихой (др.-рус. Оупирь Лихыи) — первый известный древнерусский писец, священник XI века, живший в Новгороде.

The word λошадь, suddenly I felt it as lo-шаг (а лошак ещё больше ло-шаг, словно л цокало до того как лошадь ею назвали)

λ is for lingua? It definitely is, this letter is a sure way to tell "tonuge"
I expected hebrew word for tongue to be a ג-word, but it suprised me: לָשׁוֹן

sounds as similar to lesson, and probably a cognate of lingua and language somehow
or maybe all these words are just related, sharing the l of lamed
(student, תַלמִיד, I was taught that ל is often in words about stydy)
(למִיד is teachable (בַּר לִמוּד is another way to say it))
(למד is learn, לִלמוֹד is to learn)

A I O are the name of god, which now more usually can be found in tetragrammaton wikipage:

Comparing ΙΑΩ to יהוה‎, I can only guess that Ι is י, Α is ה, Ω is וה. Яо.. another reading? Я?
I'm I? misheard as I'n'I? I am I ~ I and I. Is that yao relating yaoi?

I A O is chromatic order
A I O is alphabetic order, maybe chromatic order is right, maybe they can be different orders as melodies place vowels on different positions.
A B G D voiced line
I M N L sonor line
O P Q T voiceless line ..or is it O P K T? O P S T? O P Q R? O P..

something about duality before trinity:
ah, yeah, great thing:
could 𐌱 be the reverse 𐍂?
(that's gothic)
𐌺 and 𐍂 in gothic look even more similar than in latin.
Could they just перепутали их в русском алфавите?
А Б В Г Д
Е Ё Ж З
И Й Р Л М Н
О П К С Т
У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ
Ъ Ы Ь Э Ю Я

And the thought began at seeing Braham Brahma Vishnu Shiva as Б В С
and that just as БВ in russian are of the same protoletter, so it seems,
Брахма и Вишну могли быть единой сущностью в диалектных прочтениях и пониманиях.
Бог и Дьявол обычно же, это проще понять, и Виша и Шива seem to be somewhat reverse.
Так увидел в приходе озарения. Что Вишна это высь, в то время как Шива обратное,
и увидел как сев это съ + въ, что семантически верно
а клёв это тоже въ но кл в слове класть означает къ семантически и лъ звукоподражательно, ложь чистое звукоподражание. Цоканье языком это звук монетки по прилавку, подброс монетки by thumb большим пальцем.
клёв с класть как-то не сильно вяжется. клюй.. клюв.. ключ? ковыряй почему к клюй просится.
да потому что копай!
клюй ~ копай?
коли!
колоть
клевать
выкалывать!
выклёвывать
клёво родственно слову кол, кто бы мог подумать
а охуенно родственно слову хуй, и правда кто бы мог
(но это совпадение, скорей всего)
(но с другой стороны, похоже что не всё так просто)

Back to 𐌱 being the reverse R, for they would be V and Ʌ.
When there are only three letters, could it be that Ʌ is both Ʌ[a] and Λ[l]
(isn't ا being a in arabic and resembling l related to that? I guess it is)
(and that could be one of those things which makes me suspect the ᚦᚴ unity,
that ᚲ looks like staveless ᚦ, but is actually ᚴ (and see stavless ᚦ by ctrlFing twig, it's not ᚲ,
and neither is ᚴ))

Ʌ B C
V R J (J as the opposite of Г? two ways to read C the G?)
U A I
which is why, Y, way, for way is full of choices, the roads cross split all the time.
Thinking of how way and why could be the same word, I came to this:

Was why "which"? Was why the universal wh-word?

I wonder if good and old are both forms of gold.
It's to the context of something other of this kind earlier this book, not sure if this volume or not.

anyway, lags are here again,
vol. 45