All volumes are:
I. Communism Versus Democracy
II. Market, Business, Economy
III. Social Matters And Healthy Life
IV. Sundry Other Things — This
CONTENTS (Of This Volume IV)
00. Short Preface (to the whole collection)
[ Explains why the making of collection was necessary and what it contains (in all cases nothing new, but thematically selected). (2019) ]
01. The pentaism — religion of the future — chapter IV.from "The Communism As Religion (popular study)"
[ This is my first, but not last, invented atheistic religion, that could sometime substitute the communism, providing people will decide in the end to behave reasonably — what they will never do, ha, ha. Yet the idea is pretty interesting, it does not grow old (unlike me). (1998) ]
02. About the Creation and the created — from "Ten Cynical Essays"
[ The material contains the following chapters: I. The Creation, II. The Nature, III. The Organized Matter, IV. The Human Being. (2000) ]
03. About the population — from "Ten Cynical Essays"
[ Here the chapters are: I. The Overpopulation, II. The Optimal Population, III. The Way To The Goal, IV. Life Expectancy. (2000) ]
04. About the future — from "Ten Cynical Essays"
[ With the chapters: I. Past And Present, II. Near Future, III. Distant Future. (2000) ]
05. Constitution of Cynicland — Addendum to "Ten Cynical Essays"
[ Here the chapters are: I. Rights And Obligations Of The Individual, II. Public Reason, III. Elections Of The Parliament And The President, IV. Conclusive Directions. (2000) ]
06. Why the cocks crow early morning? — when nothing is added after the title the piece is from the quite big "Now, Look Here (Publicistics)" book
[ This material proposes some philosophical, etymological, and of other kind, unprofessional observations over the birds. (2012 ) ]
07. Does global warming exist?
[ When I pose in this way the question, then to all appearance I doubt in this. My view, which I will express in this material, is in this, that there is not so much global warming, as is global stirring of the weather. We shall see is it so, in what this is expressed, and what can be done in order to eliminate it, if we want this. (2012) ]
08. Nomen est numen! (to name is to define) — Feuilleton
[ The feuilleton is dedicated to the exclusive significance of the name for the success of prominent political figures; jokes aside, but this really is, and not of small, importance. (2000) ]
09. About the usefulness of cockroaches (scientific feuilleton)
[ This feuilleton is obviously dedicated to the cockroaches; the way of narration is quite popular and of use for everybody. (2012) ]
10. Thoughts about Ukraine
[ This material is dedicated to the long-lasting confrontation of Ukraine and Russia, why this is bad, and what the Ukrainians have first of all to do. The approach is not typical, these are thoughts, based on the understanding of the situation by the author, yet is used also his sufficient experience in similar in many, chiefly economic, aspects Bulgaria. (2014) ]
11. An Illiterate World (idea about worldwide alphabet) — from "Scientific Feast (Propositions, Ideas, Realizations - PIR)"
[ This is serious paper about the necessity in our time, in the time of Internet, of one universal worldwide alphabet, with analysis of multiple languages, with establishing of the major types of sounds but for all languages, with concrete proposition for the needed letters, with examples in four languages, then variation of the keyboard, also with examples, and with small generalizing conclusion. (2003, 2013) ]
12. Reflections About The Numbers (popular etymology and more) — from "Scientific Feast (PIR)"
[ This is a popular booklet (which exists also in one more place) about the names of all digits and more important numbers in different languages, about their graphical images, and about various possible ideas hidden behind their names. The questions are pretty complicated and lost in the gone centuries, it might be that they are somewhere partially explained, but the author has come to them alone. These are things interesting for everybody, they, in principle, are not very difficult, but as far as they require some mathematical knowledge and profound etymological researches, they are practically known to nobody (well, some, say, 2-3 % guess about something, yet surely not about all moments). So that this is serious scientific paper, only popularly written. (2012) ]
13. Myrski's English Transliteration — from "Scientific Feast (PIR)"
[ This material is only in English. It proposes one author's method for transliteration of all English words using only the Latin characters, which idea is later extended for all other languages, where in focus are taken German, Russian, Bulgarian, Italian, and French; there is given example based on a small paragraph in those languages. This idea is very actual and the paper provides an alternative approach to the “Illiterate World”, which is put in PIR on the first place. (2015) ]
14. Fantasy In Ety Mol (on theme of genders and sexes) — from "Scientific Feast (PIR)" (yet might be as separate piece)
[ This is an etymological and educational paper, but written in a frivolous and funny manner, discussing the grammatical genders, some forms related with them, the sexes, the very sexual organs and other similar notions, as well also some philosophical observations about the sexes, interesting ideas which various nations keep in their heads related with the sexes.(2018) ]
15. Idea about new calendar — from "Scientific Feast (PIR)"
[ This is exactly what is said (2012) ]
16. What we want to tell the world?
[ This is quite critical paper, which takes in focus Bulgarian symbols, the spirit of the Bulgarian, and a heap of not rightly understood ideas from our newest history. It is written from the standpoint of a thoughtful person, and because the behaviour of the nations as whole is wide away from the reasonable, then this material may look to some readers as pretty daring and insolent, but many of the judgements exceed the national borders and are applicable also to other nations. (2003) ]
17. About Bulgarian Barbarity (minuses, yet also pluses) — from "Social Essays"
[ This is a thorough, methodical, etymological, philosophical, yet also popular and funny essay or study about especially Bulgarian barbarity, with many examples and comparisons between us and the other countries. It is long, but it is so untraditional, that I think that is worth the efforts to read it; this is very sharp critique of barbarity, but at the same time also tribute to it, because who can predict the intentions of God, even I can't, so that when the Bulgarians exist they have to be created with some purpose. (2018) ]
18. Open Letter To God Almighty (philosophical essay) — from "Social Essays"
[ This is both, philosophical and funny essay about such unprovable things like the existence of God, the Creation, the organized matter, the ad hoc method of creation of what can be created and without global sight at the things, and some other related questions. (2018) ]
19. Bulgarian Lessons — from "For Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus (collection of papers)"
[ This is a try to provide English reading people all around the world with an easy and simple introduction to Bulgarian language. The material contains the following parts: the way how the Slavonic alphabet looks, together with one method to mark in Latin the exact pronunciation, then phonetical explanations coupled with author's ideas about the types of vowels and consonants, after this some simple grammar, without going into much details, and to the end is placed a super-short (which is not really very short) dictionary of Bulgarian words by categories together with their nearest relations with other Western languages (German, English, Latin, Greek, etc, yet also Russian in places as another Slavonic one). (2016) ]
20. Under Bulgarian Banner — from "For Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus"
[ In this paper I stand thoroughly on the previous material with the intention to make one directly crucial for all Arabs, Hindus, etc., proposition that is related with Bulgarian, yet not exactly, banner. Well, it sounds to a great extent utopian, but nevertheless is entirely realizable and leads to a bunch of nice consequences. (2016) ]
21. Down With The English (Language)! — from "For Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus"
[ This paper was written practically anew in English and its contents is obvious — we, all the world, have to cease using this language so widely because it is simply ... vulgar, many grammatical categories are not well qualified, et cetera. More precisely, after some preliminaries, I try to excuse the ancient Englishmen who have made this super-simplified language, then I explain what is so bad with it in comparison with the others European (at least) languages, and in the end I mark out some important places in the language where something has to be done in order to better it, if the people want to do this.(2016) ]
SHORT PREFACE (to the whole collection)
Let me explain briefly why I make this collection of non-fiction and what it contains. Well, I make it because it is so done, usually, because one writes and writes on different themes and in various books and it comes, if comes, time when he (OK, sometimes also she) wants to collect the things by themes, this is as if more proper, and an attitude more directed to the readers. So that after more than a quarter of a century literary work, and especially when I intent to try to sell something as books (or ebooks), I have decided to make four volumes with my materials, papers, parts of books, sometimes even abridged papers, on the following themes:
1. Communism Versus Democracy,
2. Market, Business, Economy,
3. Social Matters And Healthy Life,
4. Sundry Other Things.
These topics, naturally, are not strictly divided, nor ordered in the best manner, but now they exist and this is better than if they were not collected in this form. They are not strictly divided because the topics intersect, but not very much, in this way the materials are better located. The ordering of the things is as if chronological, yet not always, because of some local clustering in some sub-themes, what I find unavoidable. But, mark, that in all cases I publish here nothing new, this is simply a collection! And what will be in these parts I will not explain as redundant, the names are eloquent enough. Probably it is good to say what I have left aside, how much. Well, about 10 percents (in all cases not more than 20), because I have almost nothing that is not actual in the moment, or can not become such later, if the situation changes; I have left aside mainly things, Appendixes, which look more scientific, or too obvious and elementary.
Another reason, why I make this in the beginning of 2019, is that I have stopped with this boring (for me) practice of writhing in one language and then translating in some others, no, this will happen no more, because in 69 years one has to begin to value higher his time and do just the necessary. And, after all, when I have moved from my native Bulgarian language, to my very familiar Russian one, and then to the contemporary standard for a language, the English, intending also to translate something (the beginning 3 books) in German, I have come to the top, I have nowhere else to move. For a pair of years I write everything first in English and now this will be also the last language for most of the things; the possible exception is if I have to publish something in the easiest for me way (like I have not yet published my multilingual dictionary Explain, in Bulgarian, or probably to translate it in Russian), or if writing poetry in different languages, or, then, if I decide to begin to use also my real name (and this only in Bulgarian). Put in other words, here are non-fiction things that are translatable, or which I intend to translate; the poetry, obviously, is untranslatable for me (I don't mean to be like Shakespeare, or Pushkin, or Dante, etc.), for the enormous Urrh is impossible to think about translation, the Letters (to the posterity) is also difficult to translate and I have never had such intentions, the same about not yet published Explain dictionary, the SF-stories (which are not exactly SF things but rather outmoded social SF) are fiction, they have nothing to do with this collection, and whatever new book of non-fiction I will write (like my future “No problems poses problems”) I will write only in English.
So this is, guys and girls, if I were much read I would have adapted to the auditory, but if I am not, I adapt to my easiness and comfort. You try to do something better than this for the people, the word, the posterity, just for free, but I have done what I can. What means that I publish myself on many sites for free, and there I am relatively (for non-fiction) read, and I publish myself for some fee on some sites, and there I am not read (because the people somehow feel that I say right things, that are good and moral and necessary and allowed, and when so then they should not pay, they are used to pay for … silly or harmful or unmoral things, that's what the capitalism teaches us, alas). However it is, I don't think to become a prophet, I am rather an outmoded preacher, or, then, a thinker gone ahead of his time. Or also: those who are silly enough and need some teaching and instructing and explanations, they avoid giving an ear to me because they don't like to think (and this is why they are silly), and those who are clever enough to understand me, they avoid reading this because I say trivial common-sense things, nothing really profound, in order to be read as a must in some scientific area. The only salvation for me, or the way to glory, was to preach silly things that people can easily grasp, but I don't want to come so low, or to delude them with invented fables, but I don't want to lie, I am used to seek the truth, not the lie. And it is too late for me to remodel myself, you take me (how I am), or leave me (to perish by myself, like falling tree-leaves with the coming of winter, ha, ha).
Jan, 2019, Sofia, Barbaria, sorry, Bulgaria.
THE PENTAISM — RELIGION OF THE FUTURE*
[ * This is section 4 of "The Communism As Religion". ]
1. Subject of the pentaism
The pentaism is religion of atheists, in which is overcome the existing in all other religions opposition between the faith and the reason in one natural way — through their inseparable unity! We invite everybody who accepts our doctrines to believe that the reason exists, and, hence, all can be proved by reasonable way, so that the solace, that our believers search, to be situated in the reason, which for its part can establish the need of the faith; or vice versa — in the faith, which can postulate the existence of the reason. According to us the faith and the reason not only don't contradict one with the other, but they complete one another, so that there, where the faith isn't much, the reason comes to help it, and where the reason lacks, there the faith helps! In this sense the pentaism is the most reasonable religion, and the most religious area of study. There are no problems for everybody wishing to join us, either by way of the reason (that our religion is the best one), or by way of the faith (that it is the most reasonable one), or by some dialectical unity of these extremities, or also by some of the other Ways of Knowledge (see further below).
The pentaists believe in cause-effective relations of the things and know that their contemporary position is impossible without the existence of pre-existential past, in which they are one unrealized post-existential future, so as their present existence is one pre-existential past for their post-existential future. The pre-existential past, as well as the post-existential future, are non-material and indestructible! There are no problems if one wishes to contemplate the pre-existential past as some history, as chain of real and material events, but this is only a representation about it, a kind of record of it, but not the very past, which is only a gist or idea without material medium. This is something like memory of the breed, gender, social group, class, intellect, etc., but only as such thing, not being really this! Similarly, our post-existential future is consequence of our present state and our pre-existential past, and is influenced directly by them, but in one non-material way! The post-existential future of everybody originates with the beginning of his present state and exists forever, where after the elapsing of his present existence remains unchangeable in form of pre-existential past for the other generations until there last, either the faith, or the reason, or both. Of course, we may visualize our post-existential future as some actualized genetic information, using which it can be resurrected as our present in the future, but this only as an image or idea of it, not being exactly this. The past is where we come from, and the future is what we live for. There is no future without present state and this without past, because the effect requires its cause not depending on the matter and the way in which it is passed forward, but there is also no past or present without future, because the cause creates its effect. The existence of post-existential future of the individual, however, does not mean that it contains something valuable (its only filling might have been just the indication that there is nothing in it, or the so called "empty set"). One may conceive his pre-existential past, but can't comprehend his post-existential future. The pre-existential past and the post-existential future are just a kind of information.
The pentaists are atheists and believe that there is no god, but they can't prove this! If they could have proved that god exists, then this means that he does not exist, because he wouldn't have been a god if could have been comprehended by beings limited in the time and the space like the humans; and if they could have proved that god does not exists, then their proof would have meant nothing, because he might have been very well hidden, and for this reason they have concluded that he does not exist. If we take that there is a god, this contradicts to nothing, because he may be, as "proved" by humans, also not proved; and if we accept that there is no god, this also does not contradict to anything, because as a god he is not influenced by our conjecture. That is why the pentaists are also believers, believing that god exists, what also can't be proved! In this way it turns out that both assertions become possible! This is up to some extent alike to the known paradox of Bertrand Russel about the barber, which consists in the following: in one village was a barber who shaved each one, who could not shave himself alone; then the question is: the very barber to which of the two categories belongs — to those who can not shave themselves alone and for that reason go to the barber, because shaving himself he must fall in the group of those who go to the barber to be shaved, or else to those who can shave alone, because he, really, shaves himself alone?
As far as there is no god, so it doesn't matter how we shall call him, and that is why the pentaists call him once god, another time — nature, a third time — substance, or laws, forces, et cetera. He is present everywhere in the time and the space, he is unlimitedly dividable, but always appears as whole and undivided (one may imagine him to be like the magnet, but this is just a conception about him, not his whole entity). He is non-material, but governs the whole matter, acting as idea for the matter. God is the whole information about the objects, events, and the links between them, not only statically, but also dynamically in the time. He is objective and non-depending on our present state, pre-existential past, and post-existential future, but influences each of them. He does not need out knowledge or acknowledging of him, or also our prayers, thoughts, reasoning; we are those who need him, or the knowledge of his different aspects. The pentaistic god can't be destroyed, and even if the whole matter will be destroyed god will remain, in order to reconstruct it again and incorporate himself into it!
God is the truth about everything, including also the truth about the lie, which arises when the truth is not present; the whole truth, however, is always absent for us! God is the true knowledge about what is good and what is bad, as well as the knowledge about the knowledge and ignorance; only god knows when and in which way the good becomes bad and v.v., as well as when the knowledge is ignorance and vice versa! God has unlimited number of aspects and it is not in the ability of the whole human kind to comprehend just one of his aspects, which are linked with countless number of relations and exist parallelly in innumerably many Universes. The notion "countless" or "innumerable" here must be understood in sense that even god, who as god can everything, can't enumerate them, because he knows that, whatever algorithm he decides to use, he will need for this purpose unlimited amount of time, which even a god can't allow himself to throw away! Some pentaists, in fact, assert something very daring, namely that god, taking by some quanta of time from all unlimited number of Universes, and visiting them by a special parallel algorithm with unlimited dimension, can, still, enumerate the innumerable, and even more, he has done this once already, and that is why he can easily establish what in innumerable, but they can't prove their statement, and because of this they believe in it.
The five Ways of Knowledge of our god or of our world are the following: the faith, which allows to everybody to accept as true this, what other people have proved by way of the reason, or reached to it via some of the other Ways of Knowledge; the reason, which can from scanty information get or derive new knowledge; the heredity, which fixes and passes to the generations the most important and unchangeable part of information about the nature; the learning, using which can be developed and enhanced our abilities for movement on the other Ways of Knowledge; and the sensitivity, which is the chief way for accepting and reflecting of the environment in our mind. These ways complement and model one another, building mighty palette for more complete picturing of the different aspects of pentaistic god.
2. Worshiping of the pentaism
The temples of pentaists are in form of five-rayed star, in each of the rays of which there is one big pentagonal hall for discussions around the pentagonal table. The central part of the star is left empty and is used most often for different sports events in the open, as also as parking lot for various earth- or air- bound vehicles. Each of the five rays has high tower with spire on the top (toward the middle of the star), on which are posted sculptural images of some of the aspects of the pentaistic god. As far as, however, nobody knows exactly how these aspects look like there is wide area for creative manifestation of the sculptors, and that is why one shall rarely met two equally toped towers. Because of their form these temples are called Pentadoms, and in them, in addition to the mentioned pentagonal halls, are placed also various rooms with different audiovisual and communicative appliances, halls for recreation, selling stands, eating places, such for sporting games and entertainments, etc., which turn these temples in preferred places for relaxation and personal enhancement.
The pentaists have various cultic holidays and carnivals, which are distributed relatively symmetric throughout the year and are related primarily with the number five, the five-rayed star, and the five fingers of the hand. We believe that god has created our Universe in five stages, which are the following: Generation of the idea, Development of the project, Realization the Universe, Monitoring of its functioning, and at the end Evaluation of the drawbacks of realization. These stages are repeated limitless in each of the innumerable Universes, where at the moment we are on the stage of Monitoring, but how long it will continue — only god knows! We are convinced that the human being must work by five days (more precisely, four and a half — because the last finger is smaller than the others) and after this relax a pair of days, because if he works longer he becomes tired, but if he works less he becomes lazy, and that is why we call each sixth day, after the working ones, day for appraisal and laudation of the gone away five, and each day preceding the first of the working ones, day for planning and preparation for the next five. In this way our life consists of many "pentoletkas"**, called so because the days are small and fly very fast.
[ ** Here some explanations are needed for the readers in English. There were the well known five-year plans (they, as a rule, were fulfilled for three or four years, but that is another matter), which were called in Russian pyatiletka-s (or petiletka-s in Bulgarian), where "years" were leti or godi (the last letter must be read differently but you have no equivalent in English, so that let us not bother here with this). On the other hand, letat (with soft 't' at the end, or letya in Bulgarian) is to fly, so that it is naturally to think that the years fly fast. And now, with the days, they, surely, fly even faster (and are also five). ]
In addition to these week-holidays, there are also Days of the Fingers, which are five in the year and are established each year with drawing a lot for the country, where on these days all pentaists are very cheerful and magnificent and carry during the whole day bright red ribbons on their clothing and threads on the corresponding fingers of the left (at least) hand. Twice in an year, in the days of vernal and autumnal equinoxes, there are special Temporal Evenings, when all pentaists, as well as all other wishing, come in mass to our Pentadoms to take the special "temporal pills" (small red pentagonal tablets with specific taste), for which people believe that they help in establishing the link with our post-existent future, refreshing the information for out present state (and, with the help of god, also for our pre-existent past), so that if god decides to stop the stage of Monitoring of our Universe (and when this will happen only he knows) then this information may be used for creating of new realities based on passed away ones, in whichever of the uncountable number of Universes. These tablets refresh the trail left by each one of us in the time, which, though can't disappear at all, is believed that if it will not be renewed at least once in an year becomes unclear as a foggy day, so that the good deeds may look like bad ones, or vice versa, in the eyes of the generations.
Annually are carried out also Carnivals of the Ways of Knowledge, where each year the carnival is dedicated to one of the five Ways, which alternate one another. These carnivals continue five days, which for the non-pentaists are working, but during them to the pentaists is forbidden whatever work with commercial purposes (if the work can't be put aside then it can be done but they are not allowed to take whatever payment for it), so that the pentaists can only amuse themselves and sustain their spirit (and body), in order to work afterward more effective for the post-existential future of their country. Together with these holidays there are also Days of the Martyrs of Knowledge, which are related with one or another pentaist, or with one of the ancient communists, having given the start of our religion, which for centuries were pursued by the wealthy ones of this world, who wished that all knowledge (as also the benefits reached with its help) be used solely by them, and to the others give just the "crumbs", so much as to have enough to vegetate somehow, but not be in position to leave substantial trail in the post-existential future of humanity. These saints are canonized for long time and adding of new ones to them (or excluding of old) is allowed only on Pan-universal Assemblies, held once in 50 years, though each year are announced also five extraordinary Sacred Holidays, related with shortly died contemporary pentaists or with full anniversaries of prominent present-day persons.
Inasmuch as the pentaistic god does not need acceptance and devotion from the part of the believers this religion is the most tolerant of all existing. It does not compel anybody to anything, it just gives: faith, reason, and confidence to everybody, for to conclude quietly left him on this world time, before he transforms into pure information. The cultic workers are tolerant with the laics, because they know that everybody has his right to make his own errors, and the more you convince somebody that he errs behaving so and not otherwise, the more steadily and convinced he continues to make this, so that less errors of all are made when everyone makes only his own errors, not being provoked by the others. The common people, for their part, also are tolerant to the pentaists, because the more confined is a given person the more difficulties he has to grasp the unity of contradictions, and that is why he thinks that the pentaists are a bit silly, and, hence, fit to be pitied. In this way each one is glad and happy!
The pentaism does not pretend to take part in the governing of the country and exactly because of this various ruling positions are taken, as a rule, by pentaists! This follows from the fact that everybody believes in the existence of the nature and the reason, and everyone having taken some ruling position wishes to become pentaist (if he is not yet), in order to leave something in the post-existential future. As far as our religion does not require from the believers not to believe in other deities, i.e. allows "double religious persuasion", many politicians prefer to safeguard themselves in this way, without loosing anything.
For the children wishing to become pentaists in the future, as far as for the very young ones (if their parents want this), there are various preparatory stages, which can spare some of the needed for their enrolling recommendations (see further) and make them from an early age part of interesting rituals and exercises. The very small children, after completing of their third year, can be declared for the so called "larvae" (because they are still tiny human beings and have yet to grow and study how to live), what is performed in the Pentadoms during the "Crawling of the Larva", when they must go through a narrow and short (about meter and a half) gutter, after what they receive one long pouch with tasty things, looking like a larva. After flowing out of five "larvae years", or when they have reached eight years, each child can be announced for "pupa", what is one preparatory period for the future pentaist, and, though not compulsory, it is desirable, because in the Pentadoms are many circles and other interesting activities only for such children. This also is performed with special ritual of "Wrapping of the Pupa", because in this age the children can't yet live alone and must just now grow and evolve gathering sense and reason, and be very endurable until they grow enough having sufficiently brains, for to begin alone to "hop" around like the other beings. There are two age-groups of pupae, but the whole number of the passed in them years must be 10 (or also more), after what comes the ritual of "Uncovering of the Pupa", which symbolizes reaching of maturity around 18 years, when these young girls and boys become "non-winged", because, although unsteady, they can go now alone around the world. They must remain so for at least five years, when may apply to become full-right pentaists.
3. Cultic officers
The appearance of the pentaists does not differ from the other citizens and that is why each believer tattoos on the palm of his left hand small red five-rayed star with pentagonal hole in the middle (i.e. empty pentagon with five red triangles on its sides), which symbolizes the five Ways of Knowledge, namely: the faith, the reason, the heredity, the learning, and the sensitivity. This determines also the form of cultic buildings, as much as also the greeting gesture, which is opening of the five fingers of the left hand (or then the right, if the left in hindered by something). The star, already from the ancient religions, symbolizes the light (or the knowledge, what is one of the entities of the god), and the red colour (which also from very old times was taken for the most beautiful, because the last word in Russian is krasiviy, but this comes from the red colour, which is krasniy) is traditional from the time of the communists, who have used similar symbols, but have acknowledged only two ways of knowledge: this of the delusion (or faith), and that of the compulsion.
The pentaists have simplified hierarchical staircase, which consists of five levels (where the first is the lowest), which are marked symbolically on the palm of the hand, around the five-rayed star, with small stylized "wing" (like the "chick" with which are marked the performed lines of a list). In formal cases, of course, suchlike and nicer wings are put on prominent places of their clothes. These wings are received by the pentaists as a result of attestation, which is performed after five years and is based on personal account for the activity of the individual, having in mind the post-existential future of the country and pentaism, and judgement of specially chosen bureau of believers of the same rank, in which, however, pentaists with more wings may take part, as councilors and consultants. In this attestation each one can either receive a wing, or not (waiting for the next one after at least one year); in extraordinary cases such wings may be given also posthumously to eminent pentaists of national importance. Ruling posts may be occupied only by three or more "-winged" pentaists, where this is done by decision of corresponding Unions of Equally-winged, which are built on local and national levels.
Admission of new believers is done after achieving of age of 21 years and by recommendations of five pentaists with at least two wings, but participation in the bunches of pupas is counted by two years for one, or the ten years there give on the whole five years, what equals to one recommendation, and each five years in the lines of non-winged also make one recommendation. In this way is routine for each one having reached the age of 23 years to be admitted for pentaist with only three recommendations and to receive his first wing (but he may stay another five years as non-winged and then two recommendations will suffice). The admission of new pentaists is performed yearly on the second day of the Carnival of the Ways of Knowledge and goes on in very festive conditions. On the same day is carried out also the "Crawling of the Larvae", the "Wrapping of the Pupas", and the "Uncovering of the Pupas", but in different wings of the Pentadoms. This, as also the subsequent sporting events and contests in the following days, are very popular entertainments, came in place of various old customs, which are met with common interest and participation from each age-groups and religious beliefs, turning the Carnival into a holiday for the entire population.
In favour of the integral human happiness the pentaists agree with the need of some censure, as long as only god may know what is good and what not, but prominent pentaists with four or five wings, naturally, are asymptotically nearer to the divine truth (though they can't ever reach it) and is normally if they censure or give their benediction for the spreading of some information. This, however, in major cases, does not mean hiding of information, but distributing (or propaganda) of such one that is useful for the people, because in any case someone has to decide what to propagate (inasmuch as the point of view of the business or the common people is not at all always the right one). In a similar way we think that it might be held also some secrecy of information (in addition to the cases when this, anyway, is done in the interest of protection of the state), because some secrecy is needful for to raise the interest to what is hidden!
4. Utopianism, shelter for the weak, and morality of the pentaism
As every other religion the pentaism, too, is unavoidably Utopian in its efforts to change the nature of humans, making them to believe that post-existential future exists, and they have to live in interest of it and not for their present state, where in the future nobody has ever lived (because, if he has lived, then it is his pre-existential past, and if he lives there now so it is his present, but by no means a future). Inasmuch, though, the reason proves the faith, and the faith invokes the reason, so the utopianism of pentaist religion does not prevent it from being reasonable, as also the reason in it does not hinder it to be an utopia! In this sense the pentaism is the exact upper limit of useful reason (or its supremum), as far as also the exact lower limit (or the infinum) of useful faith, containing maximum reason and minimum faith for to be this beneficial to the humanity! By illustrating of this assertion we start out from the human point of view, what has to say that the reason is limited and is placed in the inner area, where the faith (or ignorance) is around and unlimited, so that the intention of everyone must be ho increase the closed area of his knowledge. (From the point of view of god, though, the reason is outside and is unlimited, where the belief is inside and is restricted, because even in a divine system there must be a place for the faith, without which nothing substantial can be created, but as far as this is a dual notion, and by this also unapproachable for the humans, so we remain on our previous position.) This limit exists (because the pentaism exists) and is also the only one, because the faith can't go to the side of reason, no the reason to the side of faith, with exception of the very limit, where they touch one another, and which exactly is the pentaism, and if there exists another religion joining the reason and belief it will be the same (or indistinguishable for the humans)! Since the belief and the reason touch in three-dimensional space, so adding of new dimension might have allowed the existence also of other "reasonably-unreasonable" religions, but it is not in the power of humans to live in n-dimensional space, more so if n equals the infinity, what is a prerogative only of the ubiquitous and indivisible god, what proves that this limit is also the only one, and that is what must have been proved.
The pentaism is the best and most harmless opium for the people, because it does not lead to fixation to it and increasing of the dose (or to loosing of the sense of proportion)! As far as our god is the most abstract possible, each of the believers can easily accept whatever specific image he wishes (taking by this also another religious belief), as can also reject at all the existence of god (what we also permit). If the pentaists does not reject their religion this is not because they are so fixed to the opium, that can't do without, but because they don't wish to restrict the picture of god, or to throw him entirely away; if they visit out temples this is not because somebody forces them to, but because they like to spend their time there, and also our rituals are nice and acceptable not only for preschool children. And as much as our life has no other meaning, except to leave some information in the post-existential future of the humanity, so the folks inevitably come to us, in order to learn how to do this.
Who else, if not we, can explain to them that the human, although being an enough autonomous unit (what, in fact, means the word "individuum" in Latin, which splits in: in + divido, i.e. something not more divisible), still, is not entirely free and not depending on the other beings and the nature, and this, that the humans don't go tied on a tether like the dogs, does not mean that they are not linked genetically, socially, and temporally (via a kind of remote control, so to say) with the community? Who else, apart from us, can do this, when for such conviction does not suffice the whole belief of whatever other religion, nor the all reason of whichever other science, but only their unity obtainable in the pentaism, through the five Ways of the Knowledge? Who else can explain to the commoners, that in order to exist the live (which is one incessant dynamics) must exist also the death (for to avoid the stagnation), and in order to be some purpose in life then the life should have no purpose — exactly for the reason that they should seek incessantly this purpose (because, if there were some purpose, then we should have found it long ago)? The seeming futility of the post-existential future for the individual gives reason to the need for reaching the purpose of life in the framework of community, group, or nature (which is one of the names of god), and the pure purpose or goal is just some information, which, as non-material, is indestructible! Precisely to explain all this exists the pentaism, which is and will be refuge for the weak humans!
When the progress hinders us, then we must hinder it, what is obvious. This, what is not obvious, is when exactly the progress hampers us, something what, generally said, is and will always remain hidden from the people, because they, as finite beings, are restricted primarily in the time, and the evaluation of the events must not be done statically! Out of most common motives, however, for the reason that we are now on the stage of Monitoring, is clear that it is preferable to have more stagnation, than evolvement, or at least to have planned and evolutionary development, and in this sense we are against the unplanned progress. As far as each individual is only part of the society and his individual post-existential future is only part of the common post-existential future of the humanity it follows that his development must be subdued to the development of the community and not vice versa, though the reverted statement is also true, because the development of the society can not be done without complete development of the personality, and if one thing contradicts to the other then it is taken on faith that there is no contradiction, or is proved by reasonable way that contradiction must exist (what, according to the pentaism, carries the same meaning)! One of the permanent themes for discussions in the pentagonal halls of the Pentadoms is whether some development is good or bad, as much as also whether more freedoms in some direction are more preferable than otherwise (because the more are the freedoms for the individual, the less are those for the society, and vice versa).
The main goal of our present existence is the incessant enhancement of the integral happiness of the community, if this does not hinder the happiness of personality in its post-existential future! With a look at the latter are possible periods of restricting of happiness in the current moment, what is a matter of profound estimation and discussions. Our symbols are directed exactly to the happiness, and the five-rayed star symbolizes the five Ways of the Knowledge, so as also the five fingers of the palm symbolize the human hand, which alone can turn the idea into reality. All five ways are equally suitable and it doesn't matter by which of them the happiness will be reached, so that some individuals may use the belief, others the sensitivity, third the reason, and so on. More than this, the pentaism isn't religion for the chosen by some class, racial, proprietary, sexual, intellectual, or other features, and the gates of our Pentadoms are always opened for everyone wishing to join our lines, so that the happiness by us is free and accessible for all! The existence of post-existential future moves us forward in the time, where from the happiness of the individual must be estimated, and the informational character of this future convinces us in the links with other elements of the society (as also of the nature, via the existence of god), for which this information is intended. This union of believers in the time and the space proves logically the morality of pentaism, but it can be accepted also without proofs, by the way of faith, or may be reached via the studying, too. Only by moral ways one can come near to the divine truth (without, of course, to be capable to touch it) and only the morale may justify the existence of a religion. All religions have led to the arising of pentaism, which has grown out of them so that, without denying them in the common, contains them as idea in itself, as their intersection (mathematically speaking), or as emanation of the moral incorporated in them throughout the centuries human history via the way to the knowledge!
Open your fingers at liberty, choose the preferred for you Way of Knowledge, and join the quintessence of all religions, the most atheistic and contemporary, the freest and most tolerable, the widely spread, anti-dogmatic, reasonably secret and scientifically-utopian, easily accessible for all, and maximally moral religion, offering the best support and opium for all nations in the way to the integral happiness of the humanity!
Become pentaists in order to get the meaning of the meaningless life!
1995 - 1998
ABOUT THE CREATION AND THE CREATED
I. The Creation
The creation of our world states one of the eternal questions, to which the humans have tried to find the answer during all historical times, and which are impossible to be answered until they are properly formulated. The whole mess here comes because of our efforts to get sensible answer to such questions like: who, when, how, and why has created the Universe, where the mere presence of these particles presupposes some kind of answer, which could have satisfied us, and refuses the right answer. When we ask "who", this supposes that such being exists, and when we ask "why" — that the Creation has its reasons. But if there is "nobody", and if no special cause for this exists, and all has happened as a result of some processes? When the question begins with "when" or "how", this is more reasonable, but very difficult to be answered, because we are finite beings, as in the time, so also in the space, and can't comprehend the whole truth about gone away times. Besides, the question "when" means that we expect to be some beginning (and, maybe, also an end), what leads us to the association for "the egg and the hen", but in one cyclical process is meaningless to ask ourselves where is its beginning, and the only thing that we can do then is to choose some starting point, according to which to orient the time axis. Then the answer to the question "how" may be reduced to description of some regularities of the process, what might have been of importance for us if the Creation is not a single act but process continuing forever in the time, while by the single Creation (according to the Christianity) this should have only, as is said, "academical" meaning. So that instead of falling in such logical traps we shall start from the reality as end goal and will ask ourselves, which characteristics it has and what we may get as cause for these characteristics, i.e. will move deductively discovering the basic rules of our world, which produce the observed in it phenomena. This is more correct setting of the things, which avoids the above mentioned questions as meaningless, but may give satisfying explanation of the reality. Nobody hinders us, however, to suppose that there is Somebody, who has made all this, if it is more comfortable for us so, wherein we shall try at least to make the things more interesting.
And now, imagine one omnipotent Being, living forever in the time and encompassing the whole space, Who just wonders what to do in order to spend more interesting His unending life. In other words, imagine that our "dear God" is engaged with the difficult task to invent something interesting for Himself, having in mind that nothing usual would have satisfied Him, for He will always succeed to foresee it, but at the same time He has all the time in His disposition and does not know how to use it! What remains then to our God unless to invent some game, which will never bore Him? This is not a trivial task even for a God, because this "thing" that He has to create must exist forever and change itself forever, but so that even He alone to be not in position to know exactly what will happen in the given time and the given place! Our Being has unlimited time (so that the difficulty of the project can't create any problems for Him), as well also materials for the creation of the "thing" (because He has at His disposition all possible, and even impossible, resources, needed for the creation of it), and also the possibility to inspire divine rules in it (which are to determine the interaction between the resources). Well then, let Him begin the work!
For the elaboration of actual project God must establish which resources from the unlimited number, that are at His disposal, to use, and also how to put them into effect. If He puts only by one resource in an established time and place in the space then this resource will dissipate around after some time and everything will stop or die (and if it does not dissipate at all then everything will be permanent, i.e. dead), and for such game He, surely, will not be game because if is very shallow, and He could always have imagined it in His vision. Hence, He must use simultaneously several resources, which must interact with each other, though also not so elementary that one of them just devours the others, but to exist incessant dynamics, where from one resource is going to another (then to some other, and so on), but sooner or later the situation to be able to return to some of the former states — what means that there must be some cyclical interaction. Now, this will enliven the things, but for one God there will be no problems, knowing the initial state, to compute the situation in each of the next moments, and this makes the game not very interesting. So that in addition to the decomposition of resources in mutually interacting cycles He will need one more dimension of the game, different from the temporal and spatial coordinates, and this is the complexity of building of the resources from simpler to more complex. But this is not the end of the postulates, for if the things could have only become more complex, then this also might have been predicted by some God, and, God forbid, everything becomes so complex that there emerges some other God, who will be infinitely complex! In other words, there must be some end of the complicatedness, in a similar way — via a cycle.
Let us repeat, there are needed several elementary resources, which must interact between them so that the system to be in incessant dynamical equilibrium, where by reaching of some critical concentration of some of the resources from them to be possible to build new resources, from the latter — other more complex, and so on, until reaching of some definite rate of complexity for each of the resources, when they must be able to decompose themselves in their simpler components. This time this will be one interesting and dynamical game, but our God, still, could have succeeded to guess what goes on in each moment and in each part of the space, because the things are determined, and then this is not interesting. For one God, Who does not stop before any difficulty, remains the only "goal in life" to invent something undetermined, or arbitrary, so that even He alone not to be able to predict it exactly, but only in outlines. Only such game is worth the trouble to be created!
Till here everything is nice, with the exception of two moments from the point of view of the God about Whom we are speaking. The first one is that if the very God can't guess exactly the state of the "thing" then He isn't really so omnipotent (but there is nothing to do here, because only such solution will be really interesting to be watched during the everlasting time). The second moment is that our God applies, in fact, the only possible solution of the set task, and for this some special "divine providence" is not needed — He acts according to the requirements of the logic. It is true that the details of the operation remain, but with a good plan everybody can elaborate the details, and the plan turns out to be dictated by the stipulations of the task, and whatever other plan would not have satisfied the requirements.
So that our divine hypothesis about the origin of this "thing", which we usually name Universe, is not at all necessary, when this is the only possible ever changing and stable way of functioning of the matter. Nothing hinders us to think that during the endless time preceding our have been tried various methods of interaction and have been shaped different types of matter with their laws, and by the other methods not stable material bodies have disappeared in one or another way and only the stable ones have remained. There is one universal method for creation and it is called trial and error method. This method works always, under the condition that we have in our disposition unlimited time and infinitely many resources! In this situation it is of no importance whether we shall accept that some Being has known in advance what will work and what not, or this has been established after many many attempts in the everlasting time.
More than this, the acceptance of hypothesis for a divine Creation of the world does not at all solve our problem but just shifts it, because then, naturally, arise the questions: who, when, why, and how has created this very God (or gods)! If the Creation has a beginning, then why this eternal Being has chosen exactly this moment for beginning, when He has always known everything and for Him each point in the time should have been equally suitable? If the matter has not existed before God has created it, then out of what is made He alone, as also who has made Him so everlasting and omnipotent? Even the assumptions that the very time and space were created by God, and as such have not existed before Him, helps us only for the questions "when" and "where", but there remains the "why", as also, mainly, "who" has created Him, in which case we are forced to allow the existence of some hierarchy of Gods, what again leaves the question open! And also the theory for divine Creation is necessary only after accepting the hypothesis of God, for to confirm His omnipotence, but it gives us no proofs for His existence, neither explains sufficiently good the real world at the level of our knowledge in current times. It is absolutely redundant and may exist only as one beautiful fable.
II. The Nature
The nature obeys some basic laws which determine its stability. They are well known, though may be formulated in other ways, and we can only remind them to you, evolving them to a better for understanding level.
1. In each area the equilibrium is maintained based on at least two opposite tendencies, which are in incessant struggle between them moving from the one to the other. These opposites are in incessant interaction, but they form something united (what, from some other view point, might be only one of another pair of tendencies). There is just no other way for establishing of dynamical equilibrium (otherwise would have been statical equilibrium)! And without dynamics, i.e. without movement, or, said more generally, without changing, nothing happens in our Universe, only that the processes of change may be so slow that to look as motionless for us (for example: the life of our Sun compared with one human life span). There is of no principal meaning whether the things are two or more — the important thing is to be incessant change, or rather cycle, which is not necessary to be with exactly set constant period. This cycle we may imagine as a circle, or as some closed line (the mathematicians have special term for homomorphism, or maintaining of the form by elastic deformations, by which each closed line is homomorphic with the circle, and, in this sense, indistinguishable from it). In particular, if we turn one circle across and look at it from the side but remaining in the plane of the circle, then it degenerates in line segment, what is analogue of reciprocating movement, so that if one point is moving on a circle then it, looked from the side, will move like a piston. And, of course, it is not needed always to have points, bodies and real spatial circles, if we speak about changing of some tendencies or interactions (say, hot — cold, simple — complex, alive — dead, and so on).
Inasmuch, however, the next return in the same point (or condition) is not exactly the same but differs in some parameter, we may use also the more generalized notion for evolving spiral or snail (if the change happens in the same plane), or for coiled spring or solenoid (if we imagine the change also with another dimension) — in Latin both things are called helix. From these generalizations we can easily return to the cyclical notion, were it by squeezing of the spiral, were it by pressing of the solenoid (or its observing in direction of the axes of the spring). This generalized model is better because our world, how you look at it, is immensely complex and the returning always happens in some slightly different state. Besides, no experiment can repeat in exactly the same time (nobody can cross twice the same river, as the ancient people have said), and we may regard this new dimension precisely as the time axis.
2. Accumulating of big quantities in one place leads to emerging of new qualities of the object in question, or, said in other words: the complex structures are built on the basis of more simpler ones. These, naturally, are only qualitative laws and nowhere is defined exactly what means "big quantities", neither "complex structures", but this is unavoidable, because each exact definition sets some type of restriction! The important thing is the multilayer building of the things in the Universe, and having in mind our (perpetually) restricted knowledge we can not know whether there are limits in our movement, as to the simpler, also to the more complex, so that it is accepted that it is unlimited (but in some cases it may be on the contrary). This hierarchy of complexity is not only manifestation of the organization in the nature (which can be attributed, by wish, to the divine origin of all that exists), but it is also the most important instrument for assistance of the human knowledge, because allows applying of different methods and building of various models of the real world at different levels of inspection! If on a project for a house were pictured all distinct bricks (or grains of sand) it is hardly to believe that some builder would have found his way in it; as also if the human behavior was explained on atomic level, for example, we couldn't have said anything about the functioning of the organism as a whole.
And one more important moment, which is consequence of the previous law: the necessity not only for the simple to go to the complex, but also vice versa — the complex to be in condition to decompose to the simpler in order to close the cycle also in relation of the complexity. The correct view is to observe the complexity as one additional dimension of material world, in which also is established the needed dynamical equilibrium between the creative and destructive forces. It is impossible to exist incessant creation without destruction, as it is impossible to exist life without death! Any negligence of one side leads to inevitable collisions, and as far as the human being finds as his principal task the creation, then the destruction most often happens in chaotic and cruel way. If our creation is only reaction of the unavoidable in the nature destruction then the human approach is, more or less, good, but with the increasing of our abilities, especially in the last centuries, is observed total helplessness worldwide before the destructive side of the pair of tendencies. It is up to us to balance it intelligently.
3. The complex systems are /must_be built simply! At a first sight this is the same about which we just talked, but here we are interested not in the changing of one quality into another, but in the way of escalating of the same quality. And the words "must be" we have added because if this principle is not observed then the things go not rightly, for the reason that the complexity begins to grow like avalanche and the system becomes confused, i.e. it would have got confused if this was artificial system, but in the nature confusion does not occur exactly because the complex is build in a simple way! Good, but what, after all, have we in mind here?
Well, it goes about how are built the rocks, for example, or the trees, or the galaxies, or our muscles, at cetera, at cetera. And they are built in such way that the complex system just copies some simpler system and so on until is reached one simplest variant, which is the lowest level of the going to the new quality. In the example with the rocks then they are built from various boulders, which are built of smaller stones, and so on; the trees consist of branches, which ramify in smaller boughs, and so on till we come to the leaves; the muscles are built from tiny groups of fibers, and also by various fruits we have similar aggregating of the cells or the seeds (by the pomegranate, the fig, the melon, and others), or by the caviar of the fishes, which is enveloped in thin skins, or by the kidney, or by the brain of the mammals, and many more examples; and the same is the situation with the galaxies.
This question has been good enough investigated in the 20th century (not that earlier the people had not have similar ideas) by the modeling of artificial images — coastlines, landscapes, galaxies, trees, etc., and there is the important term called recursion, or also recurrence (what may be also something slightly different if we define it exactly). The tree is typical two-dimensional recursive structure widely used in computer science, but every mathematical expression is also something similar, because on the place of each letter can stay similar expression (here the recurrence by some formulas means expressing of a term of given series with previous terms of the same series). Similar meaning has the notion fractals, or fractal (i.e. partial) structure, what means such bodies (in the general case, but they may be also some curves), which consist of themselves, so to say, i.e. depending on the degree of magnification we can see one or another level of the bodies, where each level is made in one and the same way. In this situation it turns out that, for example, the coastal line can never be exactly measured, because all depends on the "stick" with which we measure, and the more we diminish the measuring unit the longer this line becomes, until we reach the atomic level.
As far as the fractality is new notion we may add also that it is related with a kind of non-integer dimension (!), by which we may have such curve (one-dimensional object) that so turns around the plane that covers it entirely, and then our line has dimension two! Well, on a conceptual level the things can't be explained exactly but similar lines we have, e.g., in the economics when follow the prices of a given product or currency for differently long periods (months, weeks, days). On this example can be seen that nothing hinders the fractals to be also probabilistic or random (the next principle below), neither is restricted the level of their application, where can exist fractal lines of the movement of elementary particles, as also to speak about fractality of whole galaxies. So that the fractality is basic characteristic of the Universe and it allows to easily build complex structures using recursive representation of simpler ones. If we approach algorithmically the question then this recursive algorithm will be simpler than some other one (say, cyclical). But the important thing here is that the fractality of our world is just the only maximally economical decision that does not allow the complexity to become excessively high, and in the same time the very structures can be very complex. What has to say that also from this point of view our "god" has done nothing more than what he was bound to do, if he has wanted to have easy coding of complex structures, for otherwise our world would not have been so stable, i.e. it wouldn't have existed till now.
4. Our world is not entirely determinate, and it can not exist without involving the randomness! This has to say that all our knowledge is limited, not only by the current level of evolution of the sciences, but also by natural laws, which make it not enough defined in each concrete case, but only in more general statistical aspect. In the atomic physics has become necessary to make the assumption that for one material particle we can't know both, its exact position and its velocity (the Heisenberg principle), and if we know the one thing, then we can't find the other one. In the mathematical probability theory is stated something, at a first sight, pretty Jesuitical for the uninitiated reader, namely that the arbitrariness is necessary and the necessity — arbitrary! This, however, is fully justified from the point of view of diversity in the Universe, where exactly this uncertainty allows easy and unpredictable changes, gives one more dimension of the dynamism. At the level of organized matter this is expressed via inaccuracy in copying of the genetic code, as also in various defects of this matter, but similar defects are observed also by the unorganized matter, and if some of them are not entirely indeterminate then it becomes necessary for the arbitrariness to manifest itself at atomic and subatomic level — in the Brownian motion, for example. For this reason in each repetition of some process in the time it has all chances to differ a little from the previous period; we may try to study it as much as possible but the Nature (or God, if this suits you better) has taken measures always to remain something undefined. Without the randomness the things would have been easier for us, but at the same moment also much more boring and identical. The random world gives variety in the concrete case, combined with exact regularities in the general one. Is this good or bad doesn't matter — just this is our world.
Inasmuch, though, as well the randomness so also the inaccurate knowledge have the same effect for us, which reduces to some degree of ignorance, there is not big difference to what we shall attribute this lack of knowledge — it is important to have it in mind in our models and scientific theories. So for example, when we toss a coin we know that there is probability of 1/2 for it to fall on a given side, and if we could have absolutely faultlessly take into account all factors that determine its position, then we maybe could have computed exactly on which side it will fall? Yeah, but we can't do this! And whether we will think, that we can't take all these factors in consideration because our knowledge is still pretty powerless (i.e. we can't know the behaviour of each single atom — and why not also electron? — from the surrounding the coin air in every moment), or will assume that the Brownian motion of the particles of air does not allow us to know exactly which is the place and the velocity (as vector, including the direction of movement) of each single particle, for us this makes practically no difference. Similar is the situation also by the research of the market, by the demography, the heredity, and where else not. However much we expand our knowledge of the general case, the particular case will always remain for us one "magic", but as far as we are interesting in the results, the causes are not so important.
III. The Organized Matter
The organized matter provides a higher level of complexity, because here are united in one piece various simpler elements (molecules, groups of cells, organs), which have common life goals, and the different elements have some degree of specialization in functioning of the whole organism. There arise at least two different stages of existence, namely: adult organism and seed (i.e. some information about the building and functioning of the developed organism), what gives bigger endurance of the organism (at the stage of the seed), as also more elaborate idea for changing of life with death of the organism. In other words, while the unorganized matter may only grow old and decay, and its new origination depends on other interactions, then the organized matter may reproduce itself. In this way the cycle life — death for a given organism may be directed by the very species, and the reproduction of the species becomes main goal of the organism. Within the boundaries of the known part of the Universe so far is not found other way of existence of organized matter (because there was not discovered another such matter) except based on long organic molecules, where to be coded the genetic code, but this does not mean that there can't exist organization on some other basis. The computer viruses, for example, have the fundamental property for reproduction, which is written on non-organic material medium, and they are example for non-material "organism" that can exist in a medium of elementary memory cells (regardless of their basis). It isn't insuperable problem the creation of mechanical devices which can reproduce itself (together with the reproductive unit), where in this way the stage of the seed may become unnecessary, so that it is not excluded in near future to become witnesses also of artificial life.
The organized matter on Earth includes the plants and the animals, but we will discuss mainly some common characteristics of the animals, so that saying "life" we shall understand specifically the animals, though some of the mentioned below laws exist in certain (embryonic) form also by the plants. So far as in this review we are moving from lower to higher degree of complexity (in order to reach in the next section to the humans), we may also understand higher animals, though this is not obligatory. Here we shall formulate some basic principles, which do not pretend for completeness, but are of big importance because are useful for explanation of various phenomena of life, and which are answered more precisely (and thus more restricted) in the corresponding specialized sciences.
1. The perceptions of the life are characterized with centered modal scale! We shall explain this starting from the ability of life to mirror in some way the real world in itself and to measure quantitative differences in a given parameter, which it uses in forming of its behaviour in various situations. By this reflection the corresponding organs for perception must take into account the above mentioned natural laws and, in particular, by reaching of one of the pair opposite tendencies to be able to go in the contrary tendency but moving in the same direction, for to close the cycle. If we use the analogy with some measuring device, then its scale (we mean analog one) cam be: either some line segment, and in this case when reaching of one of the extreme positions the device ceases (temporarily or permanently) to measure; or else some closed line (circle), in which case when reaching of a given conditional end position we begin new turn on the device from the other end position (which is the same one). The linear scale is imperfect at the ends, and as far as the tendency which we measure can significantly exceed the boundaries of the measuring device (perceptual organ) it becomes often necessary to work exactly at the ends. The cyclical scale, on the other hand, is universal, only that by it the measurement (i.e. the perception, here) may be highly imprecise, in sense to be diametrically opposite, but this is the most often chosen by the Nature decision, because it preserves the device! Such cyclical scale in the mathematics is called modal, by modulus of the highest number (like the days of the week are computed by modulus 7, and all digital counters work by modulus some power of the ten), and if the zero is in the middle of the scale (as it is with the thermometer, only that it's not modal) then it is also centered.
The simplest analogy is to imagine some flexible thermometer that measures from -50oC to +50oC, and which we have bent so in circle, that both end positions are glued (and the device works!). In this situation, when the temperature becomes +51oC we will read -49oC. The examples for this law are very many and vary from the most elementary sensitive perceptions to the most complicated (and inherent only to the humans) feelings, say: by contact to a frozen object with naked hand we feel and experience burns (of different degrees); by too loud noise — deafen; by strong light — go blind; the sweetness, when becomes too much, begins to taste bitter; the love borders with the hatred (this is the most primitive, but also most usual reaction to excessive strengthening of this emotion); the strength — with the weakness, and vice versa; the bravery turns to cowardice, and the latter may turn to the biggest bravery; the laughter often changes to weeping and vice versa (especially by the children, but also by the women); the geniality borders with the stupidity (and sometimes conversely); and so on. But these perceptions don't correspond to the reality, because there is nothing in common between +50o and -50o, for example, neither between the wavelengths of violet and red colours, but we naturally pour out the one thing into the other, as if they are adjacent. These are not paradoxes but rules for our sensitive organs and emotional reactions — if our knowledge comprises also the law of the modal scale of perceptions. So that if someone succeeds, say, to prevent his love from turning to hatred (or at least to jealousy), changing it to indifference (the zero-point of the scale, which is diametrically opposed to the strong love or hatred), then exactly he behaves paradoxically, although reasonably (because the manifestation of reason in the human reactions is only an exception).
2. The reflection in the life is conditional and distorted, where "conditional" here means that the reality is accepted depending on the internal state of the organism, i.e. of its memory, instincts and reflexes, but also on the environment and situation; and "distorted" means that, for one thing, the scale of the perception differs from that of the reflected phenomenon, and, for another thing, the reflection is inaccurate and deformed. In short, the life "measuring devices" are of poor quality and biased, but exactly this is the purpose of life reflection, because it in some extent prepares the taking of decision. By the higher animals exist specialized organs for perception, storing, processing of the information, and acting according with the conditions, which are missing by the lower species, but the higher also use the conditional perception, because it allows more effective usage of the information since in this way it is somewhat processed. The point is that, if some image symbolizes danger, on the basis of previous experience, then the animal is ready to react without much "thinking" and detailed analyses, and if some other situation symbolizes food it prepares for its accepting. In this aspect can exist difference by some artificial intelligence, for example, where we would have put exactly specialized organs, which are first to register the situation and later to analyze it, where by the life these two processes are united (even with the needed answer to the situation); it may be taken that this is one evolutionary forced method of functioning of the higher animals as taken from the lower ones, but for the moment it proves to be more suitable when fast reaction is necessary, and that is why the human beings very often rely on their instincts and reflexes, not on their intellect, which would have given more precise, but also more slowly made decision (see "About the intellect", too). In any case, some conditionality very often is necessary. Approximately the same meaning has the term selective perception of the life, where this, what is not interesting for the organism, is rejected and is accepted only the necessary, to what is reacted. And surely this, that the reflection by the life at present is better then the modeled artificial intelligence does not mean that it will remain so also in the future.
As to the distorted reflection is minded that the majority of sensitive scales are logarithmic (i.e. they measure in "times"), but this is good in order of widening of the range of perceptions (at the expense of the accuracy, which usually is of not big importance). This, what isn't very good, are the different defects of the corresponding sensitive organs, but if the nature has rejected the defects at all then this would have significantly lessened the adaptability of the life, because exactly the various defects are these, that allow for an easy applying of the trial and error method, with the subsequent fixing of the appropriate changes or mutations in the genetic code, so that: every cloud has a silver lining!
3. The reactions of the life are inadequate to the irritants. This is natural consequence of the organization of the matter, for which the Newton's law is not valid. This, however, does not mean that the reactions are unpredictable or random (though this also happens sometimes), but that they are rather reverted, or counteracting so the irritant that it to become: either eliminated, if this is possible; or obediently accepted, if this is unavoidable! More precisely this means that to stronger irritants the corresponding reaction is weak, and to weaker ones — stronger, where only as an exception is possible adequate reaction to irritant of medium strength! Such is the situation from the most primitive animals and up to the most highest and the humans (what is treated more profoundly in the essay "About the violence"). Here we will permit ourselves only to mention that this inadequate reaction is quite reasonable, from the point of view of the interaction in the nature, but it isn't very reasonable to be massively applied by the humans, when there are more reasonable reactions.
IV. The Human Being
The human being is considered as crown of the Creation, but this statement is prompted by an ordinary egocentrism. If the worm, for example, was able to think then it most probably would have also contemplated itself as the most perfect being, because it lives almost everywhere, and has simplified structure, what means more reliable, and reproduces easily by mere division, and its feeding is not related with special difficulties, and it does not know the killing, and does not suffer from mental illnesses, of drug addiction, or sexual perversions, et cetera. (We must treat, generally said, the lower animals and the plants with certain understanding and gratitude, because they not only are evolutionary precursors of the higher animals, but without them the life of the latter would have been impossible.) This, what can be said about the human being, is that he: belongs to the class of higher mammals, leads gregarious lifestyle, is considered omnivores, characterizes with year-round sexual activity, and has more developed mental abilities (although he doesn't use them so far especially good) than various other animals. Only we, naturally, don't intend to perform here more profound physiological, anatomical, psychological, or whatever other description of the human, but only to stress on some mass delusions due to his unreasonable homocentrism, which are useful to have in mind by everyone. They are the following:
1. The nature is completely indifferent to the human, no matter whether we like this or not! Nobody makes a thing in order to please the human — neither the inanimate matter, nor a plant, nor some other animal. But exactly for this reason almost every human being drives into his head that everything turns around him, and even has devised since deep antiquity some imaginary immaterial gods, who have no other work but just to think about the humans and how to make them better, or how to punish them when they misbehave. From the viewpoint of nature the human being is only a kind of biological matter and there are no reasons to think that even the whole mankind is with something more valuable from whichever of the billions and billions of stars dispersed within the space. Even compared with the size of our globe the human being is not more than a microbe in a bucket of water. This, what we imagine about ourselves, is irrelevant to the life in the Universe; even if we decide to blow up the whole Earth this will show no influence over the cosmic existence. The contrived by us notions about good or evil have nothing in common with the nature, only with us alone, so that it is high time to substitute them with something more environmental, because otherwise the nature will "avenge" for our ignorance as it only suits it (or "her", la natura). It is high time to cease, or at least to restrict, our ambitions to rebuild the world according to our wishes, and to beat the breasts and laugh self-contented when we occasionally succeed in this. The nature is indifferent to us and we are those, who must be interested in it, because it not at all is irrelevant to the human, as far as he lives within it.
2. The human being is not a perfect creation of the nature, at least not in the sense of complete, last, unrivaled! He is not perfect because he does not adapt well to the environment, does not fit into it, but tries to adjust the environment according to himself. It is clear that each animal tries, a little or more, to change the environment preparing for itself at least some lair, or making supplies of food, etc., but only the human being does not balance well his purposes with the maintaining of environment and, for example: destroys more resources than he needs; kills not to feed himself but for the pleasure (or the kick) of it; builds enormous human anthills not because of necessity but because it is easier so and out of unreasonable pride; and so on. Perfect in his way is the lizard, because when it tears the tail then later grows itself a new one, but we can't do so; or the other mammals, who bear in most primitive but natural conditions, while the humans (i.e. the women) have already unlearned this; or the bear, because it sleeps for 3-4 months, when the living conditions are unfavorable for it, but we can't sleep through, say, one economical crisis; or the ants, because they have such social organization to which we can be only envious, or carry loads about ten times heavier than their own weight, build skyscrapers bigger than ours (compared with their size) and this from very nondurable materials or with things at hand; the monkey, which can hang on its own tail and climb the trees, while we, since have come down from them, now never climb again; the squirrel, which although has no wings but can very successfully glide down; the fly, if you want, which is so resistant that nothing can obliterate it, because have existed in the time of dinosaurs and will, most probably, exist after the humans vanish from the surface of the planet; and so on, and so on. In other words, the humans have no particular perfection, except their universality, but this is double-edged sword and it is far from clear whether this is for good or for bad!
For those who might have objected that the humans have achieved great success in society, have created arts and sciences, etc., can be mentioned that almost in every area of human knowledge we are tragically back from the end goals in the given domain, for example: the medicine still largely cuts and substitutes, instead of to heal the ailing organ or to grow it from a pair of cells; the stomatology also has still not invented a method for growing anew the teeth of a person (and when once in life they fall out and new ones grow again, then it must be entirely possible to make this as much times as we want, only that we don't know how); the jurisprudence is a "pail of grief" because has still not found a way for objective justice (as long as a human being takes part in the system of judgement, works for payment and exists direct contact between judge and defendant, there will unavoidably be present the corruption and partiality); the art suffers from lack of objective and timely assessment of its works; the society as a whole still has not established specialization of the individuals from the moment of their birth, while each non-unicellular organism has such one for its cells; the politics is based on mere outwitting between politicians and popular masses, as also on partial meanings, and there can't, still, be found a way for prediction of behaviour of the individuals in various situations, or for developing of some new abilities like telepathy (which, obviously, is possible for some individuals in particular moments), telekinesis and other similar things; there are still not discovered some time waves or other ways for evident presence in other times (at least for monitoring of the past, if by the future might have arisen some paradoxes); there are no initiations for reaching to the secrets of gravity, and without it the space flights remain just a beautiful dream; and so on. And there is no sense to excuse ourselves with this, that the other animals have also not (yet) reached to such heights, because we have already noted that in many concrete areas the animals are more specialized and better suited than the humans. It is true that the mere notion of perfection supposes the inability to reach it (for having reached this stage there is no sense in any further movement ahead), but in this respect we may be absolutely sure, because there is simply no such danger for the human beings.
3. The human being practically lacks free will to act according to his wishes, and even these wishes are wide away from free but dictated by various necessities related with his organization and functioning! Put it otherwise: the human is result of actions of causes unsuspecting the goals, to which they are directed; or the humans only for this reason think that they are free because they are conscious of their wishes but not of the causes, that force them! The freedom, of course, is a relative notion, because in our infinitely interconnected world the freedom of one of its elements is expressed in some restriction of the other one, so that it is a question of equilibrium, especially in individual aspect. But we are not speaking about some abstract freedoms, like: dominance over all the others, or the freedom to choose one's parents, or whether to be born or not, and the meaning of our statement is that in many cases when we think that we are free we just deceive ourselves; or, respectively, we do something best of all when we don't know why we do it! Well, nobody hinders us to fall in self delusion, when we like this so much, and it also helps (and there is even always somebody to spare us the work to delude ourselves alone) but the truth is that our behaviour is, anyhow, programmed, something what, after the contemporary achievements of the genetics, must be obvious. We have some freedoms, especially the freedom to make errors, but even this freedom for errors can be (and it is) programmed, because the errors are manifestation of the randomness of our world. If we use one word from the jargon of computer scientists we can say that the people are a kind of "intelligent terminals", what means that they are end devices which can work in autonomous mode, but are connected in one common network (the network of the society and nature). But surely the other animals are also not much autonomous, if this gives us any comfort.
4. The human being is just another natural experiment, in the process of its incessant evolution, and even this, will it turn our to be successful or not, does not depend much on us alone. Well, we have some right to choose, as for example: to create appropriate artificial life, serving as necessary step to it (and will we by this disappear entirely, or will retain some reasonable population of, say, 50-100 millions of people on the world globe, this isn't essential); or to eradicate the life on Earth, and the latter together with the life, returning it to the condition of primary chaos, and in this way to close the cycle of complication of life (something what, anyway, will happen sooner or later); or to succeed to mutate up to such degree that to become really thinking animals (i.e. first to think and than to act, and this from the point of view of the entire nature, not according to our wishes), i.e. not as we are now — beings capable to think (only that we do this after having spent all unreasonable methods for reaching of the goal); or to flood the galaxy with our expansive and socially primitive civilization, until beings from another galaxies, or primeval natural forces, will be necessary to intervene to moderate us; or some other possibility which is attainable for us. What option we will choose depends on us and the nature, but the bad thing is that even this is of no big importance for the nature (only that this matters for us), because for the nature nothing matters! The nature (or our dear God) makes experiments, for to pass the time, only that all this falls on our backs. But there is nothing to be done here — this is the essence of Creation and we are just one link in it.
And now this is all, that can be said about the Creation and created, if we don't want to enter into great details, because if we begin to look more profound then there will be no end in this. It is better to live our lives, till we can do this, and, if possible, without hindering especially the others and without speeding up the coming of the chaos. In other words, let us leave the game named life to continue according to its rules and not to invent new ones.
ABOUT THE POPULATION
Speaking about the population on our globe there are three moments on which we should dwell, namely: is the population of humans on Earth optimal; what must be the approximate number of people; and how to reach this goal in the easiest way. In addition to this is the related with the thesis question about the average life expectancy. Let us look at them in this order.
I. The Overpopulation
The people on Earth have become too many and this must be obvious now for everybody, because we have broken the existed for millenniums equilibrium with the other animalistic and vegetative species and have begun to hinder ourselves mutually in the everyday activity. In the antiquity one was not forced to care about the environment, because he has not destroyed it, neither even polluted, and has fed himself mainly through hunting and farming, what means that he has fit well in the nature. In the old times when saying "dirty" has been understood something useful and needed, because in order to give birth to something new was necessary for something old to decay and perish as already played his role in the equilibrium of the matters. I have here in mind Bulgarian word "kal" for mud, dirtiness (or also Russian the same kal as ... feces), but it is of Latin origin and is shortened from faeces in plural (faex in singular), what is also Turkish faşkiye (also in jargon use in Bulgaria), but in old Greek from the same root we have καλο (καλον), what means good, well, so that the word faeces (fekalii in Slavonic) must come from something like: tfu /fu (what is your "fie" or "pooh") + "kalo"! (There are similar and piquant relations to be found in your fertilize, what is Latin futuo meaning your, sorry, to f#ck, what is a dirty thing, but also necessary.) Nowadays we use widely the phrase "ecologically pure" products, which, from another point of view, are downright dirty, because they turn to mud (but for the ancient Greeks this was something good), while exactly the ecologically dirty things (glass bottles, plastic cups, metal pieces, etc., which we unwisely throw around) are, in fact, sterile or clean. What has to say that we do not judge like the "dear God", or that we hinder the nature, and therefore also us!
The human civilization, aiming at incessantly bettering of living conditions for the people, willy-nilly, leads us to unavoidable increasing of the number of people. We say "unavoidably" because till now this was not avoided, but this tendency must be broken, for (as we mention in the essay "About the Creation") in the nature we can't move always is one and the same direction, and it has to be some cycle or closing! If we don't succeed alone (with the help of the civilization) to return back in the number of human population, then the nature surely will find some way. We have received till now many warnings (and even bloody), beginning with the epidemics in antiquity (which become possible due to the excessive concentration of big human masses in one place), going through the innumerable wars for conquering of new territories (because the old ones become ever smaller), and coming to the 20th century when we were befallen by the: genocide, holocaust, pollution of the environment, cancer, AIDS, et cetera. But the dangers of epidemics and wars have not at all disappeared in our times, they have only changed their character, or have mutated, yet remain valid.
Two centuries ago in England was published the brochure of Thomas Malthus, known above all with his cardinal conclusions about the difference between the geometric progression, with which people reproduce, and the arithmetic progression, with which the production of food products grows, so that by these circumstances all people on the globe should have been perished to the current date as a swarm of locusts, gnawed to the last millimeter each blade of grass or tiny sprout in their territory. As almost every statement based on extrapolation of some momentary relation, without taking into account the possibility for changing of the tendency (or trend) this also turned out to be erroneous, because thanks to the civilization people learned how to put also in the sphere of production of foodstuffs the geometric progression, as likewise to restrain a little their reproductive abilities using some contraceptives (in the developed countries). But the results, alas, are far from satisfactory, because both, the population continues to grow with furious steps, and we begun to feed mainly on surrogates.
So that we have not at all resolved the problem with the density of population, we have just moved it in other area! It is naive to look at the malthusianism in the direct sense of feeding (as it is naive to believe that Brahma has six extremities, or that Holy Spirit looks like a pigeon, as they pictured Him on the icons), but has to be searched for the meaning of the statement, which we mentioned already in the first sentence of this chapter. Even if we can somehow feed ourselves (because in the seas there are enough seaweeds, in the petrol there are a lot of calories, proteins can be got out of whatnot, and, in general, the technologies are "great thing"), it turned out that now arose the information boom, in the result of which our brain began harder and harder to cope with the requirements of the new time, and reached the ceiling of its intellectual capabilities. And together with this the sciences, especially in the 20th century, offered us a heap of revolutions: with the electricity, with the atomic energy, with the wireless transmitting of information, with the achievements of medicine in mass prolongation of human lifespan, with the computers and computer nets, and so on, but each revolution is worse than moderately fast evolution, isn't it? The people continue to hinder one-another no matter that their "hunting territories" (in figurative meaning, of course, but about what hunting we may speak nowadays?) does not intersect mutually, because intersect their intellectual territories, and now it becomes more and more difficult for them to make career and they wonder, in general, how to live their life and why to live it (especially in the developed countries)!
It can definitely be argued about the question, whether the people today are happier than two centuries ago, when their food was real food, their labour — labour (because of the relation between the effort to produce something and the ready product), their sciences and arts — creative activities (not technologies), their games and sports — personal (not only looking at the others), their nature — nature, and, on the whole, their life was meaningful and interesting, not just to pass the time. So that the question isn't in this, whether we can nourish 100 milliards instead of 10 millions, for example, but in the human happiness and fulfilling life, in the moderate development, allowing to build stereotypes of life in the generations, as also in the equilibrium with the nature, from which we are only a tiny part.
II. The Optimal Population
The optimal human population on Earth must be about 50 millions of people. The first argument is, that this indicates the human history, because according to approximate, and somewhat controversial, calculations the human population on the whole planet in the 2nd-1st millennium before Christ was 50 mln people, and to the beginning of our era it reaches 100 or so millions. These were times when the civilization was in full swing, and the people have had: healthy food, decent attire and homes, some technique, well developed arts, religion, buildings which up to this day arouse our admiration, sciences, ways for organization and managing which we apply also now, decent laws, spectacles for the masses, notions of honour and valour, cult to the sports, and so on. Many things were not accessible to all but only to some of the rulers, yet they have existed. There were also many wars and epidemics, which accompany the civilization to the present day, so that all important social problems were already set! Then this number till around 1800 still does not exceed one milliard, but in the 20th century we definitely have overdone the things jumping for the moment over the 6 milliards. If 50, 100, or even 200 millions are still comparable numbers, then with over the milliard people the "game", as they say, becomes too rough.
If the people in present days lived so disunited as in the times of Roman Empire this, still, could have been tolerated, but there is not a single corner on Earth which is isolated and inaccessible for the world media and the business, where the language barriers (this "curse" which God has sent to the humans, according to the fable about the Babylonian tower), which were intended to divide the people in smaller groups, are also not very limiting, because together with the good translators now exists quite decent, but very fast, computerized translation, and the world languages, in the end, are reduced to 5-6 chief ones. The last touch to the instantaneous world communications added the computer nets, so that the earth globe more and more turns to one state, where the competitive struggle of the people for personal manifestation occurs, and such mastodon country becomes increasingly difficult to manage, and the bloodshed in it — ever greater. One averagely big country (say, like France) has about 50 mln residents, and there, where the countries are bigger, people rarely communicate outside their state or province, and if the countries are smaller (like Bulgaria), then they are usually satellites of one of the bigger, so that the competitive struggle occurs on the (part of the) arena of the "bigger brother". In this way we get the second argument for our optimal number.
Now we shall give third argumentation for this optimum, going out of the goal for maintaining of such number of people, that the population to be able to lead fulfilling life under normal competitiveness between the individuals! Such setting of the things is entirely logical, for the question is not how much people we can feed, but how much we must feed! We will do the calculations in the widely accepted decimal system of counting, only that will use the logarithmic scale, which is not very accurate (but we don't need special accuracy) yet it is very convenient and comprehensive. We shall center the digits around the powers of ten, and will understand one interval from 0.5 to 5 times, multiplied by this power, what means that when we say 10 we will understand everything between 5 and 50, when we say 100 —from 50 to 500, and so on. We will begin with this that one maintains normally up to three circles or ranks of contacts with the surrounding him persons, namely: a) of first rank are those, which include people of the order of 10 to the first degree or about 10 persons — nearest relatives and acquaintances, which everyone knows well, can predict their behavior, and is emotionally related with them; b) second rank or 10 to the second, i.e. hundred people or so (in fact from 50 to 500) — acquaintances, colleagues, and relatives, which one knows by name and physiognomy, works or lives near to them, greets them when he meets them, but can't be said that he knows them well, and does not have special feelings towards them — simply this is the environment in which he lives and tries to express himself or to make career; c) third rank or 10 to the third power (1,000 people) — persons for whom one is heard something or has seen them, but this is almost everything that he knows about them — this includes all known stars in which one is interested (footballers, pop singers, politicians or people from the highlife), as also other casual acquaintances; fourth rank or 10,000 are quite many people to be accessible by a medium-range intellect, so that we should not take them into account. We can name this human phenomenon "rule of the small numbers", where is obvious that the more profound our contacts are the more restricted is the number of people with whom we maintain them.
The next moment is to determine the approximate number of areas of human knowledge and interests, in which we maintain some contacts, but in such manner that these areas will be relatively well balanced, i.e. to have by approximately equal number of people, who can communicate in the given area. The nomenclatures of human professions, as well as the indexes of most large libraries are in the range of several hundreds, and these are all areas of human knowledge. If in some cases one of these areas is detailed in another tens, then such narrow specialization does not change our divisioning, because these subareas are pretty narrow and not well balanced in the range or number of people, who work in them. Similarly exist also very big areas — say of the football fans, which on the globe must amount, maybe, to more than a milliard people, but this is not area in which they communicate in order to compete (such area would have been that of the very football players of national or world class, the participants in which, of course, are several hundreds). In other words, we are interested in such areas, in which the people literally, hinder one another, because this is their "hunting field" and in it they compete with the other "hunters", fight with them, express themselves, or make career.
So that, let us assume for easier calculations (because when the information is fuzzy it is proper at least to simplify our calculations) that the areas of human knowledge are thousand, as also the number of people who compete in them is also thousand. In this way we exceed the ceiling of the second rank contacts, as also take one enhanced nomenclature of basic professions. So we get a number of the order of million people. Taking into account, though, that we have understood (although not stressed on this before) such areas in which people create, not only perform necessary for the society activities (like producing of goods, services, healthcare, education, maintaining of order, etc.), we must supplement the society with the "other" people. Usually with creative activities in one society are occupied about 3 to 5% of the people, but in order to be save let us accept that in the future their number may reach even 10% (or1/10 of the population). This will say that we have to multiply the obtained million by 10 and so this gives that the optimal number of people reached 10 millions. Inasmuch as our calculations are with accuracy of order let us take this number for lower limit, what gives that the optimal population on the globe must be between 10 and 100 mln, or, if we want to take some middle point, then these are again 50 million people.
III. The Way To The Goal
The easiest way for reaching of this goal is slight decrease in the population growth, until it becomes slightly negative. Let us accept that the population begins to decrease each year only by a single percent (something that is reality in many developed countries, only not steady for a long time), and then for each year we must multiply 0.99 by itself in order to receive the final coefficient (as compound interest) by which to multiply the initial population; or if we have scientific calculator then to calculate 0.99^n, for n years, and then to multiply by the initial number. In this case, if we start on reaching of 10 milliards inhabitants (for it is hardly probable that the humanity will engage itself seriously with this task before it begins literally to suffocate due to overpopulation), then after 28 years (after a while you will grasp why exactly so much) we will descend to 7.55 mlrd, after twice so much or 56 years — to 5.7 mlrd, after 112 years — to 3.25 mlrd, after 224 — to 1 mlrd, and so after about 5 centuries (more precisely 530 years) we shall reach the desired 50 millions!
On the other hand, one generation in Ancient Rome was about 20 years, but with the aging of population and the prolongation of time for education, this period increases, where now the average length turns to be 28 years (and that is why we have chosen so many years just before). Then in accordance with the above numbers it comes out that for one generation, or 28 years, we will have a coefficient of diminishing of the population equal to 0.755 (i.e. 0.99^28 = 0.75472). This coefficient of changing of the number of population for one generation is called reproduction rate, and if it must be such then let us ask ourselves: how many children we should have in one family, in order to get it? Without the help of statistics it is not easy to answer the question, because there is child mortality, infertility, etc., but according to some statistical data for Russia it turns out that for to have reproduction rate equal to 1.0 (i.e. the population to remain the same) is necessary to have on hundred marriages 265 children. In this way we have a task from the school course, which is solved using the simple rule of three, namely: to 2.65 corresponds 1, to how many will correspond 0.755? The answer is exactly 2 (with precision to the third position after the decimal point), which is interpreted in this way: if in each family will be born on the average exactly two children, then this will give (if the mortality rate and the infertility remain the same) an effective reproduction rate of 0.755, or decreasing with 25% of the population for one generation, which if it were with average duration of 25 years (instead of 28, but let us not formalize so much, because the situation, anyway, is very fuzzy), would have given this one per cent yearly decreasing of the population (or more precisely 0.98999^28 = 0.7545), with which we began our calculations (i.e. we could have started from the two children per family).
As you see, nothing drastic or revolutionary is required, just a bit common sense and organization in the whole society (including, and especially, in the third world), for to maintain on the average by two live-born children per family (or by one per parent, for the notion family began by the by to lose its meaning in the contemporary society), which will give each year negative growth of one per cent and after about two centuries will put us before the milliard, when the question can again be taken in focus. If the same tendency will continue, then after five centuries we will live in one worldwide state with about hundred million population, as it was in the times of heyday of the Roman Empire. The whole point is this, what so and so happens in the developed countries, to begin to happen everywhere! Could the civilization not succeed to reach this optimum, then it will ... again reach it, only by some cruel and uncivilized way, because, seriously looking, one decrease of the population to five pеr mil (or 200 times) is not at all a joke and the genocide compared with this goal stays far behind. As far as in these calculations the terms are not small, it is possible that more decisive measures may become necessary, which are to give an yearly decrease of 2-3%, in order to come down the milliard even in the 21st century.
IV. Life Expectancy
The optimal lifespan for the people must be two and a half generations, or in wider limits — from two to three generations! The proper approach requires to measure the expectancy of life exactly in generations, not in years, because the years are something floating and unstable (as Bulgarian currency in the first years of transition to democracy, for example). In ancient Rome, when the people have lived on the average by 40-45 years, the women have begun to give birth already in age of 13-14, and that is why one generation was there about 20 years, and was ensured the minimum of two generations; today one generation continues for 25 years (rather 28, as we have said it), but by an average continuation of life between 70 and 80 years in different countries it already comes very near to the figure of three generations, though in all cases does not exceed it. One generation means that one can have children, but will not live until they in turn begin to have children, for two generations he/she will see also grandchildren, and for three — grand-grandchildren. As in the antiquity, so also in current days, many people live to see their grandchildren, but there are wide away from many those, who can take pleasure with their great grandchildren.
Being now familiar with the notion of ranks of acquaintances we can have one more confirmation for the truthfulness of the ten or so closest relatives under such continuation of life. If each family has by two children (and now they are nearer to three), then after two generations there will be four grandchildren, and after three — eight. If we sum all descendant direct heirs and add also brother or sister and husband /wife, then their number will be defined by the formula 2n+1, where n is the number of generation, what for two generations gives eight, and for three — 16. For the moment we speak only about downward heirs, but by two children the calculations are the same also for the upward relatives (because the parents, obviously, are two), so that in the beginning and in the end of his life one has the above-given number of direct relatives, and somewhere in the middle it comes out nearly the same (by three generations, one 50 years old man or woman, for example, will have two downward and one upward generations, or: one husband /wife, one brother /sister, two children, four grandchildren, also father and mother, or a total of 10 persons). But these are lower limits, for there are two corrections, namely: firstly, these are only the direct relatives, and there remain also various cousins, aunts, nephews, relatives of the husband /wife, etc., what increases this number nearly twice; and secondly, at the moment the number of children is more than two, so that we have one more increasing. Put in two word: by average life expectancy of two generations the number of direct relatives and acquaintances is 10-15 persons, by three generations — becomes 20-30, and by four — 50-70 people, what already exceeds the limit of the first rank acquaintances.
If we decide to express this in years it is quite real to imagine one average duration of life of one century (and in Russian the word "chelovek", what is a human, according to one vernacular etymology, meant for each chelo-forehead one vek-century), but this under the length of a generation of 35-40 years and on the average two children per family (or one per parent). If we wish to live, say, by 300 years, then we should be satisfied to see our first child only when we exceed the hundred years, for there is no other way! But we can't imagine a society in which the people will live, say, 120-140 years, having by three children, and the average continuation of one generation to be 25 years (what otherwise is entirely justified from physiological point of view), because then the formula for direct relatives will be 3n+1, for n=5, and this gives 729, or much more than a thousand relatives together with the cousins and those of the marriage partner.
This is the proper way to look at the things, not out of positions of the medicine, which, judging by the rates of the 20th century, leave nothing impossible even before the end of the 21st to reach an average lifespan of 120-150 years at least in the developed countries. Then will happen that, together with the efforts for prolongation of human life, we will be forced to search suitable ways for its termination, when it, by one reason or other, is not more so great pleasure and/or hinders the social development. When some home appliance wears enough, were it physically, were it morally (becomes obsolescent), we throw it away and change with another one, but the situation with the human beings is similar, if we do not judge partially, so that our society will be forced to free itself from various social prejudices (imposed chiefly by the Christian morality). Here it goes about the so called euthanasia, or painless death. In this regard the contemporary society has returned much back from the customs existed in Ancient Greece, because there everyone has had the moral right alone to decide at what time to leave this world, and when he has found some sufficiently important for him reason (most often severe and incurable disease), he has simply written his testament or has passed it orally, has collected around him his relatives to take leave with them, has drunk up the cup with cicuta or some other poison, and quietly has moved to the "otherworld". The ancient Romans for their part have preferred to cut their veins in a tub with warm water (maybe because of their cult to the water?). But so or otherwise this has been accepted with understanding by everybody and was entirely in the order of things, where nowadays, regardless of the thousands painless ways for taking of the life, similar behaviour is condemned by the people.
The humanity is ready to accept as proper needful to nobody existence, sometimes for many years, of incurably ill, mostly old people, but can't take the responsibility to offer them final deliverance from their sufferings, neither they alone have enough powers to oppose the social norms. The suicide is one of the undeniable rights of the individual, and, besides, the meaning of opposition to it is to prohibit similar acts between the young, who will from that point onward live their lives, not between such, who feel themselves as burden for the others. The necessity for reaching of correct understanding on this question is felt already in the present days, and in the near future may be expected elaboration of special procedures for untimely painless termination of the human life: were it obligatory (by reaching of the "approved" age); were it with some element of hazard (as it happens in reality), when after a given age each one is subjected to some periodic "tests" with possible lethal outcome; were it forbidding the application of powerful medical (rejuvenating) tools after reaching of hundred years, say; or in some other way. The current situation, though, can't be named civilized, and the society will have to find some new (i.e. old) socially beneficial understanding of the question.
The important thing is to understand that the emphasis here is set above all on the psychological relation between people, not on their physical or health condition. The contemporary society suffocates chiefly because of reaching of the ceiling of permissible lifespan of three generations, not because of the very number of people, for when in Japan there are nearly 300 persons on square kilometer, in Bulgaria they are 78, and in USA — about 25, but the problems everywhere are almost the same. The average duration of active career for most of the people is about one generation, because when the new generation comes to the working places it begins then to hinder the old one. But by length of life of three generations is early to send on pension people, who have to live nearly one whole generation, and they alone don't want to leave the work, because all pensioners only wonder what to do for to fill their time and search for some work just not to "die of boredom". The conflict between the generations occurred in 20th century not because 80 years of life are who knows how much for the human organism, but because more than two and a half generations life on the average becomes a bit too much, and three is already the ceiling.
Well, such is the situation: the population on the globe must be so big, how big is one average state, and the lifespan must be two and a half generations. This is the reasonable decision and we have to try to reach it, because if we do not behave reasonable then the nature (or God, if that is how you like it better) will find some way for maintaining of the equilibrium on Earth, like for example: mass infertility, by which will be born very nice and intelligent children, who having grown enough will do their sex much more scientifically than their predecessors from the beginning of our era, but will have no need of contraceptives, for will be able to conceive only in one case to hundred pairs, maybe; or will be changed the ratio of newborn boys to girls from 18 to 17, how it is now, to, say, 21 to 4, what will mean that the boys will be five times more than the girls; or the birth rate will be entirely normal, only that in each next generation the children will have ... by a finger more than their parents, and when the fingers become more than a dozen this will cause serious problems with the pressing of buttons and in this way will hinder the general abundance; or the drug addicts will become about 70% of the population and will declare all the left for abnormal and subjects to compulsory narcotizing; or the percent of suiciders will soon exceed 1/3 of population, and this in the so called productive age; or the marriages between homosexuals will exceed the half of the marriages; and other similar variants.
In any case, will be found some way that will bring the possibility for restricting of competitive individuals to the accessible for the human beings level of contacts of second rank, or to several hundred persons, as also the direct relatives to the level of contacts of first rank, or some tens of people. This is so, because nobody wants to have so much relatives that to be unable to recognize them when meets them, neither to live under such circumstances, where in order to express himself somehow one has to study nearly half a century, for to narrow the field for competition as much as can, and even in this case to have just one chance between tens of thousands, not to draw the top winning ticket, but to find at all some decent place under the Sun.
ABOUT THE FUTURE
I. Past And Present
We can't speak about the future not going out of the past and of its constant trends and unchangeable principles of functioning of the society and the nature, because we must have a good basis in order to extrapolate our judgements. Only this, of course, is not enough, and for that reason as farther we go in the future the more imprecise will become our forecasts, but inasmuch as here we don't go out of some private and biased interests, or, to put it more precisely, the only interest that we have is to continue the life on our old planet, it is worth to make an attempt. So that, let us first take in focus
1. The constant trends in the development of society, starting somewhere in the times of Babylon and up to current days. We will mark four things, namely:
a) Moving above in the scale of human desires and wishes and massification of this movement for wider groups of population. We have in mind the scale of desires with five levels, where on first place stays the providing of daily food, then comes the necessity of shelter, then the continuation of gender (so how God has decreed and people, too, like it — if not the result then at least the very process), then the wish for self-expression and establishing of superiority over the others, and at the end comes the developing and improvement of the individual. This movement, naturally, is ensured firstly for the ruling and later, and partially, for the ruled, where the integral evaluation consists in summing of the levels for each individual (with some weight for every level, maybe), so that higher value can be received, either via enhancing of the levels for some single individuals, or via massification of some not very high level. This total value for a given country, or for the whole planet, incessantly increases, and there are all reasons to believe that it will continue to increase also in the future. The purpose of life for everybody is to climb higher up on this scale, and the same applies also to the society as a whole through the summary evaluation.
The first three levels are these of vital necessity for everybody and they have been satisfied up to certain extent already when the monkey has got down from the tree, as is said, but self-expression, or possibility for making of career, even today, is not guarantied massively around the world, to say nothing about some specific, individual, developing of the person. Here, however, we face one phenomenon, one normally set by the nature restriction (for, what should have we all done having reached the maximum, if could have reached it?), and it turns out that these aspirations apply far not at all to the major part of people (meaning that the aspirations remain, but they can't be realized through the fault of the very individuals) and in such case they, most often, just replace the new quality with greater quantity of the old one (i.e.: food, homes, cars, lovers, etc.)! In such cases these individuals simply don't know what else to want, this makes them unhappy, and, if they are from the ruling class (as they most often are), the society begins to degenerate and disintegrate from the top, and the masses from below enthusiastically help, because their interests are always satisfied worse than of those above them. In this way the civilizations grow and die, because the purpose in life for the rulers becomes lost, when their basic needs are satisfied and is come to the level of personal improvement and development. There is nothing shocking in this, because the civilizations are living systems, and in such case they must die!
Inasmuch as, however, the contemporary civilization is strongly democratized, then we have to observe the interests of the whole nations, as well as to take into account the entire world (because of the mass communications), where the mentioned tendencies of greater and greater satisfying of the daily needs of all become gradually a reality. It may sound paradoxically, but the meaninglessness of life (for the individual) does not contradict to his wish to search for this meaning, and when its finding becomes more and more difficult (due to the general prosperity) the people get confused and the civilization passes away. Our country, Bulgaria, is more "fortunate" in this regard than the highly developed ones, because we still have problems with the feeding, and with the finding of decent home, and with various small things, so that is this way we even help to the world civilization detaining it and moving away the moment of its demise!
b) The gradual liberation of the exploited masses, or the distancing of their "chains", is the next constant tendency in the human society since millenniums. It can safely be stated that the emergence of society begins with the division of labour and creation of conditions for using of one group of people by other such groups, or in the mutual exploitation, taking out of the "ploit"-everything or our souls (see "About the mankind" and "About the justice"), because this is the most effective form of using of human labour. Each society can exist only on the basis of mutual exploitation and is naive to think something else, but those of you who are shocked by this word can change it to "using". In this sense, for example, the marriage is an institution for mutual exploitation of the reproductive organs, and for this reason nowadays, having so many freedoms (caused by the prevision of the end of civilization and the losing of meaning in life), the necessity of continuous and unchanging exploitation of one and the same persons is eliminated and the marriage institution loses its importance.
But the mutual exploitation in the society has been incessantly bettered, and the chains of slaves were gradually changed with invisible binding to the earth as source of benefits, and later, when it turned that they can be pulled out not only from the soil, the tying became economical. In the contemporary capitalistic society the economical chains can't be seen, but they exist, and if they have not existed then the society would have collapsed (as it, up to some extend, also happened under the communist socialism, where the role of capital was very ineffective, and only with speeches and slogans a society can't be welded). The exploitation, out of itself, is neither something good, nor it is bad, and in order to be good it has to correspond to the interests of the society, which for their part must take into account the interests of each individual, so that the whole point is in finding of the most suitable for all form of exploitation! The slavery system was entirely justified in its time (even for the slaves), but it is not good today, when, on the basis of better satisfying of daily needs of the population, is achieved better effectiveness of work under conditions of wider freedoms for the workers, and because of this the "leash", on which they are tied, can be loosened a bit. Generally looking, the denying of something, were it a form of exploitation, habits, or something else, should not mean denying of its expedience in past time (i.e. denying of the past), but only under the new conditions. So that some form of mutual exploitation must exist also in the future, when the capital will cease to play special role, due to the enhancing of living conditions of the masses and the unavoidable socialization of the society (to what we shall come after a while).
c) The next tendency is the constant strengthening of human capabilities and increasing of the domination of the human over the nature. This is obvious tendency, which nobody denies, but let us stress that this domination must always be restricted in better, or more advantageous for the human, fitting in the nature, not necessarily in its changing, which in most cases, judging by the human practice, is performed not so much out of necessity, as just to show our strength (i.e. out of unreasonable human pride), but also because the change of the environment is easier than our adjusting to the environment or changing of ourselves! So to say: when we can't do what we have to do, we at least do what we can.
The increasing of our capabilities is result of our striving to easier way of live (and the natural makings, of course), so that it is often spoken about the bettering of living conditions during the centuries human history, but this improving is consequence of our enhanced abilities. Already when the primitive man has seized the stone in his hand he has begun to increase his abilities, because this was a new weapon for him (and to remind you that in English an arm means both, weapon and forearm) and this tendency continues also today via the machines and appliances, various technological processes, computers, scientific achievements, et cetera. It is clear that our abilities will continue to increase, like for example, to learn to fly, or to transmit thoughts, or to teleport matter in some new way, not via the classical transportation means, or to engender such individuals as we wish, and other similar things. But let it be clear that this increasing of our abilities, at least till now, has changed nothing in our genetic apparatus, where the things remain on the same place for tens of thousands of years, what is necessary, because the evolution of the humans has to be commensurate with the geological evolution of our planet. Possible changes in the hereditary code have all chances to turn more dangerous than the nuclear weapons and cause new mass horrors.
d) The socialization of society, or the movement to wider social justice, is the last tendency on which we shall dwell. Since the dawn of civilization the human being has understood that our world is unjust (at least for each individual) and because of this he has never ceased to try to make it more just (see also "About the justice"). Only in the last pair of centuries, though, we have succeeded to achieve some relatively significant success in this regard, based chiefly on the higher possibilities of the society, but this is wide away from the limit of our desires (and there isn't, in fact, such limit), so that this tendency will continue always. The social justice means, most widely said, some way for reaching of uniting with the interests of the others, understanding that our well-being depends on that of the others, some form not of collectivism, but of properly understood, i.e. reasonable, individualism.
Not only on the stage of crash of present-day capitalism from the last pair of centuries, which we may call also industrial society, if like it more in this way, but at least since Ancient Greece onwards, exists the struggle of the people for building of more just and impartial society, and this struggle becomes especially actual nowadays, due to the enhanced possibilities for its achieving. The good companies on the West long ago take care in different ways for their workers, simply because in this way they can attract the better ones, what is beneficial for them. Similarly, the society as a whole benefits from better social security for this makes the life quieter, and the main thing that one capitalist needs is quietness in the country and possibility for the people to spend their money to buy produced by his company goods, out of what he only wins. So that the shift to the left in the society is unavoidable in the near future, but will we call the next stage in its developing socialism, or postindustrial society, or in some other way — this is not important.
2. The unchangeable principles in functioning of the society are reduced mainly to the following:
a) Fight with the difficulties in life. This principle is put deeply in the very "biological matrix" and the human being, regardless of his permanent striving for easy life, at the same time strives for interesting, what will say difficult, life. If we want to master somehow this verbal contradiction we should have said that one strives for easy life, which will allow him alone to create difficulties, that will make it interesting for him! It is widely known, for example, that the young generation in the recent time has been "spoiled", as the older people use to say, what is unavoidable consequence of the better and easier conditions of life for the young ones, because they, ensured with the daily food and place to live, now just wonder what premature feelings to search, for the wish for self-expression from the early age does not attract everybody, and also their understanding of this expression consists mainly in the wish to possess something given to them ready or easily acquired, but not their personal quality (since this is harder). This explains the drug addiction, the higher criminality (to a great extent), and the high percentage of suicides between the young people (exactly when they have no objective reasons to be dissatisfied with life, because the best part of each life is the youth). These, let us call them temporary, problems, because they have arisen mainly during the 20th century, show that one of the main concerns in the future will be exactly in the creating of difficulties, primarily for the young.
When one takes everything easy and ready he can't be happy, and maybe for that reason in the sexual relations (which are the core of life) feminine individuals incessantly strive (most often unconsciously) to create problems for the men, in order to make their life more interesting and the sexual pleasure — more full (after some efforts for its reaching have been applied), what has found its reflection in the classical phrase cherchez la femme, or "search for the woman", as the root of all miseries. In any case the easy life doesn't lure the people and the hardships toughened the individual, providing possibility for exercising of this undeveloped instinct named "intellect", so that the problem is in the right choice of such hardships which can be overcome.
b) The animal nature of the human is the next unchangeable moment by each civilizations and it shouldn't be thought that we will succeed sometime to get free of it. Twenty centuries after Christ we still find pleasure to kill our brethren (if not in reality, then virtually, looking at it on the video), or at least to do them evils, where the basic element of our happiness is in the unhappiness of the others. More than this, at least during the last two centuries, chiefly due to the unrealized overpopulation of the globe (see "About the population"), the human victims are immeasurably more that those from the previous epochs, when in many cases the people could have easily divide themselves in such who wanted more strong sensations (take this as: blood and lechery), and such who preferred quieter life; earlier there was made difference between front and rear, now it does not exist, neither in war, nor in peace, thanks to the higher criminality and terrorism. We shudder before the death penalty, because everybody's life was (supposedly) very important and inimitable, but we kill ourselves with millions. Whether in the future have to be legalized again the gladiatorial fights (especially having in mind the possibility for transplantation of organs), or has to be fixed some planet for wars (why not Mars?), or to be strengthen even more the escapism (about which we shall speak after a while) with the usage of more total medicaments and virtual audio-visual horrors, or will be found some other method, but the people, it seems, for many centuries ahead will have the need of bloodshed, in order to feel themselves humans?!
c) The next important moment this is the disunity of human society. The people as individuals are much more reliable and functional, than the society on the whole, which still can not come to agreement who by whom has to be commanded and up to what extent have to be subjected one to the other. Even if is some countries exists some primitive level of organization, on the whole planet it is absent, and a pack of wolves, for instance, are more united than all contemporary countries taken together. Our ultimate dreams till the moment are reduced not to harmony and cooperation between the individuals and countries, but to chivalrous conditions for duels, most often on life and death (and with the chivalry only in words). It seems in all probability that at least in the next several centuries (or millenniums?) the situation will remain the same, because the human being also for the very nature is an experiment and nobody knows what is better, so that let us accept for better this, what can take overhand. But then not to fool ourselves thinking that in the society rules some organization, or at least not bigger than among the other herd animals.
d) The last unchangeable thing on which we shell focus is the incessant search by the human of some delusion, the constant escaping of the reality to some imaginary situation, something what has made already the ancient Romans to pronounce the sentence: "Mundus vult decipi!" ("The world wants to be deceived!"). Each good thing has its bad sides (and vice versa), so that our ability for higher nervous activity unavoidably is accompanied by our wish to invent own world in which to live. The delusion can be unconscious, as in most of the cases it is, but with the increasing of our knowledge about the surrounding world the necessity of delusion does not disappear, it only changes its forms. The right of delusion is basic human right and it must not be violated in the future, no matter whether we speak about religion, arts, love, some inebriation, ideology, sports, at cetera.
II. Near Future
After the said in the previous section it is relatively easy to predict (with some degree of reliability) the development of the society in the near pair of centuries, extrapolating the constant trends and retaining the unchangeable principles. It must have been obvious that the world moves to socialism (although in many countries people are afraid of this word), if not for other reasons, then at least because now we can afford it. Whether in the future socialism every in need will receive free the basic food products, medicaments and other services (for example, in special shops, or in special departments for free goods, or via collecting and further distribution of durable products for use as second hand goods, etc.), or he will receive only the needed means to obtain this, what he thinks is most important for him, or via some combination of these methods, is not important. The important thing is that the basic needs (the first three levels of the scale of wishes) will be satisfied for everybody who is not in position, or has no desire, to make career in the moment. Pension, health, legal, etc. insurance will be available for everybody, as well also education according to his personal abilities and/or financial capabilities. Freedom of movement around the entire world and quite accessible communications with every other one will also be ensured, where the linguistic barriers will be overcome using five or six major languages, one of which will be official in the country.
The main form of exploitation and compulsion in the near future will be the capitalistic, or the power of capital. No matter how well one is provided there will always be things that he personally will not be able to own, so that there will be at what to aim and for what to earn money. More than this, after the basic needs will be decently satisfied then one will have nothing else to do except to try to do something for the others, too, where he can agree, say, to work also without payment or for symbolic one, what is now reality for many people from the affluent strata of population in the developed countries. Even amongst the scientific workers, who are not of the most affluent, but also not of the poorest, already today exists wishing to do their work not because of the money but because of the interest in it; this is applied also to many other professions like: medics, teachers, and so on, and up to a certain extent also for other routine activities, due to the fact that one always feels some pleasure of the work done, and when he learns to work he just can't loiter inactive. It is quite real to expect that the working week (if it will remain of seven days and will not turn to, say, sextet of days) to the middle of 21st century will reach four days by six hours, where that one, who could succeed to secure a job at least for three days weekly, will be counted as happy. Pressured by the growing unemployment, for which there are no reasons to expect to sink, on the background of ever increasing capabilities of the technologies, one will begin to crave for to have the possibility to do some useful work, just for the pleasure of it (or for the fun of it, as you say), so that the exploitation will continue also because of the wish of people for self-expression, not only for the payment.
The money, or some form of cashless payment, will continue to rule the economics, because of the easy way for accounting of the demand (if there is a gain, there is a demand), as also to be purpose in life for many people, due to the hidden power and possibility for dominance, which it allows. The money offers an one-dimensional scale for measuring of human values and, no matter that it isn't pretty accurate in many cases, the very idea about this is brilliant. The hindrances for everyone to work — natural or artificial, when needed (because it might happen that one will be forced to pay in order to be allowed to work a pair of days in some robotized factory, or to go to the army, where he will be given real weapons, etc.) — will be some of the hardships in the future. Besides, the people will always want to live for half a century more with new artificial organs, and this, after some age (say, hundred years), will have to be paid for; or will like to have their own rocket, or some asteroid, at cetera, so that they will have where to spend their money.
But whose ownership will be the capitals is of no big importance, because the large-scale owners, so or otherwise, will be only 2-3% of the population and their goal in life will be dictated by their property, i.e. they will live: either to multiply their money, or to spend them interestingly (and reasonably, if they could succeed to do this), or the both things. It is normal to expect that this will be the states (i.e. their administrations) and primarily the multinational companies (i.e. the persons who own the capital, not those who manage the companies), but in any case the big money will not go to the more able ones, because the wealthy ones will be ever in position to force the capable persons to work for them! In other words, the power of capital will continue to be determined by arbitrary, not by reasonable, factors, but, so long as for the society the important thing is the existence of exploitation, this will not be significant. And in addition to this the economics will begin everywhere to rule over the politics, not vice versa, how it is in the moment in many countries, what will be a step forward.
Still, there is a hope that the mankind will succeed somehow to separate the bad from the good about the question of ownership over the means for production and will come to the conclusion that the worst and unjust moment in this case is that the wealth does not correspond to the personal abilities of the elite, but is mainly inherited! When this will be realized there will be elementary to avoid the evils, modifying so the inheritance law, that the large-scale (i.e. exploitative) ownership could practically not be inherited, but to come in the hands of large communities of people (the state, the municipals, or some other professional associations), from where it could be given later for temporary or lifetime managing to some proved their personal abilities individuals, or to be distributed equally and/or arbitrary between the members of the society (say, upon reaching of complete anniversaries, or via lotteries).
And really, if one comes to think of it, then the inheritance of property is a human invention (i.e. it does not exist in the world of animals) and it brings more harm than good, because strengthens even further the injustice in life. Anyway, the inheritance tax (which for large sums may come, in heap with the due to the lawyers, up to 1/3 of the total amount) is entirely unjustified, from the point of view of the individual (because — has the state with something helped that the deceased has died?), and it can be explained only with the natural desire of the state also to lay hands on an easy prey. But there are some social elements in it, and there is nothing difficult to set some, let us call it, exploitative minimum of capitals (EM), by exceeding of which the inheritance tax jumps up by exponent, so that for 10 EM inheritance the person becomes only 2 EM, and for 100 EM — only 3 EM, for example, where the other part goes to the state (and/or the community). The very EM may quietly be of the order of 1000 MMS (minimal monthly salaries), but it can be corrected in accordance with the living standard in the moment.
This will lead to some state monopolism by the very big companies, but they, anyway, are always under the prism (and scepter) of the state, for they affect the interests of the main part of working hand. This will not be socialism in the classical view, but some people's capitalism, i.e. such, from which the people gain, where the competition, at least between the smaller companies will exist, but between the big it will also not perish, if will be watched for the state's ownership not to exceed, say, 1/3 of the assets of the companies, and the other part, when such remains, to be given to the municipals and other associations, or distributed via some kind of lot. And the point is that the very large-scale owners will lose nothing personally, only their posterity will lose, but it will not fall beneath the limit of one EM, which allows one really decent existence. As it is said, the wolf is sated and the lamb is intact, and, besides, the world, in any case, has started on that road.
It can safely be stated, though, that for many more centuries the society will not be in position to establish one decent form of organization, which has to define the future place of every one already from his birth, but which place could not be passed by heredity! And this will be not because it is so difficult (if not anything else then at least a lot can be thrown for to fix who by whom has to be ordered and who what can own for a given period of time), but because the people will not accept such restriction of their capabilities, which, anyway, are limited by their genetic makings. It may become even possible to change these very genetic makings, but then will arise the question who will have such rights, because surely all people can't be Caesars or Napoleons, for to give an example. There are hopes that the computers will already in 21st century enter widely in the social government and justice, at least as primary instances, and then maybe will be made a good step forward, but the people will long resist before convince themselves that this will be in their own interest, because an artificial intelligence, obviously, will be in position to take, if not the most just (according to the human, and therefore controversial) decisions, then at least the most impartial ones.
Otherwise, we can be sure that the future will be time of substitutes, as in relation to the eating and the goods which we use, as well of the emotions. The mass media will ever more replace (and stupefy) the independent thinking, and the virtual reality will play the role of the actual world, but this is not so bad, because there are not much people with original thinking, which is worth to be preserved. It is quite normal to expect also some cheap and relatively harmless, i.e. not leading to dangerous addiction, narcotic and psychotropic products. Even in the sphere of reproduction the artificial birth is a question of near future, so that after, say, a century it may be possible for each family to be equipped with an "artificial mother", that will be with the dimensions and the price of present-day dishwashing machine, and to perform there the necessary "planting" when decides that this is necessary, or rather when receives the needed permission (because until the human population on Earth is not reduced below one milliard people this will be simply necessary), where in this case the sex will remain, so to say, for "sports and relaxation". We can hope that the wars will disappear at least from our planet, but in the presence even of two states, or of differently favorable living conditions in different areas, this is much dubious, because the human being is first of all an animal and only then endowed with reason. All in all, though, probably the life in 22nd century will be more interesting than in this one, but if we do not blow up our planet till that time.
III. Distant Future
The distant future is this, where we can't extrapolate the existing tendencies, but have to see in which way they will change so that to close the cycle, and here we can mainly guess. So, for example, it is clear that eventually will come time when the power of capital has to be changed, and then the role of compulsion will play, maybe, the heredity, or the connections in the gender, but this isn't sure, because the families and clans even today are disintegrating, and the genetic engineering also offers many possibilities for interference in this direction. It can be allowed the existence of some specialized human individuals for specific kind of activity, what will make them different also in appearance, the people may become product of some symbiosis of the natural and the artificial, i.e. cyborgs, and then each one will have his, let's call them, guildy interests, which he is to defend and for which to work. It is possible that some control over the production of foods and propagation of the gender will be exercised, which must constrain the people to do this, what is necessary for the society (even today there are not many those who can alone kill some hen, not to speak about planting a field with wheat, harvesting it, and baking bread by themselves, and in the future all will be dependent on the technologically produced foods). Or will be moved to total surveillance of all people using some implanted transceivers, with the possibility for local impact on the psyche of each one when needed, what will be offered under the form of care for the security and health of the people (in the way as today all people are catalogued, the transporting vehicles and the firearms too, and the next step is direct monitoring in order to prevent the offences already in the bud). Or compulsion will be exercised by the supplying of people with new organs and their periodical rejuvenation. In any case, some compulsion surely will exist, otherwise the society will "fly apart" in result of the centrifugal force of the egoism of its members.
But it may, at the end, also happen that the humans will become really reasonable and will begin to work not because somebody forces them to, but because they alone force themselves, for the life in this way is more interesting and beneficial for all, what presupposes that the society then has reached the last level of wishes — the personal improvement and development, coupled with the understanding that the best self-manifestation is the positive meaning of the others. Though it may happen that the necessary compulsion will be exercised by the artificial intellect where the people will be subjugated to the robots, that will care for them (just to have what to do), where the people will simply live (only to pass interesting the time). Such degree of freedom will not be very mobilizing, but it is hardly possible that will be come to this, for the nature, surely, will propose us new hardships, so that the people will not be left to do just what comes into their heads.
Sooner or later is normal to expect also some dispersing of the mankind in the space, colonizing of other planets, contacts with another intelligent beings (if we succeed to find such), and, in general, strengthening of the power of humans to improbable (and improbably dangerous) limits. When we will learn how to move really fast in the space we will be near to solving of the question how to cope with the time (because it is this, that determines what is fast and what not). Sometime, maybe, we will begin to make excursions also in the time, though by moving in the past we can be only observers, and the future, anyway, is not something more than a virtual reality, so that we can never be sure that it will be exactly our future, not some of the possible ones, but this, definitely, will be interesting.
But our strength, after all, can't be limited only with this, what is outside us, so that we will strive to better our own organisms and the society, too. The genetic engineering already has remarkable achievement, so that soon will be created various new vegetable plants and animals. But our role of creators of the world around us will not be on a sufficient height until we begin to change also ourselves — were it our bodies, were it to create posterity on demand. Each exiting out of our natural makings, surely, is very dangerous, but this will hardly restrain us from trying to continue the divine experiment and to increase the diversity in nature (more so because till now he have chiefly diminished it). Diversifying our life, though, is proper to take care also for the ... death, because it, still, is our most serious trial in life.
Interfering in the natural mechanisms for propagation of life we, sooner or later, will reach to the cardinal problems about the organization and the chaos in the Universe, because they are bound in some cycle and the local organization supposes the existence of global chaos (and vice versa)! Since the moment of its appearance the living matter has tried to impose some order in the accidental and chaotic world, but if we ever succeed to reach very strong order in a given time-space coordinate then we must find also some way for moving to disorder, which is more humane than the used by the nature, because otherwise it will force its own, based on unlimited biological and other resources, method of trial and errors, taking the organic life for error and leading only to preservation of the matter but not of its form. But what will be this method, so that both, the life to exist and the chaos not to disappear, we, alas, can not tell you, but if someone tells you this you just don't believe him! Because the organized matter decreases the entropy, but it can neither only grow, nor only decrease, but can incessantly (in sense of millions of years time and light years space) change itself.
Well, we may be failure of the nature, but let us not do such errors that can erase it, for we have our interests where the nature has not! It is of no importance for the nature what will happen with the life, because it is meaningless for it, but for us it isn't (i.e., we think that such meaning exists). The limit of our future is the reaching of possibility for substantial intervention in the chaos or in the meaninglessness of nature, because then we will be left with no other alternative except, either to include ourselves in it creating new meaningless worlds, or to decline taking part in this meaninglessness, confirming it. In this case it turns out that this, that the people are not really reasonable, is very nice thing, so that for us this moment is infinitely remote.
CONSTITUTION OF CYNICLAND*
[ * This is Addendum to the "Ten Cynical Essays". ]
Taking into account the positive elements of existing till now civilizations and having in mind the legalization of used among us moral norms, structure of our state, and happy life of out citizens, as well also in view of further developing and improving of human individual and social community, we made this Constitution of Cynicland.
I. Rights And Obligations Of The Individual
Article 1. (1) Every human has the right of life or death, which is unconditional and independent of other individuals.
(2) Every human has also the obligation not to apply this right to the detriment of the same right of other individuals, if this can be avoided.
Article 2. (1) Every human has the right of happiness according to his views. The Public Reason (or other instances) can preach certain kind of happiness, but it is not obligatory for the individual.
(2) The happiness of the individual, though, should not be built on the unhappiness of the others, nor to the others be imposed the personal understandings about it.
Article 3. (1) All people are born unequal and have the legitimate right to prove their inequality and uniqueness amidst the others.
(2) By proving of this uniqueness all people use equal rights and have equal obligations for compliance with lawfully established norms, regardless of the: sex, racial and ethnical origins, appearance, age, education, material welfare, health condition, intellectual and other faculties, preferred kind of delusions and beliefs, membership of social and professional or some other groups, ways for reaching of sexual pleasure, tastes, and habits.
(3) The ways for expressing of individual inequality should not impede the other individuals from expressing of their inequality, as well not contradict to the Public Reason. In the cases when the inequality is restricted by the law, all subjected to such restriction are considered equal in this respect, regardless of the differences listed in the previous paragraph.
Article 4. (1) All people have the right to show their animal nature, when this does not contradict to the Public Reason.
(2) All people have the right and obligation to behave reasonable, when they can manage to do this.
Article 5. (1) In the society all people are dependent one from the other, where in this respect free people do not exist. Each one, though, has the right to strive to reach the border line where the freedom begins, yet not to trespass this line.
(2) Can be spoken about freedom in sense of conscious dependence, but all efforts for expressing of private freedom that violates other people's dependence, and which can be avoided, are persecuted by the law.
(3) Property, parental, social, and other dependencies, and the borders where they turn to freedoms, are defined in the corresponding laws.
Article 6. (1) Every human has the right to deceive the others and/or himself, except the cases where the legal proceedings require something different according to Art.19.(3). The lie can take forms of: self-deception, fraud, deliberate deceit, suggestion, advertising, propaganda, solace, compliment, etc., and can be both, in interest of the individual, and in his detriment. In this respect everybody has the right also to say this what he thinks is truth, or to lie in interest of the truth, as well as to express assertions, which are, or can later be proved, truths.
(2) The possibility for existence of the truth is not excluded, nor is limited with the said in the next paragraph, but as far as it most often is questionable and unprovable, as also unconvincing or unpleasant for the people, it is right in the general case to be called lie.
(3) The laws of the country, as also the lie in interest of Public Reason, is taken to be called truth, regardless whether its truthfulness can be proved in some other way.
Article 7. (1) Every human has the right to exploit the others, when they agree with this exploitation, as also to agree to be exploited alone by the others, but this consent must be voluntary and provable. The form of exploitation can be different, including mutual, and can change with the time.
(2) The consent for exploitation of the individual is valid only for him and can not be passed to the offspring. In many cases is rightful to establish also periods when it expires and can be renewed by mutual desire, where if such terms are not made, then it can be ceased at any time by either of the parties.
(3) Every human can exploit also various animals or artificial systems, as well also himself personally, where in these cases consent for exploitation is not required, due to the difficulty for its receiving, but some laws may stipulate exceptions.
Article 8. (1) Every human has the right and obligation to strive to make life more just for all, using for this purpose the public instances and complying with the Public Reason.
(2) In its turn the Public Reason is also bound to strive to make life more just for all citizens of the country, using given to it prerogatives, both, in the way of compulsion, as well as that of delusion.
Article 9. (1) Every human has obligations to the society, which can be financial, related with the fulfilling of some public activity, with the propagation of gender, or of other kind, and they are defined in the corresponding laws.
(2) There can't be imposed obligations to the individuals that lead to permanent physical or psychical mutations, except with their written consent, in the established by the law order.
Article 10. (1) These rights and obligations are applied to all adult citizens of the country, where for such are considered all over 18 years.
(2) The rights under Art. 1, 2, 3 and 4 (of life, happiness, inequality, and animal nature) are valid for the people from the moment of their birth, where till reaching of the said in the previous paragraph age they are not related with the corresponding obligations, except if in the laws is not fixed something else.
II. Public Reason
Article 11. (1) The Public Reason is the set of laws in the country, created by the official authorities obliged to ensure their observance and punishments in case of non-compliance with them, as well as the very authoritative bodies (according to Art.12). The decisions of these bodies are taken for truth, regardless the possibilities for proving of the contrary, until changes in them are forced, characterizing the old arrangements as lie and the new as truth. By virtue of Art.6, though, everybody can express his opinion about these settlements and criticize them in any ways, because these voices are taken for lies, if they contradict to the official truth.
Article 12. All official power in the country is divided into:
1. Supreme and affirmative — of the Parliament;
2. Lawmaking — of the Lawmaking Office;
3. Executive — of the Government;
4. Representative and uniting — of the President;
5. Regional — of the Municipals;
6. Judicial — of the Courts and Prosecution;
7. Punishing and forces for quick reaction — the Police and the Army;
8. For propaganda — of the official Media.
Article 13. None
Article 14. Structure and functioning of the Parliament.
(1) The Parliament is chosen as arbitrary and politically uninvolved sample of the people for period of 5 years by the procedure described in Art.22 and consists of 100 Representatives of People (RP) aged over 30 and below 60 years to the date of inauguration. It is permanently working body and for the term of office all RP receive official leave from their old place of work. This body is bound to maintain always an established number of RP, having as reserve ten persons Candidate RP, and if necessary to perform also additional partial elections. The mandate of Parliament begins on the first of January of each year multiple of five and can not be prolonged, but can be shortened, if till its end remain not less than six months, by voting with qualified majority, and then by the same procedure are performed early elections for service Parliament with the term of office only up to the end of mandate of the current. All RP after inauguration have diplomatic immunity and can be prosecuted only by the Parliament, or by the judicial authorities after explicitly given by it permission.
(2) The Parliament chooses every six months Presidium, which consists of seven persons, including: Chairman of the Presidium, three Vice Chairmen of the Presidium and three more members of the Presidium. In addition to this the Parliament is divided in working groups according to the performed tasks, but this dividing does not change the necessity of common voting in the whole Parliament.
(3) All RP are on full board (food, housing, and other necessary expenses) till five days per week, and in addition to this they receive income in amount of three minimal monthly salaries (MMS) for the country for the period, but are not allowed to receive any other supplementary earnings and presents. All received by them sums and donations remain in favour of the Parliament. After ending of their service here they are placed under special financial supervision for a period of five years in order to reveal cases of bestowing of illicit benefits during the time of their mandate.
(4) Each RP has the right to refuse performing of his (or her) duties at any time during the term, in which case he will receive each month by one MMS free of obligations till the end of mandate. Once refused to serve, though, he has no rights to become functioning RP.
(5) The decisions of Parliament are taken with ordinary majority, which consists of more than 1/2 of the whole number of RP (according to par. 1), with the exception of cases when qualified majority is needed, which in turn consists of more than 3/4 of RP and is applied by changes in the Constitution, earlier change of the President, and others, as well also for whatever voting, if before this with ordinary majority such voting is approved.
(6) After the choice of Parliament each RP defines his (or her) political sympathies to one of the proposed to him political parties, coalitions, or groups of independent candidates (from here on we will say only parties), which are subject to revisions once in six months. By this voting the goal is to establish the ordering of political powers, so that the result must not contain two parties with equal number of votes, and if this happens then the voting is repeated until arises difference of at least one vote between two adjacent parties. In this way is established the political structure of Parliament, which is used by forming of the Lawmaking Office, according to Art. 15.(1), the Government, according to Art. 16.(1), and the Municipals, according to Art. 18.(1), and in other cases when this proves necessary. In accordance with its procedure of choosing, though, the Parliament is apolitical body and its duty is to remain such. At the discretion of Parliament it may use in help of this voting, or instead of it, also some form of referendum or asking of the masses, according to Art. 24.(1), the decision for what must be taken via voting.
(7) The Parliament approves all laws, made by the Lawmaking Office, performs election of President and Vice President, according to Art. 23, and has rights for initiative instructions for making of the laws and other normative documents of all other organs of the official power. The Parliament can appoint the senior civil servants, like: ambassadors, judges and prosecutors, heads of the official Media, and others, or to entrust the respective instances to nominate such persons which are to be approved by it. The Parliament issues Decisions, which are obligatory for the Lawmaking Office and recommendatory for the other instances, but can require preparation of laws, which are to make them obligatory also for these instances.
(8) The Parliament can change the structure of the ruling bodies of the country, as well also to cease or invalidate some decisions of the Government or of the President, using voting with qualified majority. It can change the President or the Vice President after double voting with qualified majority in favour of this change, done in interval of not less than one, and no more than two weeks. The Parliament can execute also supreme appellative functions in especially important state matters after going through the other instances. It can withdraw or restrict the rights of each other body, but has no rights to restrict its own rights, even after voting with qualified majority.
(9) The Parliament maintains the public relations through the official Media, which are under its authority, but by virtue of Art.6 can exist also other bodies for information to the political powers or to other organizations and persons. In addition to this it is obliged to maintain also direct contacts with the masses, where each RP must meet at least once in a month with different parts of population, districts, and working collectives, as also to have official reception hours at least four hours weekly. RP are people from the population and they must in all possible ways confirm this.
(10) The Parliament has at its direct subordination various departments and groups, chosen by it during its mandate, and in particular: Constitutional Court, which functions include examining of the consistency of the laws with the Constitution; Appellative Court, which deals with appeals of serious criminal acts as highest instance; Security Department, and others, which consist of professionals and are chosen at the proposal of the corresponding instances, but are approved by it.
Article 15. Structure and functioning of the Lawmaking Office.
(1) The Lawmaking Office consists of one to three Lawmaking Chambers, in which enter by 11 persons of given political power. These are the first three political parties (if there are so many) according to the ordering of party sympathies in the Parliament. Their staff is chosen by the ruling bodies of the corresponding political powers by proposed by them procedure, but between qualified jurists with at least 10 years experience in the field of justice. Each Chamber chooses a Chairman, who governs and organizes its work. By necessity of additional manpower to each of them can be appointed the required number of external collaborators, or to be used the help of particular departments and agencies. The Chambers are arranged by seniority, which is actualized each 6 months according to the voting for political sympathies in the Parliament, as a result of what their order can be changed, as well also the staff of some of them, and if the latter happens then is allowed temporary existence up to three months of fourth Chamber, too, built out of the old and left parties, which purpose is to forward the draft laws, on which they have worked, in completed form, but which has no rights at all. By elaborating of the laws the Chambers either work together, or each draft law prepared by one of them has to be approved also by the left ones. When persistent disagreements happen is proposed alternative variant also by the Chamber, which does not agree with the initial law variant.
(2) The Lawmaking Office is politicized body, but it consists of competent professionals. In its work there are no public debates and unnecessary populism, and must reign spirit of creative and conscientious activity. Criterion for its proper functioning must be not the big number of draft laws, but the negligible number of those returned by the Parliament, as also the small number of amendments and supplements to the existing laws.
(3) Each draft law after discussions in all of the Chambers is given to the President for opinion, who has twice right of veto on it. He (she) must give an answer in two weeks time, where: either approves it explicitly and eventually makes the needed recommendations and directives, or rejects it explicitly, or gives no answer till the end of the term, what is taken as sign of acceptance. Thereafter the draft law is given to the Parliament for discussions and final approval, where it can be returned unlimited number of times.
Article 16. Structure and functioning of the Government.
(1) The Government consists of the respective number of Ministries, in accordance with the decision of the Parliament, but not less than 6 and not more than 12 in number. Its structure is proposed by the first three political powers according to the quotas of the Parliament in establishing of its political sympathies, is accepted together by these parties, and is approved finally by the Parliament. Head of the Government is the Prime Minister, who is chosen as a rule from the leading party, though this is not obligatory requirement. The decisions of the Government take effect after their approval and remain so unless subsequently become ceased with decision of the Parliament. The Parliament has the right to require and impose changes in the administration of each Ministry, also of the Prime Minister, at any time, even to the detriment of political quotas.
(2) If under special circumstances, according to Art. 17.(3), the President declares state of emergency the whole Government goes to direct subordination of the President, who can lose this his power by lifting of the martial law, or if he will be changed by the Parliament, according to the procedure in Art. 14.(8).
Article 17. Structure and functioning of the Presidency.
(1) The Presidency consists of the Presidential Office and that of the Vice President, as also of auxiliary departments. These persons are chosen by the Parliament, according to Art. 23, where the Vice President is deputy of the President in his absence, or how the President ordered, if he (or she) defines for him some specific functions. In addition to this exists also reserved Candidate President, who does not enter in office if this does not become necessary. In case of occurring of permanent incapacity only for the President to perform further his duties, or his term expires and is not renewed, or he is changed by the Parliament, according to Art. 14.(8), the Vice President becomes President, and the Candidate President enters in the post of the Vice President. If such situation happens only with the Vice President, then the Candidate President also takes his place, and if this happens with the both, then the Candidate President becomes President for up to six months, during which time the Parliament must held new elections for President. Their mandates begin normally to run 6 months after the beginning of the mandate of Parliament and continue for three years, after which time the Parliament has to take decision about their prolongation for period of 6 months after the running out of Parliamentary mandate (or two years more). The President and Vice President have diplomatic immunity.
(2) The Presidency represents individual central power, but in peacetime it is not absolute, it is mainly consolidating and representative for the country. The rights of the President are established with the necessary law, but the Parliament has the right to cease each of his decisions after voting with qualified majority according to Art. 14.(8). The President performs also the functions of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and takes the sole responsibility for fast and pressing questions related with the security and integrity of the country.
(3) The President has the right at his discretion and in case of necessity to declare state of emergency, in which situation he becomes head of the executive power. If till two weeks after the declaring of emergency state the President does not revoke it, or the Parliament does not cease his decision, he turns into sole Dictator for a period of six months, where if his mandate flows out before this time, it is prolonged till the end of the emergency state. The Dictator exercises the supreme power in the country issuing Decrees, which have temporary superiority over the existing legislation if they contradict with it, with the single exception of the Constitution. The only superiority of the Parliament in long lasting state of emergency is its right to change the President after double voting with qualified majority, according to Art. 14.(8). The changing of the Dictator, if this becomes necessary, does not reject the emergency state and can't be executed until the Parliament proposes this time three other persons chosen according to Art. 23.(2), who are to govern the country till the running out of the 6 months term, taking joint decisions with majority. During this time they can use the Vice President (if he is not one of them) at their discretion. After the running out of emergency state the President, whoever he is, resumes his usual rights, and can prolong this state unlimited number of times (until the end of his mandate) under the same conditions.
Article 18. Structure and functioning of the Municipals.
(1) The Municipal Councils are built by settlements and are regional and district. The principle of their functioning is similar to that of the Lawmaking Office, where they consist of one to three party Sections, according to the voting for political sympathies in the Parliament, having by 5 persons on a level of region, and by 7 persons — for a districts (this being wider than the former), where the ruling bodies of each political power chooses its members in them. Each Section chooses its Chairman and Vice Chairman. The work of the Sections is guided by the Ruling Section, enlarged by the Chairmen of the other Sections, what is called Ruling Body. This Body usually (but not necessarily) chooses shortened Coordination Council, consisting of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Ruling Section plus the Chairmen of the other (up to two) Sections, which Council distributes the work between the Sections, where they can work also together on some, or on all, questions; by serious disagreements in the Coordination Council is called the Ruling Body. If the Sections work separately is required common decision of all Sections, otherwise it has no legal force.
(2) By six months, in accordance with the changing of political orientation of the Parliament, can be changed the staff and the order of these Sections, if this becomes necessary. In such case is allowed temporary existence till three months of a fourth Section from the old and left the ruling Sections, which has no rights and is necessary in order to hand the themes, on which they have worked, in finished state.
Article 19. Structure and functioning of the judicial power.
(1) The Courts and Prosecution consist of professionals, proposed according to settled by them normative acts, where their ruling bodies are approved by the Parliament. The Courts defend the laws, and the Prosecution Offices — the interests of the people. We distinguish the following judicial levels in ascending hierarchy.
1. Zero, or pre-trial, level — the corresponding offices to the Municipal Councils, where also work jurists, who must filter the lighter offences and conduct the necessary official acts, such as: marriages and divorces (without guilt), paying of fines, small financial violations, hooligan acts, and others. Each lawsuit can go first through this level, though this is not obligatory. The decisions here are taken individually by the corresponding officers and enter into force, if there are no objections by the parties, or are passed to the next instance by judgement of the officer, or decision is not achieved and each of the parties can alone appeal to the judicial instances.
2. Primary or local judicial instance, what is a lawsuit. It, as also the other levels, must be held before a panel of judges, usually of one Judge, but there can be up to three in more serious cases, and jury of Court Assessors, which consists of three persons in this case. The judge asks questions, makes summaries and conclusions, and formulates the points of accusation; the jury has also rights to question each of the parties and to require proofs and expertises, and at the end decides, after meeting behind closed doors, about the guilt on every point with usual majority; after this the judge pronounces the sentence in accordance with the laws. Lawyers and other supporters of any of the parties are not allowed in the courtroom, except by physical defects impeding the normal conversation with the persons. When a given party is legal person in the court appears its employee who works for it and has the right to represent it; in this sense, when a party in the suit is the Prosecution, appears some of its officer, who usually has legal education. Each party can use legal and other consultants, as also have previously prepared speeches and other materials, but before the court presents its positions alone and in its own words. Every verdict can be appealed in higher court.
3. Secondary, or district, law level, what is also a lawsuit, to which can be reached after appealing of decision of the lower court. The procedure is similar to this described in the previous point, where this time the jury consists of five Court Assessors. These decisions, too, can be appealed in the next higher court.
4. Tertiary, or national, judicial instance, where everything is similar to the previous point, and the jury now consists of 7 persons. This is the last instance, as a rule, except by especially serious crimes and such affecting the interests of the state, which can be considered also in the Parliament, if it finds this necessary.
5. The supreme instance also for lawsuits is the Parliament, where the decisions are taken by a jury of 11 RP, or even of the whole Parliament, if the question requires this.
(2) The Court Assessors for all instances are chosen amidst the masses of population by procedure similar to the described in Art. 22 for choice of RP. They also must be aged at least 30 finished and less than 60 finished years to the date of assumption of office. These are persons, who must apply their human criteria for good or bad, and it is not necessary at all for them to be professionals. For each judicial level (points 2, 3, and 4 of the previous paragraph) are chosen the necessary number of Court Assessors according to the laws, and there can always be chosen more when needed. They are chosen for a term of 6 months, use official leave from the post where they work, and must be in disposition each court day not knowing to the last moment which one of them to which suit will be appointed (if one is not overloaded with postpones suits). For this activity they receive the corresponding payment, but have no rights to receive whatever other sums or donations, and for a period of three to five years after this must be under financial surveillance in order to detect possible illicit ways for taking of personal benefits. They can at any time refuse with a notice from this choice, paying to the state fine in amount of 1/2 to one MMS.
(3) The traditional for some countries lawyers have no place in the courtrooms in our society, because against payment may be proved whatever lie, and the goal of the suit is to be discovered the such one, which is maximally close to the truth. During the lawsuit the right of everybody by Art.6 is limited only to the right to self-deceive oneself, but not to deliberately lie in the courtroom. As long as the expenses for the suit are not related with the guilt of whatever party and lead to interest for the judicial authorities to have more unnecessary litigations, they must be covered by the state, and to be allowed paying only of small fines, if the suit will be recognized as unduly initiated.
(4) The tendency in legal proceedings is to gradual shifting of the human, especially of the joined in some professional groups persons, out of the taking of decision, and their step by step substitution with computerized systems, where this is possible. The decision is partially taken already in the moment of making and adopting of the laws, and the functions of judicial authorities are essentially of interpreters and dispatchers. The Judges for centuries do not judge according to their views, but according to the Public Reason, fixed via the laws, and using the opinion of the common person in classification of the situation. The role of Court Assessors is honorable and everybody should be glad if will have the possibility to exercise it, because this makes him part of the Public Reason.
Article 20. Organization and functions of the Police and the Army.
(1) The Police is instance for maintaining of the internal order and for exercising of the necessary compulsion over the personality in the interest of the Public Reason. It is built out of professionals and without politicization in it, what is settled with the corresponding law.
(2) The Army is structure for rapid response in the country by various natural disasters, as also for defending of its foreign interests. Its building is regulated with the corresponding law on professional basis.
Article 21. Organization and functions of the official Media.
(1) The official Media serve for propaganda of the public truths and are governed by the Parliament. Other media can also exist and defend their interests. In state of emergency and in presence of Dictator, though, the other media are placed under his control and censorship.
III. Elections Of The Parliament And The President
Article 22. Election of the Parliament.
(1) The Parliament is elected openly and democratically, what says that everybody can watch this procedure, as well also that everyone can be elected in it. The restrictions for age are entirely natural, in order to find the middle of the grown individual, when he has already relatively well settled live views on many questions of public interest, and has still not lost his adaptive abilities for wholesome life. The choice is arbitrary and with equal probability, what means that in the Parliament will be represented proportionally to the whole population all social groups, regardless whether by material, or sexual, or educational, or professional, and other criteria, although this can not be established with ideal precision. This Parliament is one representative sample of the population, and the wider the group is the more exactly it will be represented, where only for very narrow groups can occur some errors, but as far as every RP belongs to several groups this is not important. It is not politicized and this is essential, because each party is unavoidably partial. The participating in the Parliament is a great happiness for every chosen person.
(2) In order to maintain some continuity in the Parliament, needed in every activity, by the below explained procedure are chosen only 3/4 of the RP, where 1/4 remain in the new Parliament, for to pass their experience to the new RP. The persons are chosen according to some unique code, where we use the so called unique citizens number (UCN), and are drawn in succession the separate parts of the whole number, namely: the year of birth; the month of birth; the day of birth; and the number establishing the uniqueness of the person born on this day, which by UCN consists of four digits. As long as for each drawing is convenient in the sphere to have from 20 to about 40 numbers, then for the years (which according to the Art. 14.(1) are 30) and the days of the month is used by one ball for each number, by the drawing of the months are stored by three balls for each of the numbers from 1 to 12, where by the drawing of the last group of numbers is drawn each their digit using tripled number of balls from 0 to 9; in addition to this is preferable these numbers to be loaded in different spheres and to be performed simultaneous drawing, with a view to exclude the possibility for whatever faking of the elections. When is drawn such combination to which does not correspond real person (for example, born on 30th February) it is annulled and the choice is repeated (possibly only for the ineligible part of the UCN). In this way are chosen also 10 additional persons, where by lessening later of their number below three, because of refusing of some RP to execute their duties or for other natural reasons, is performed additional partial election when needed. With this procedure each possibility for faking of the elections is excluded and is guaranteed one really representative sample from the population. The exact procedure is established by a law.
(3) These elections take place in the very Parliament on the penultimate month of its mandate, where first is drawn a lot for this who of the RPs will remain in the new Parliament. This is performed via initial ordering of all RPs, say, by the UCN, for binding of the person to some number, and simultaneous drawing without returning in two spheres of two groups of numbers from one to their total number, where the first number is that of the person, and the second is taken for sequential number in the new ordering of the persons, the first 25 of whom remain in the new Parliament. Similar procedure can be applied in all cases when the Parliament wants to choose some subgroup of itself for forming of working groups or commissions.
Article 23. Election of the President.
(1) The election of the President, Vice President, and Candidate President is performed in the Parliament during the first six months of its mandate, in which time the old President continues to exercise his duties because of shifting in their mandates, but this is necessary in order to maintain the integrity of power. The Parliament collects all propositions of the political powers for President and becomes acquainted with their platforms. Then it conducts a series of votes with ordinary majority only "for", where each RP can vote for how many candidates he wants. This is done in order to sieve out those persons for whom there are fewest votes, where in each next voting their number is diminished with about 1/5 but at least with one person, until the number of five persons is reached. After this is performed second stage of voting, also only "for", but this time each RP must vote only for one of them, where is written their ordering and the number of votes for each one. This is done continuously until is reached such ordering where: either the first has more than 1/2 of the votes, or the next after him has at least with 10% less votes than the votes of the first. Then from the left four candidates is chosen Vice President by the same procedure; after what from the left three is chosen Candidate President by the same procedure. The choice on the first stage may be done before the eyes of public, but this in the second stage is preferably to be performed by closed doors.
(2) In case of declared long lasting state of emergency (of 6 months) and intervention on the part of the Parliament for changing of the President the Parliament must perform fast election of three persons (called Triumvirs), ruling together via common decisions taken with voting with ordinary majority. The procedure of election in this case is similar to the described in the previous paragraph with this difference that after reaching of the number five is voted until the fourth candidate collects at least with 10% less votes than the third and then the first three persons at once become Triumvirs and their votes are equal, unless they decide to give some rights only to the first of them according to this choice. The triumvirate exists only to the end of the emergency state after what the Presidential power continues as by normal situation, which allows continuation of the state of emergency (and, possibly, new intervention of the Parliament and new triumvirate).
Article 24. Referendums and consultations with the masses.
(1) The Parliament, as also the President, has the right to conduct different consultation with the masses, or with some excerpt of them, where for this purpose they organize and conduct elections with voting with bulletins, though easier, more effectively, and faster such elections can be performed also via some phone cards or via appearance in person on the appropriate places in interval of two to four weeks, and not necessarily in one day. The results of these referendums are not obligatory in taking of the decisions, but is supposed that if the corresponding instances will not apply them in practice they will not conduct them, so that is right if they are confirmed with corresponding decisions. For example, The Parliament, instead of carrying of its voting for political sympathies in the beginning of its mandate, could have performed also elections for ruling party, the results of which to be taken for its political attachment, what will have its impact over the choice of the Lawmaking Office, the Government, as also of the Municipals. This is a good way of action in the beginning, but to be applied each six months is inappropriate, and the current actualization of political affinity of the Parliament is necessary, in view of the peacefulness in the country and the good functioning of the official authorities. In particular, the Parliament has the right to effectuate also referendum about its changing or ceasing of its mandate, according to Art. 14.(1), though this should not be needed due to its apolitical choice.
IV. Conclusive Directions
Article 25. The Lawmaking Office is obligated to make the necessary laws and pass them to the Parliament for adoption if possible to the running out of the mandate of the first Parliament with this Constitution, such as: Law for the Rights and Obligations of the Person, Law for the Media and the Means for Mass Delusion, Law for the Organizations for Expression of Partial Meanings, Law for the Exploitation of the Human, Law for the Organizations for Gaining of Personal Benefits, Law for the creative and Routine Labour, Law for the Bodies for Compulsion, Law for the Army and the Powers for Rapid Response, Law for the Courts and Prosecution, Law for the Working of the Government, Law for the Prolongation of the Gender, Law for the Elections in the State, Law for the Health and the Moderate Wearing of the Human Body, Law for the Environment, Law for the Personal and the Used for Exploitation Property, Law for the Education and the Localization of the Knowledge, and others. Till elaborating of these laws are to be applied the old regulations, when this does not contradict to the Constitution, or else to be postponed the decision of disputes until the adoption of the new laws.
Article 26. This Constitution comes into power from the first of January of the year following its publication. Every citizen of the country must strive to be pervaded by its spirit in the interest of public harmony. It must be taught in educational establishments and brought to the attention of each individual. All crises in human society are result of deficiencies in the ruling and under better organization could have been avoided. This Constitution is an example for good organization.
Approved by the Constitutive Parliament of New Cynicland.
dd.mm.yyyy, Cynictown
WHY THE COCKS CROW EARLY MORNING?
(or what the birds teach us)
Well, I can answer at once this question, but I don't know whether this will satisfy you or not. The cocks crow because in this way they greet the sun, at least the third cocks, and the first ones feel some glimmers (that there is not, for example, solar eclipse). So do all birds, especially the city pigeons, or country crows; they, as soon as the sun rises, and at once soar in flocks (summer and winter) and begin to cry "Grah, grah, hello Rah, hurrah Rah!" or something of the kind in their language. About the sparrows I am not sure whether they do so or not, but about the ostriches, for example, I have heard that they every morning with the raising of sun have begun to spin like crazy, because they are too heavy to fly, but something deep in their hearts simply does not allow them not to greet this ancient god Ra (or even Raykyu, in some Bulgarian dialect). So that, you see now where from people have learned, and also named this god, and where from come all Auroras, aureoles, et cetera, which are Latin and older words.
But compare all the same how immediate (like children) are the birds in their exaltation, and how feigned and silly behave the people especially the Christians, when ascribe to the gods their own shortcomings, like vanity, selfishness, cruelty, and so on. Because such is the idea of the old, maybe already from 5 - 10 thousand years, habit to burn something fragrant, or at least a candle, and think that the fume, which rises up, where must abide the gods (because they, you see, can't be below, they have to be someplace high up, for they are good gods and see everything), gives some pleasure to the gods (who, otherwise, are maybe only sighing about this, thinks a given person of them or not, for they have just nothing else to do except to crave for our veneration), and are especially delighted when one mumbles under his breath some prayer to them (because they, without special prayer, would not at all guess, thinks he about them or not). This is reasoning on the level of kindergarten, but the people, i.e. all believers, do exactly so. While the birds are simply happy, that a new day comes, that they have lived up to it (because the night is a kind of sleeping, temporary death — well, if we don't count the night birds).
But were it only this people would have been priceless. Yet they insist to show their love and veneration to the gods chiefly ... killing somebody for the purpose, and in the best case these are animals. Because of this the names of priest in the Western languages (and probably also in the old Eastern ones) are related with some mincing, cutting (of the throat), i.e. they are "sacre" (what, more that obvious, correlates with the sword or saber, or Bulgarian and Eastern sekira, or Russian sech as to cut, and many other similar words); by us, the Slavs, those names are related as if only with the candles and the light (the priest is sveshtenik in Russian and the candle is svechka /svesht), i.e. they are holy persons (and the latter word is from the halo of the sun), but otherwise we also do various sacrifices with animals (or at least eat such animals on various holidays). Now, I do not discuss here the topic that people are carnivores and eat animals (because this is God's work, we are made so, can't eat grass), but this that we think that when we roast the meat on fire and when the fat begins to drop, then the fumes raise high and reach the gods, and we later eat the animal only for this reason that it does not spoil, but we have killed it for our God, in the name of God (for example, Bulgarian Gergiovian lamb on the day of St. George). And not only when we "communicate" with the gods, but also when we ... give our oaths (in Slavonic) we cut something (because there the oath is kletva and to cut in Bulgarian is kaltsam, klatsna), or at least I think so, that the words are related, and in this way, releasing a little of our blood and smudging with it our hands, or whatever other place, we guarantee our faithfulness to something or somebody. And don't think, please, that this is true only for the Slavs because the English swear /swore /sworn is related — surely, you just ponder a bit about this — with the sword.
Or take also the Hebrews, who think that some animals are "kosher", or good, sanctified, like birds and fishes, for example, while the pigs are bad animals, and when so then they are not to be eaten. But then, what turns out, ah? Hmm, it turns out that the good has to be killed and the bad has to be left to live! Such is the logic of this ancient religion, what, if you ask me, is pure perversion.
And the birds, because we have begun with them, don't kill in the name of their sun, no, they kill in the name of feeding of their body, and, as a rule, they eat different flies, beetles, worms, i.e., insects, which are at least tiny and somehow difficult to provide them with a "soul", because they have no sense of pain; or else they eat fish (if they are sea birds), but there is enough fish in the seas and it will be in all cases eaten by some things (most often by bigger fishes). Because the birds of prey, these that eat their own kind, or small mammals, are only an exception, they are probably just 5% of all birds. With what I want to say that the birds are also carnivores, but there is difference between their approach to the preys and the human one.
But let us continue with ornithological questions. How you think, why the birds ... defecate in flight, in this way (and in Bulgarian): hvar, tsvar, hvar, tsvar (and the vowel here is like in "girl"; and the first thing is dialect for to fly, the second one is dialect for to chirp, but then "tsvakam" is to squirt noisy, like when spitting)? It is clear that when they fly they can't descent each time down to the land to empty the bowels, and also by their imperfect food processing, for they have no excretory system, everything goes out through one and the same orifice, liquid and solid, and when this is done speedily — because in flight is necessary much energy (look how much petrol swallow the modern airplanes) —, then the components of food can't be extracted good and many of them will remain in their droppings, in view of what also today the bird guano is considered the best natural fertilizer (only that is not applied now because comes out very expensive). But not only this, because they do not defecate in their nests! I personally have had recently the opportunity to convince myself in this, for the reason that a ... she-pigeon, in the most direct meaning of the word, has begun to nest on my balcony (it doesn't matter that I am on the fifth floor, but I have greenery there, and the majority of people have already closed their balconies, so that the birds have not a big choice). Now, I have given her water, bread crumbs, apple pieces, but she not only did not eat whatever, but did not relieve herself there, only the male, who visited her approximately as often as a patient is visited, i.e. two-three times in a week, sat on the parapet of balcony and left a bit of droppings but aside. So that the birds are clean animals.
Well, the hens do this in the hen-house, that's for sure, but they because of this stay on some rod, on a roost, in order not to sit on their faeces (plus considerations of security, of course). So that I want to say that a heap of animals, who just walking on the road are dropping, from time to time, some "tarts", are doing this again for hygienic reasons about their "nests", in this way even if they are forced to do it there, then this will be several times less and rarely, and by this they try to stay on feet — the horses, cows, and others —, as if only the sheep and pigs are sprawling where they will. The people in this regard are not to be reproached, but it is, still, interesting to mention that the toilette is placed usually exactly ... in the center of the house, not somewhere to the side, say, by the door.
And why, you think, the pigeons are cooing? Well, this question must be very easy (at least for Bulgarians): because they want to "chukat themselves", in Bulgarian, naturally, what means, sorry, to copulate (literally to hit, crash, like nuts). All sounds and kisses, and mutual knocking with their beaks, they also ... shove tongues (only that I don't know which ones more often, the dames or the males), all this is only prelude to the game of love. And which coo most of all? The males, surely, it is so by all birds — by the canaries, probably by swallows, too, by nightingales, peacocks (they boast with their tails), cocks, and so on. A, there is one kind of bird (it has to be oriole in English) which is called in Bulgarian "chicho-pey" (where chicho is uncle and pey is to sing), but this is only not to chock the children, I'll tell you, because one will hardly pronounce the sound "ch" with a beak (it is "chovka" in Bulgarian); with "tsovka" one can say only "ts". For this reason I hear many times as some small bird (I can't see it, it sits high in the boughs) cries "tsitsa-ta", "tsitsa-ta" (and "tsitsa" is a teat) so that it turns out to be also a cynic.
So up till the insects including the females are the main sex, they are bigger and more universal (remind yourself that by the ants and bees all working individuals are undeveloped females, i.e. "virgins", males there are 1-2%, if not less), but from the birds and above, and especially by the mammals, the males are the kings, while the dames are impersonal, like, hmm, like hens. Because the hens when raise their voices, ah? Well, when they lay an egg, then they turn around, look at it, and begin to boast what a big egg they have "produced", don't they? And what do they say? Surely "co-co", right? Well, exactly for this reason the syllable "co" in Latin (in Slavonic it is "ko", and it has to be the same in Arabic, Hebrew, and others) for all Western languages means something related with (at least) two things or individuals, something interwoven, twisted. For example: cooperation, corporation, correlation, copulation, correspondence, construction, constatation, contestation, condensation, consumation /consumption, container, contour, corruption, commune, conjuncture, compromise, commercion, continuum (and from here also Slavonic konets as end, I suppose), the copy (together with Slavonic kopie as spear), the choir /chorus /Slavonic hor (what is nearer to the Greek original), the cosmos (which is related with the ... hairs and cosmetics, as something nice and ordered), to conserve, the commander, context, Bulgarian (i.e. Turkish) komshia as neighbour, the (French) cauchemar (where you have changed the first part to "night" but left the second the same as -mare), and many many others, literally thousands of words! And if you ask yourself, why exactly the hens have given us this syllable, not, say, the cows, then the answer is in this, that hens have run in every home, where cows, sheep, etc., rarely, they were led out to graze in flocks, they have not done this thing so often, while the hens were under the nose of everybody and their "co-co" was heard every day by all.
And, generally, if life in the air was not so exhausting, the birds would have long ago become masters of the earth, for you know that in many myths exist all sorts of bizarre flying animals — dragons, angels, devils, demons, witches, and even flying carpets. One mode dimension is not a trifle, it gives wider look at the things, at life. And also just imagine how ... romantic is a journey to the hot countries in winter, while it is impossible to live there in summer, so that, let us now return back, and so every year. This hardens the character and the nerves, and leads to interesting life. I, personally, think, that the reason why the human has become master of the earth is not so much in his hand, or in his brain, or in the vocal cords and speech, though this, surely, is of big importance, but in his ... imperfection, he is good for nothing concrete, and when so he is simply forced to push ahead, to do something for to survive (but I have discussed this thesis in other places, so that it is not necessary to indulge in it also here).
And the birds exceed us, or at least give us an example, also with this, that it is possible to live interesting (and enjoy the sun, because we have begun with this here) without necessary killing one another, in order to "improve" or select themselves. Because the birds, as also all animals, in one or other extent, limit their population due to conflicts with the environment, with the nature, with some predators, they have problems with the sustenance, while the humans have limited it, at least until the time of Karl Marx, till the middle of the 19th century, or before the industrial revolution, mainly as result of battles with his fellows and neighbours — and this, more often than not, without whatever special need. But now we are not in position to limit it even in this way, and 50 - 100 millions killed seems not enough for us. So that, I don't know, maybe it isn't bad to look from time to time at different animals, if you want also at hens and cocks. They have something to teach us.
Sep 2012
DOES GLOBAL WARMING EXIST?
When I pose so the question then I, presumably, have doubts in this. My view, which I will extend in this paper, is such, that there is not so much global warming as global stirring of the weather. We will see now whether it is so, in what it is expressed, and what can be done in order to eliminate it, if we want to, because it can happen that this is not so bad. But let us begin.
1. Is the weather warming everywhere?
Look, if the weather was warming in global scale then there would have been changing of the integral parameters, as is said, i.e. of the average temperature, the polar caps would have been melting, the level of oceans would have been raised and some countries would have been flooded (like Holland, for example), but such things, if I am not mistaken, are not happening. The average yearly temperature I have not heard to have been raised even with one degree Celsius for the last 30-40 years; maybe there is some increase with tenths of a degree, but this is not so substantial for to pay much attention to it. There are talks that the polar caps can begin to melt, chiefly on the North one, where there is no land but only water, but for the moment this as if is not observed, at least more than the normal, because, all the scholars state this, the weather is warming since the last glacial period (what are some 10 - 20 thousand years, I think) anyway, it warms a bit, but this is a slow process. In Holland there are not floods, and there, where such disasters happen, they are result of torrential rains, landslides, hurricanes, but not of some constant raising of water level in the oceans (with, say, more than a centimeter in an year).
And I have also some personal perceptions, being already in my sundown, as is said, and the only thing that I recall myself is that roughly 40 years before was quite cold in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) and in Moscow in winter (up to 30-40oC below zero), but this maybe was not all the time, just for a pair of weeks, what happens also now sometimes. In Bulgaria some warming in principle is not felt. When I begin to think that it as if begins, because in summer it becomes very hot, almost difficult to breathe, then unexpectedly it turns colder with about 20 degrees, and in addition comes cold winter. Now, this winter, 2012 (in January) was quite cold by us, the consumption of central heating was with about 30 percent bigger then in the previous one, the spring was late with almost a whole month (no matter that the Easter fell pretty early, and this holiday marks the beginning of ... the season of pasture, which is pasha in Bulgarian — at least I think so), but after this has come an August weather already in May, and the delay was caught up somewhere in June, and was so hot all the summer, with record high temperatures in the end of September, and even to the very beginning of November it reached above 20oC in the day, so that, one thing to the other, as if everything was as before.
And don't forget also the "normal" warming due to the carbon dioxide, which comes from the industry and this is so for at least one century, i.e. the greenhouse effect, so that there is nothing new for the last 20 - 30 years. Even this CO2 is only 0.03% (and this is so now as if millions of years), what can't be said that is much, and it is result not of warming of the weather but of working of industry, so that even if there is some warming it is consequence of something else.
2. What is stirring and mixing?
Well, there are stirring the layers of air, the seasons are confusing, straightly said, there are no more seasons! As I said, there happen pretty often big changes, jumps, in the temperature, as above (in the winter), so also below (in the summer), and not with 5-10oC, but at once with about 20 degrees, and not for a pair of days, but for 2, and sometimes even 3, weeks. One has always to keep at hand different clothes, neither the summer is summer, nor the winter is winter, because both, the summer may become hotter than normally, and winter colder. As best seasons, at least in Bulgaria, begin to form themselves the spring and the autumn, in spite of this (or exactly because of this), that there are rainfalls and it is cloudy. Still, we have come to no special natural disasters in Bulgaria (maybe only the normal floodings and danger of such because of the artificial water reservoirs).
Putting this in other words can be said that this, what is observed, is strong turbulence of the air masses, heavy winds. The climate begins to become in some extent like in the desert, with this difference that there is very hot in the day but very cold in the night, and wood and stone crack because of these extreme differences, while here these changes happen for a period of 2-3 weeks, but the point is again in the differences, not in the average temperature. Imagine now for a moment that it comes such hurricane wind which instantly reaches from the poles to the equator, and vice versa. What will happen then? Well, there will equalize the temperatures on the poles and on the equator, and we will come to some average temperature, and by this will melt the polar caps entirely and occur all sorts of cataclysms (not counting the hurricanes), but even in this case it wouldn't be properly to speak about global warming — because the temperature has not risen, the average temperature for the entire globe has remained the same. So that I will take now that have succeed to convince you in some degree.
3. Why the weather is mixing?
Well, going out of the analogy with the desert, it has to be clear that the winds blow because, for one thing the air is stirring, and, for another thing, there is nothing to stop the wind. There can be some other moments but they are not so substantial. And now: what stirs the air? Well, how do you think, what can buzz and thump and make wind, ah? It can happen that some volcano erupts, or that somewhere exists artificially made "volcano", i.e. bombing, where all these are shakings and concussions of the air, but they, after all, are in great extent localized, they can't include the whole Earth (people don't fight everywhere, at present the Americans have oriented themselves to the Arabs, they are not enough white, I think, but this is just another story, or as the Russians put it, "from another opera"). The main thing that buzzes, however, are the airplanes! I don't believe, if you have grown as much as to read these lines, to have never been on some airport and to have not heard how are buzzing the taking off planes (and the landing ones, too), and not to know how they are roaring in the air while flying. Now, if I decide to quote you with how much in an year increase the passenger kilometers flown, I will surely make a mistake, but for the last one century they, a priori, have grown, almost certainly, hundred times (!), and each thing that grows (at least within a human life, in order to be noticed) more than twice must make us think.
But we don't want to think, for each cares only about himself and there is still lacking global insight in regard of a heap (of all more important) social problems. We wait, according to one not much decent "hen" expression, till the egg begins to go out from our bottom, and just then begin to think (that, for example, there is nowhere to lay it). Because in its time so were killed all (or almost all) bisons, respectively Indians in United States, almost all whales in the oceans, or almost all elephants, and sundry other examples, because we have widely exceeded the limit of 2-3 times. For this reason, by the way, the Americans are compelled to fight, but really, not like in the cinema, with the Arabs, because the oil consumption increases twice, say, each 10 years (if not less than that), what for half a century makes approximately 30 times — the exact data is something like that. And it is perfectly clear that if for a voyage from Europe to America is, still, convenient to use a plane, than in many other cases of shorter than 1000 km distances, for which there are roads by land, is not at all necessary to do this, but we are doing it because this is possible, and also because this turns to be cheaper for us, right? In the same way as with the killing of whales, about which I have mentioned, or of elephants, and so on.
And the other moment is this, that there is nothing to stop the wind, and these are, also obviously, the trees, or simply greenery, which softens the climate. When I have mentioned the deserts I was not much away from the truth, because in one New York, for example, are hardly more trees than on the corresponding area of Gobi Desert (with exception of Central Park). Id est, our towns, from the viewpoint of greenery, have turned to deserts, there are high-rise buildings there, they stop somehow the wind, but this is not the same what do the trees, there are differences in thermal coefficients, in absorption of moisture, and in other points. And if rising up, in order to save place, we think that we solve the problems, then this is not at all so, because around the building is spent as much and more space for parking lots, and first of all for streets. And what about the suburban roads and highways? Looking from high above the city, town, and for a long time also the suburban regions look like Moon or Martian landscapes, and the highways, they are like the Martian canals, maybe a bit narrower than the latter, but with tendency to "grow fat". And all this because, saying it most succinctly, the people on Earth have become overmuch and we as if wait that something has lessened our population at least hundred times!
In this case, I don't know, but the greenhouse effect, as much as it existed, is maybe even a positive occurrence, because it, not much, but still, restrains the big fluctuations in temperature, i.e. shows some stabilizing influence (there are no greenhouses in the deserts, right?).
4. Why the authorities deceive us?
So that, if I am right — what obviously is so, give it alone a though —, then arises the quite reasonable question: why those, who must be better informed in the things, i.e. the politicians, at least consulted by various scientists, speak to us about Global warming? Well, maybe because it is more profitable in this way, right? More profitable for the politicians, what means for the business that stays behind them (because this is the quintessence of capitalism in economic regard: ruling of some business groups), as well also for us alone (because we want all this: to fly when we like fast and cheap, to live in cities, to drive fast cars, to have jobs, and so on). Unwillingly there again come to my mind the poor whales from the past.
And in addition to the airplanes and cars there is one more direct impact on the business, the production of some goods and services is increasing, because if we not only are heating in winter but also are cooling in summer, then this means that is used more additional energy, respectively the costs for the population are enhanced, and from here the wins for the business are higher; similarly is also with other products, because when the weather often changes and blow strong winds, then we need better isolated homes, and other things. So that the common, average, human is not in position to judge rightly what would have been better for him, even if he alone could have shown direct influence, i.e. it is not like almost not to fly and live in villages. But, still, think a little prognostically, at least a tiny bit forward in the time, and remember the equalizing of temperatures on the poles and the equator, because there is where to we are moving.
Now, the problems, surely, are complicated and mutually related and we can not correct them at once, but we can at least begin to move in the right direction (not in the wrong one), and I will propose here some measures for the purpose. The question with the overpopulation, however, remains, for it is too complicated to be co-opted also here, but let me remind you that according with the official data the population on Earth is doubling for 35 years, what gives quite precisely three times by so much in a century, or 2*2*2 = 8 times, or that after one century, if this tendency remains the same, then we will be 50 milliards or billions on the "globe" (for 6*8 = 48, but we are now above 6 mlrd)! After one more century this will give 400 mlrd, and after one more than this we will be already 3 giga people (not bytes). To me this seems pretty scaring, but don't know how it is to you.
5. What we can do, in order to stop this stirring of the atmosphere?
Well, look, the question is first of all in our view to the world, it is a question of philosophy, of way of live, of moral values, let us not deceive us that it is not so! If we do not hurry so much to live and make career (as if there were no other beings before us for milliards of years, and as if there are not remaining other milliards before the Sun extinguishes), if we do not insist to be present everywhere in person (when we can see on the screen almost everything), if we do not like living in anthills and prefer to abide in normal one- or two- story houses and amidst nature, if we do not like to multiply in such horrifying proportions, and so on, the things will not be so dangerous. Id est, if we are not so vain and do not live only in the current day, and if we don't rush so at the word "new", then everything will be rosy. But this means to a great extent to renounce the Western way of life, the Western values, and return to the old Eastern theosophies. I personally don't see why we should not do so, because in the result of very big haste, somewhere after the times of Karl Marx and till the current days, we are coming only to cataclysms, but I am already in old age, so that the young ones can hurry, when they so much want it. For this reason I will propose also some chiefly palliative measures, but which can lead to some results, and at least will slow down this process of stirring of the atmosphere.
Firstly about the airplanes: but this is elementary (as everything genius) and consist in introducing of excise on the airline kilometers (for people and goods), in order that after about 20 years they became unprofitable, and even after a decade people began to consider the point and decrease the flights. And isn't it so with the cigarettes? One exemplary proposition for the exact percents is the following: by 5% (up to 10% — this can be discussed and corrected during the introduction) an year increasing of airplane tickets and prices of aircraft transport. In such case, if one has to fly somewhere at a distance of 600 km, for example, and if it turns out to be twice more expensive than if he uses bus or train, then he nearly always will refuse to fly. In addition to this is necessary to begin gradual elimination of all short airplane flights, beginning with distance of 300 km (hardly somebody uses plane for such distance), and this length has to grow yearly with 30 km, for example, till we reach 1000 km minimal distance.
In regard of the greening I have also simple proposition: at every new building site has to be required that on each square meter built-up area (i.e. covered earth, but is it building, or road, or something else that performs auxiliary functions, this doesn't matter) allocate just as much green area, where the half of it must be occupied by trees (together with all needed equipment, were it for watering, were is for support of the plants, i.e. the things must begin at once to function and wait only that the trees grow up); yet if it goes about building in city conditions, or where already exist something built, then at 1.0 sq.m. built-up area require 0.5 sq.m. green area and 0.5 sq.m. solar batteries, taking into account that this does not lead to decreasing of the living area even without increasing of the height of building! And how I imagine the latter, the reader may ask, that we will demolish 2 decares (0.2 hectares) apartment building and on its place will raise also 2 decares home plus 1 decare green place and 1 decare solar batteries, ah? Well, quite simple, will be used also the roof and the roads, because solar batteries can be put everywhere (also on walls and windows), not only horizontally, and if they are at an angle of 45o then this gives increase of the area 1.4 times (square root of 2, if we are more precise, what is 1.4142...), and even can be done this and that, i.e. on the roof can be greenhouses, which will be covered at least by half with solar batteries (and they can be in two layers, so that there was possible to move them and in this way to hide the sun, if it is too hot, what will also increase the area of solar batteries, but if it is cloudy then they can leave, say, 50% of the light.
These measures can be applied even right away, but after approximately 10-20 years surely will be no problems with the solar batteries. The latter will not immediately stop the wind, naturally, but they will give electricity, what means that will be burned less — whatever it ware —, and will be, respectively, less smoke. To add also that if the synchronization of produced electric power in voltage with the power grid will turn to be difficult then can be made additional contacts for DC power with voltage, say, 12 V (or 24 V, or how it will be decided), which could be used for powering of computers and heating devices. These ideas can be evolved a little, but we will make this in the next section.
6. What can be expected in the near future?
Solar batteries can be put also along the roads (or on high pillars in the middle of the roads, in the dividing strip of highways), and also on boards of the roads can be required building of strips (with width of 5 to 10 meters) with trees, were they fruit-bearing or not, or vines, palmettos, greenhouses, et cetera. There is also nothing impossible if there begin to build also ... homes, of course, because there is nothing bad in this that people live amidst the nature, and also around the roads, i.e. on the roads. And in this case it turns out that Arabia will really benefit, for they have enough sun there, and if there will be also electricity, then water will flow, too, and roses will blossom, and greenhouses will emerge, and grass will begin to grow (around the roads, little by little), and lambs to bleat, and so on.
I also see nothing bad if will be revived, as far as possible, also the cruise travels, as part of the rest (or as the whole relaxation), in the way as it was for many centuries (for example, I have heard that now can be built quite contemporary ... sailing ships, with computerized navigation, as well as with engines in case of necessity, pretty modern, so that one would be simply glad to undertake one such tour on a boat of this kind, if there was just the money ready). As also to minimize all possible trips with the use of computerized presence (for conferences, business meetings, etc.). A three-dimensional virtual presence would be quite enough at least in 3/4 of the cases, and this means lessening of the travels 4 times.
I also think that it will cause no difficulties to move in many factories and large enterprises (with more than, say, 50 employees) to work 3 days in week by 10 hours, where people stay overnight there — either in dormitories, or in caravans, with all possible amenities —, what will give reducing of the travel from 5 (or, eventually, 4) times in week to a single time, and this is not only economy of fuel, but also of time, and is more comfortable (and, if you want, will allow to become better "acquainted" with the female or male colleagues in today's "no-families" world). The same idea can be applied also in the education, where the children learn chiefly before computer screens, and visit the educational institution more or less 1/5 of the time, i.e. once in a week, if they are in the school, or for a week once in a month (or one and a half), if they are students from universities and colleges.
Add to this also the electric mobiles and you will see how both, the deforestation will decrease, and the winds will weaken. And if the people decrease also their own number (somewhere about 50 - 100 millions — I have considered this question in other places), this will lead to the elimination of wars, too (because: why must people kill one another if there is everything for everybody?) and our problems will almost disappear.
Nov 2012
NOMEN EST NUMEN!
(To name is to define!) — Feuilleton
For a long time nobody in Bulgaria has whatever doubts that we are country of miracles, if you want only because in spite of the democracy we still exist, i.e. no matter that we are now a democratic state we are still far behind in regard of our living standard, compared with the situation under our 'Bai Tosho', and in the near 10-20 years 'from nowhere our eyes can see a hope coming' (as the poet has said). But there is nothing to wonder, for it turns out that everything was because of the ... names* of our politicians!
[ * And as far as these names is expected to say nothing to the readers in English I will add in ordinary parentheses a pair of words about the people, which words are absent in Bulgarian original. I have "sinned" in this sense also in some places in other materials earlier, without adding of explicit footnotes. ]
Well, judge for yourself: was it not clear that Sofianski will become mayor of Sofia, because it (the city) is, in fact, his, isn't it? But we have wasted our time on various elections and have spent a heap of money and nerves, while the people would have chosen him even five times, if this was possible, for the above reason. Or that Videnov, being 'viden' (what is eminent in Bulgarian) man, must stand at the head of the communists, sorry — socialists —, and he took the lead (and the consequences did not delay). Or also that Parvanov must be that man now — because who else if not Parvanov must be 'parvi' (or prav in Bulgarian, what is first), ah? ( Or maybe it will be better to introduce here the letter 'å', like that in your 'girl', and then the name will be Pårvanov, and the adjective pårvi or pråv. ) But this, will somebody object, are simply random coincidences. Well, then you count them on you fingers, when you think so, and when your fingers run out then continue with the toes, or take also the hands of your beloved and continue with her fingers (as well also move to her legs later), because two hands here will surely not suffice, and we will continue meanwhile with our survey.
Let us take, for example, Stoianov — a good name, and the man is also good, he is obviously chosen to 'stoi' (i.e. stand) on a high place, and because he is also Petar (Petår, more precisely), i.e. petronimus, what in Latin means earth or stone (where from the petrol has come), then the man has stood like a stone on his place (of President) and everyone sees and hears him at least three times in a day, what is more than even the talks about our former 'dad' or 'uncle' or 'bai' (Tosho /Todor Zhivkov) on the media. And he, this 'bai' /'uncle' was named Zhivkov, right? And because of this the man has 'zhivia' (i.e. lived) for quite a long time on the throne, and in general (and give God to everyone so much, for how our nation has begun to grow younger, when now people can not reach even 70 years and die, and the young ones only reach their 25 years and are already out of the country, then it can well happen that the average age by us will, maybe, come close to the Christ's 33 years).
Or look at the Zheliu (Zhelev), was it really not clear that he is 'zhelezen' (i.e. iron) man and will smash the communism to smithereens, right? But he was not so very 'steely' like Stalin and because of this he succeeded not to the end. This is so, but here is not only this, because he was also Zhelev, where we find the usual 'shele' (jelly), and this was a thing that his people have noticed and for this reason wanted to change him. They, surely, succeeded in this, but, after all, not earlier than the end of term, because along with this jelly there was also some iron, so that he withstood his mandate till its end, and now wishes to be chosen again, if only there will be found people willing to vote for him.
Ah, there was also one Sabev (Såbev), who ... had a grudge (and we say a 'tooth', which in Bulgarian is 'zab' /'zåb') against nearly everybody — against the communists, against the Holy Synod (for he was a priest), and as if also against the whole Bulgaria, because in the recent time is heard nothing about him and he could have moved to other 'humans' across the ocean to spread the word of God. But there is also one Trenchev (boss of Trade Unions), who, as could have been expected from his name, has blossomed like a 'trendafil' (what is a rose in Turkish and known as archaic word in Bulgarian) in our democratic garden , and how he has not fought for place around the state's dining table so he has already secured it, because they invite him often to have a 'chat' (or 'laf-moabet' in Turkish, talks during a drinking bout) on different labour matters.
Or let us take one clever man — one Solomon! He has abandoned his exact sciences (mathematical logic), because with them one can not earn much 'bread', and as far as he was also Passi, then he has made several 'passes', in order to pass us to the countries around the North Atlantic, no matter that, however great Bulgaria was in old times, it has never reached to the South Atlantic (to say nothing about the North one). But as far as the 'passing' was in his name then he simply will pass us to those states and his Solomonic eye will not even blink (how it happened, because he built even earlier the Atlantic Union in Bulgaria, and later become Prime Minister during the ruling of Tsarist party).
And one, really, good man, has failed only because he was named Slabakov (he was a known actor), and have pulled down with him one viden-eminent person, because, well, how is it possible that a reasonable homo can decide to make coalition with some 'slabak' (or slab, what means weak), ah? Coalitions are made only with strong persons, for otherwise people will not respect them at all. And have you asked yourself sometime why one Attorney General must be named Tatarchev, ah? Well, because everyone is afraid of the Tatars, and when so then he respects (as much as this is possible under democratic conditions) the Attorney, as well as our laws, of course. It is not that we all, the Bulgarians, are, in one extent or another, Tatars, what is well seen in our debates in the Talking Shop, ouch, pardon me, — in the Parliament — but, maybe, exactly for this reason we choose such persons who are greater 'Tatars', than we are. Now we have on this post one Mr. Filchev, who is also good, because this means that he is very precise and exact (fin in Bulgarian, what is 'fine' because the word is Latin), i.e. filigreed in regard of applying of the laws, and this, that he is also Nikola, i.e. heir of the name of Greek goddess of victory, Nike, only makes him honour (among the criminal underworld). In general, for such persons is not so important that the people loved them, than that they were afraid of them, and these do their hard work.
And in order not to think that this naming is valid only for politicians, then look at one Asparuchov (known footballer from the past): would he have been such if he was not descendant of the brave warriors of Khan Asparuh (or Isperih — and the 'h' is pronounced —, from the First Bulgarian Kingdom already in the 7th century), who have raised 'steam' (what is 'para' in Bulgarian or 'par' in Russian, but the root is ancient Greek) everywhere where they passed, or have 'razpariali' (torn, split) any defence, however good it only was? Or also Christo Stoichkov (present-day's known footballer): would he remained to 'stoi'-stand for so long like the brightest star on our football horizon, if he was not also one Christ for Bulgarian football?
But it can't be that you do not know one Ganchev, right? ( Well, outside of Bulgaria he might not be known, but he has quite successfully tried to enter the politics ) He confuses us a little with his family (as well also with his first name, which in one passport was Georges, but read with 'zh', and in another one Georgi, and this time with 'g') but if you substitute in his family the leading 'g' with the similar 'h', or rather with the hard 'kh', how they write in on the West, then it is seen that he is one 'Khanchev', i.e. Khan of the Bulgarians! That is how must be looked at this person, and, nothing surprising, that it comes out exactly so, because this is written in his name and the names do not deceive.
Because when his candidacy put various 'ovchari' (shepherds, coming from Bulgarian ovtsa what is your sheep), i.e. Ovcharovs /Ovcharovtsis, you see well that they can not win elections. Yet not this is strange, that they do not win, but that they put their candidacy at all, because nobody in the world has succeeded going against his name! While some of us, whom the very fate were predestined to wield bosdugans (or buzdugan, mace or cudgel with spikes, this is Turkish word), like Dogans (Akhmed Dogan the leader then of the Turkish ethnic minority party in Bulgaria), for example, wield them for ten years quite successfully with one small party, which can not gather together even 10 percent of the seats in the Parliament.
Or we can take also one Simeon (our hereditary King, only not crowned). It may seem to be a good name, only that the English, when you say to them 'simian', understand something like the human, but not exactly, and most often an ape! They, surely, are cultured people, and will never say this to the person in the eye, but will think so. We also, here, do not say that this is true, we only fulfill our duty to him, id est not him to think that with this name he can become our King! For he can otherwise imagine this, looking at us, seeing how we only quarrel and show obvious need of somebody, who could unite us as nation, yet not around some parties and unions, but under one ancient institution, which has withstood the test of passed centuries. Only not under such name, but, probably, under some Dragan (where 'drag' is dear, i.e. that one felt simply glad to chose him), or around some Boil (where 'boia se' is to have fear, so that one will be afraid of him and listen to him), or also Petar /Peter (stony), or Stoian (stable), or Manol (with hard manus-hand), or Teofil (in Latin Theophilus, loving God), and so on.
Then let us take Blagovest (Sendov, mathematician, was earlier Chairman of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and later, in his old age, moved to politics), is one such name that at once says you that he is a clever and reasonable man, because he carries only 'blagi vesty' (i.e. good news) and, although he is officially member of no party, he lived well during the totalitarian years, and now also lives not bad; while his brother (who is also mathematician), because he is only some 'dar ot boga' (gift from God) for his parents, or Bozhidar (bozhi is from God and dar is a present), continues to remain unknown to the general public, due to the fact that not those people have engendered him. As well also Kostov (economist, from UDF) informs us right away that he engages himself only with things that can be sold (the English to cost comes from German kosten, and is also Latin), or who have costuema-costing price, as is said (or, maybe, it has to be said now 'kostovena' price?). He, really, does exactly so, sells everything that can be sold, and to anyone who gives more, even if it goes about a whole country, because in the world of capital everything is sold, countries too. And also with this Ivan as first name, what comes from the Russian 'iva' (what is a willow), what says that he has flexible back (and the willow is flexible) and bends to where the wind blows, so that not to be harmed by bad climatic conditions, he has all chances to endure another ten years on the political arena, so that you see how very indicative are the names. ( And don't discard, please, this hypothesis of mine about the name Ivan, because I think the same idea is hidden also in the ... ivory; don't be confused with the fact that Ivan is biblical name, because it does not sound like John, nor like Yonah, nor also like your Ivanhoe, because we pronounce is as is written, 'ivan', and there is this piercing cry 'iii', and it curves, modulates. )
Then there is one Blaga Dimitrova (a feminine writer), and why has she so rapidly been moved in the dead track? Well, because she was too 'blaga' (gentle, gracious) and is also a women, which has 'dumala' (thought in Russian) too much! From the 'dim' (a smoke, in Bulgarian, or also similarly in Russian) was formed the Russian duma and from here comes the name Dimitar (Dimitår, in Bulgarian, or Dmitriy in Russian), which was not much honoured in Bulgaria already from the times of 'Gosho' (i.e. Gergi) Dimitrov (our, as well international, eminent communist leader). We are not like the ancient Greeks, for to be impressed by some words — to us give actions and thrillers — and because of this also the newspaper 'Duma' (of BSP, Bulgarian socialists-communists) was barely able to collect cents in order to be issued, while some other newspapers like 'Hours' (24 Hours, 168 Hours), 'Trud'-labour, and 'Standart'-standard, are read so that even 'smoke rises', as we like to say. And one more Dimitrov has also become not specially famous, though this not because of his family of thinker, but because his mother and father have given him the name Filip /Phillip (fervent UDF leader, i.e. destroyer of communism, only without whatever creativity, of course), and it is the same as Russian filin, what means — I beg his pardon — simply an owl. Yeah, though a party that puts 'owls' at the head, even if it is not party but coalition, will not reach too far, at least until it does not change them with others.
While at the same time Alexanders are not deprived of chances for success, because their name is derived in the easiest way from German 'alles', what means 'all' and, sure thing, was known to the ancient Romans already in the times of Mr. Macedonian. These are all persons who want to have everything and in such case they choose to stay at the head, either of an army, or of a Parliament, or of Government, or of something else of the kind. There is also Mr. Karakachanov (the youngest politician, maybe), who has set himself similar goal, but: where to with this family, boy? Who nowadays respects the karakachans (practically extinguished nomadic tribe in Bulgaria that lives in the mountains and breeds cattle), or who will respect them in the future? It is clear that the man is pretty green (he is Leader of the Green Party) and because of this makes this errors. When he matures and reddens enough, or maybe becomes blue (i.e. goes to UDF) like an eggplant, and if he changes his family, then, with this Alexander in front, maybe 'his parachute will open' (idiomatic for to succeed in Bulgarian), yet for the moment the 'all' is quite away from him. And another man with the same name — Tomov — will also hardly succeed much, because the Doubting Thomas is a name known since biblical times, and it is seen that he is neither with the red, no dares to become blue enough. This is one very unstable, at least for a politician, name. If he decides to change it to, say, Lomov, what comes from the breaking and smashing (lomatj, with soft ending 't', in Russian) then he will see how the tings will become at once better, because people honour those who break outdated norms (even if they have nothing better to offer). Or then to Tomboliev — then people maybe will choose him, for everybody likes to play in tombolas or lotteries, and it may happen that they will suddenly win something for themselves, with his help.
Or there was one young boy — Emil — who never succeeded to come to terms with the 'komshuluk' ('komshiia' is a neighbour in Turkish) in our country and went to the States and now lives there not bad and does not complain. But it turned out that the snag was in his family Koshlukov, what is as if shortened from Komshulukov, and if it was some other then he, probably, would have remained in Bulgaria and would have built the democracy as thousands of other politicians, because his first name was Emil, what is a very 'milo' (i.e. nice) name, isn't it? Or take also one Reneta, who has a very nice name — like a juicy apple (a sort of apples, I suppose) —, and if it was not this Indzhova after it, which makes a heap of Bulgarians to put ahead of it the letter 'm' (and 'mindzha' is Turkish or Gypsy jargon for, I beg your pardon, vagina), she would have entered already in real Governments, not only in such that last 'from the morning till the noon' as the saying by us goes (i.e. temporary, for a month, I think).
And now look at Mrs. Mihailova: one may say that she has run after the 'mihalia' (the expression 'run after the mihalia' means to 'chase the wind' and I suppose it is distorted from mistral) with this family of her, yet as far as she is Ekaterina /Katharina /Catherine, what means that she can well 'kateri' (climb up, this is something Greek because they have many word beginning on kata- there) — just like a squirrel (which for this reason is 'katerichka' in Bulgarian) — has already climbed high enough, and it will be nothing surprising if she will put her candidacy also for President, because the climbing is in her blood. Similar things with another dame with the same family — Nadezhda. When one hears this name one can not fail to be delighted, because she may as well warrant one's hopes (a 'hope' is exactly 'nadezhda' in Bulgarian, Russian, and others Slavonic languages), and even become Minister (for we, anyway, live only with hopes — 10 years earlier we hoped that when there arise many parties, or companies, the things will begin at once to go smoothly hereafter, but it turned out that the point wasn't in their number, but in their quality and magnitude; now, on the contrary, we hope that their number will at last decrease, in order for them to become larger, like by the totalitarianism).
And what can be said about Mr. Simeonov, who, except that is like a monkey (according to his family, of course), but is five times more such, because is named Petko (and five is 'pet' in Bulgarian, also Friday, as fifth day of the week, is petak /petåk)? A good man, but the name is bad, and when so then he is not suitable for politician, no matter that is liberal (i.e. of the Liberal Party). And there is also Mr. Beron, who was born to earn ('bera' in Bulgarian is to gather, and here come all English berries, and the root was Sanskrit, some bhas) the fruits of his labour, but when you connect him with this stone (Petar, and the stone is Latin) in front and it turns that he can at the best 'earn' some stone on the head. In fact, with this family, even if his parents have christened him Gosho, he could have, still, reached something big is his life, but who was there to tell this to them in their time? The communists have looked with contempt at such 'nonsense', according to them, like nomenology, and you see now the deplorable results for our democracy.
Or let us look for a while to the farmers, or rather to the peasant parties. Milan is a very good name, as we have already said (mil-nice), but what are doing here these 'drenki' (cornels in English) after it (meant that his family is Drenchev), ah? Maybe this is allusion that he is a big thorn ('draka' in Bulgarian) and it is better to have nothing in common with him, or else this is again blunder, but this time of his great-great-grandfather? By some of the others occur one more time the name Gosho, what, after all, sounds bad (what is 'losho' in Bulgarian and it rhymes here)! And the not unknown lady Anastasia, suffers mainly because people can not grasp who she really is, Ana or Stanka, and such instability on the political arena can not bring her the adoration of the populace, right? And in addition to this her family Moser sounds for us even more enigmatic and also frightening, because it reminds us about some Mausers, and we are peaceful nation, due to the fact that the Turks have thought us this for five centuries of yoke, where the Serbs, as you see, because their hands always 'sarbiat' ('sårbiat', are itching in English) to begin to fight with somebody (you know that there is such belief when your hands are itching that you want to do something), have barely waited that the democracy gave them this possibility and began at once to combat.
But as far as it is time to finish then let us make also our proposition for the ideal politician, from the viewpoint of science nomenology, which we have mentioned above. There are, naturally, many variants, and they depend on the political climate in the moment, on the sex of the person, on the external features and the character of him or her, but, still, let us propose several names. For example, what is bad with one Alexandar Stoichev as President or Prime Minister, because he will ustoiava-withstand all attacks (mainly of his people, because those of the others, as a rule, are slighter)? Or also Miroslav Krastev (Kråstev), who for this reason is so christened ('krasten /'kråsten' in Bulgarian), because will become famous ('slaven') all around the world ('mir')? Though the name can also be Dimo Kratski — both, short name, and easy to be remembered, and which has sucked into itself the quintessence of democracy, so that, in whatever party he does not enter, he will move upward, until comes at the head of the entire country, because he was born to be democrat and will remain it (unless he makes the error to change his name). Or also Slavi Bozhkov, ah? He will always slavi-glorify God, or he alone will be the slava-glory of God, what is good seen on the example of our Ivan Slavkov, who was famous under the totalitarianism (he become son in law of Todor Zhivkov), and now people think he is nearly a god (what in Bulgarian and other Slavonic languages is 'bog', and the word was of Persian origin, baga), because stands at the head of BOK (what is Bulgarian Olympic Committee)! And could you imagine what would have been if he was named Bozhan Slavkov? Ah, then there would have been no need to held elections for President, right?
Prosecutors and judges, on the other hand, must stake on the brute force and perseverance, on the fear, power, health, quickness, et cetera. And for the women, because the political arena starts to become more and more their field of career, what is easily explainable with the fact that the women are, as a rule, more mediocre personalities, who must listen to what the others say to them and make this in a sweet, pleasant, and non-confronting way, what is entirely justified also for the politicians, as resonators of the voice of people (even if they sometimes turn to resound ... hollow), we can propose the following names: Milena Govorliyska, Slavka Balgaranova, Ivanka Hubcheva ('hubav' is like German hübsch and means nice, agreeable), Padka (or also Radostina — 'radost' is joy, happiness) Emilova, Svobòda Iskrenova ('iskren' is honest) or Rumiana ('rumen' is rosy, ruddy) Stoianova (quite neutral names and suitable for all Cabinets), Stanka Liubenova (where is possible also masculine variation as, for example, Liuben Stoianov; 'liubim' means beloved), Nartasha Matseva (no Russophobe will reject her — for the reason that 'matse' is like German Mietze and means a girl), Zheny Miroliubska (the family means that she loves the world), Lili Dimova (evokes associations about smell of liuliak-lilac and smoke of domestic hearth), Petrana Blazheva, Eleonora Moneva (or the lonely Eleanor — both neutral and a little exciting), and many others.
June 2000
P.S. The question with the names is, obviously, very important for a politician, or generally for some star in whatever field, and for this reason many choose pseudonyms for themselves that would say something (subconsciously or without realizing this) to the people. For the passed nearly ten years can be added also: Stanishev (leader of the 'social-communists'), who, it is absolutely clear, has always dreamed to 'stane shef' (become boss, exactly so), because such was the message of his parents to him; the perky Volen Siderov (leader of our, however sad it is, fascists — but there is nothing to fear, because he has never gathered more than 6-7% of the votes), who probably hopes that his electors will appraise how free-thinking he is (because 'volno' means free), as well also will make association with one hayduk Sider, about whom in the old days were sung songs; the shyly blinking (to blink is 'migam' in Bulgarian) Miglena (from the Tsarist party, which now has almost ceased to exist),but also Kuneva and with pretty skillful hands ('kunka' in Bulgarian is children jargon for a hand), so that was able to move anywhere; and surely also others.
2008
ABOUT THE USEFULNESS OF COCKROACHES
(scientific feuilleton)
Well, there are many reasons exactly about the benefits of our constant companions in our homes nowadays and because of this I quietly say that I am feeding cockroaches at home, for it turns out to be really so. I am looking at them, as cares about them (because, if I was not there, then they also would not have been there, at least not in such abundance), but also as watching them (will I this or not, where necessary — if it is at all necessary somewhere, even if I don't understand clearly where exactly —, and where not), in all time, but especially in the evenings and nights (approximately before the beginning of the dawn) and mostly in the kitchen joint. So that let me explain to the readers why they are so useful, in order to dedicate them this material.
The first consideration is that once God has created them then they must exist, otherwise they wouldn't have existed! This is iron logic, of the type of ancient Eastern view, that this world is the best one from all possible (for if there was some better one then it would have been settled long ago). If some of you don't like the word 'God' then substitute it with 'Nature', i.e. the cockroaches are part of the whole ecological cycle on Earth, especially in the hot areas, so that if there was not necessity of them then they, surely, would have disappeared (say, in our climatic zones there are not white bears, right, but in the North they exist, yet there are no cockroaches). In general case this is correct also for many other insects (for the flies, gnats, spiders, and others), but the next things are already more specialized, and the idea is that they multiply exactly where is felt some necessity of them (because otherwise they would have not done this, to remind you this again), and if we don't understand clearly their significance (i.e. God's intentions), then this is our problem.
The second consideration is that they exist from deep antiquity, far before the mammals, and when so then they have rich experience and well-tested instincts; regardless of their antiquity, though, when it becomes necessary, they mutate easy (like also the other insects), what is confirmed by the fact that now are met mainly ones smaller, reddish (rather reddish-brown) and elongated, not those that were 20-30 years before (black and spherical, although such also are met sometimes. But it is possible that exactly the reddish are the classical type, because your word 'cockroach' means 'reddish cocca' or 'kuka' (in Bulgarian, what is hook, meant as something curled). These nasty creatures — but, to remind you that this word comes from ... the creation, or v.v., of course (and the same is the situation in Slavonic languages, where in Russian they are tvari and to create is tvorit), i.e. they are also God's creations, like the other animals (a thing that was present also in the Western, or rather French, and from there also English, word ... cretin, which has arisen from Latin creare what is to create — and I may add that this must be so because this thing is usually done in deep bowls named in old Greek kraters /craters).
So that these God's creatures are practicably indestructible, and as if the most reliable method is ... the cold, i.e. if you stay in cold premises, below 20oC at least in the winter, then they decrease in their number to the possible minimum. Otherwise, when you sprinkle with something, then they run away for some time, but one thing is that they run to your neighbours, what is not solving of the question in it's fullness, but also after some time they return back, if they like it by you, i.e. if it is hot, you cook and spill here and there some food, if there are cupboards and /or boxes (and in what home they are missing?) where they can hide and multiply, and especially in older homes, where are some cracks in the walls or plastering, although I wouldn't have said that they will refuse to settle in a good and new brick home. In order not to separate this as new point I can add here also that they are big ... patriots, i.e. they like their places, where they have hatched (even if they don't know their father and mother, of course), so that if you drive them away for some time, they return again later.
The third consideration is that they are not poisonous, don't bite and don't even buzz, they are quiet and humble 'home pets'. Actually, the 'classical' home fly is far more annoying than one well bred and bashful cockroach (for they, as a rule, are afraid to appear before your eyes, they wait until you go out of the kitchen and then begins their time), not to mention the gnats, spiders, as also the home ants (which can bite, if necessary). Well, it is true that in the night they walk around, and if there are some greased with something boxes (say, styrofoam packagings of meat products), then they begin to scratch them, in order to clean them (no matter that you have not begged them specially about this), or it may happen that they can walk on ... your forehead, in order to 'wipe your sweat' or fat, so to say, but when you do not guess to do this, and when they suppose that you are sleeping, then why should not the insects make a little walk? In the end, they are living in your home, so that why not to visit you, ah? Indeed, if you have a dog or a cat, or small child, does it not happen that in the night he /she/ it comes to you as to a more secure place; take it that the cockroaches also seek protection by you from their nightmares (because, who knows?).
The fourth consideration is that they are not at all dirty, like many of us think, but on the contrary, they like to walk around the toothbrush or the sponge for dishwashing, i.e. even if they don't have teeth (I, honestly, have never looked what they have in the mouth), but like the disinfecting aroma, wash at lest their paws, and would have never hidden in dirty corners if you have offered them clear small boxes (as I said, they are shy, they don't like that you watched them when they sleep or, hmm, do these things that do also the humans when the hormones chase after them). So that, as a variant, you could leave for them one kitchen cupboard, or at least a pair of small boxes where you can throw any empty packs (say, out of safety matches, or medicaments, whichever you have, they are not pretentious, but the smaller their size is the better), or these can be simply paper pieces (used tram tickets or cash checks will also do), but don't touch them there and don't try to deceive them, beginning a genocide against them, because they, as we will see later, a quite clever. If in addition to this you pour them in the evening some fresh milk (but natural, do not torture them with dissolved milk powder, they have not deserved this) in one saucer, it can be in the bathroom, or even before the door of the apartment, then, in the end, — as I have heard the Hindus had the habit to do — they would be glad, and you too (because they will not scratch where you don't like to).
The fifth consideration is that they even cleanse your home of various greasy and fermenting products, stains on the floor, around the sink, on the oven, even around (and possibly also inside of) the refrigerator! Jokes aside, they process these liquid remains in solid product — such very small, like a head, or even a top, of a pin, but otherwise hygienic black balls, which in fact are their faeces (if I can allow myself to contaminate your hearing or eyesight with these words). Well, it is true that they stick to everything, where they have left them — and they leave them everywhere —, but this is a natural thing, so to say, and how to reprimand them, when also the little children, as well as the home animals, do the same thing, and their things also smell. Where the cockroaches, as I have said, are clear animals, and if they leave something after them, then it is well processed, with assimilated all possible protein substances, or fats, or milk products, but they don't look with contempt also at sweet things (although are not much greedy at them — while raw minced meat, even if with addition of soya, is another thing).
And because this is popular scientific presentation then let me explain to you some moments about the spoiling of products. Now, there are two kinds of spoilage, one is to preserving, and the other is to destroying; the first is to some kind of fermentation, i.e. oxidation, but is possible that initially goes also some sugarization, because the sugar easily becomes sour (it needs only some water and time), and the other kind is towards the alkaline. This must be confirmed by every chemist, because there are only acids and alkali (if you don't count the neutral substances, but they are only delimiting and unstable state). But this, what hardly some chemist will explain to you, is why the alkali is named so (and don't be confused with some etymology from Arabic, this isn't to the point), yet I have myself a version about this matter, I suppose that the alkali is more or less the same as the Russian word 'kal', what are the mentioned faeces. If you doubt about this Russian influence on the chemistry, then compare with these Latin faeces (and take into account that in Latin 'c' before 'a' is read as 'k'), which are split in two syllables (ultimately every word splits in syllables) and the first is some contemptuous (or spitting) fi- /fu- /tfu- or /phu-, and the second is this very 'kal', which comes from the old Greek, no matter that there it means something good, καλο, and from there is also Bulgarian 'kal', which now is not so bad a thing as in Russian, it is simply a dirt, like mud. So that I am not in error (but let me not go here into details about this why the root 'kalo' can be both, something good and also something bad), and in this case the cockroaches, as also many other insects, collect everything sour and /or greasy, what they can find, and process it (inasmuch as all animal species process, to some extent, the products, as also the plants, but they do this mainly with inorganic substances) in solid alkaline faeces. Id est, the cockroaches don't eat sh##, as many can possibly think, but are very clean insect-creatures.
The sixth consideration is that they are extremely intelligent creatures, and nearly always more clever or smart than the humans, more so taking into account that they have almost nothing, i.e. their 'brains' are with dimensions of tip of a pin, and this by older exemplars, to say nothing about the 'children', and their eyes are faceted, i.e. they see only spots, something like nearsighted with at least 10 diopters. You just imagine how you would have felt if were forced to watch your favorite TV series on a circular screen (the size does not matter) with about 50 spots, probably in one colour. And in spite of this they almost always guess your intentions, and when you just stay and look at them they stay quiet, but only you decide to stretch your hand and grasp something in order to kill them, and they have already disappeared. Such rapidness and precision of reactions, by such primitive structure of their organisms, is directly fantastic, and such are the cockroaches, amazing creatures, just to feel remorse to kill them! And it is even not clear, when we destroy them with different chemical agents, don't we do them something ... good in genetic regard, forcing in this way new and better suited mutations (to say nothing about the physical destruction — this is simply survival of the fittest, i.e. we select them in this way!).
The seventh consideration, which is penultimate in our list (or last in a more serious aspect), is that they are unusually slender and beautiful insects, at least the elongated reddish ones, in good physical condition, directly acrobats, clime the walls, and sometimes even walk on the ceiling, were it only sufficiently warm (higher than 20 degrees Celsius), for the reason that the insects lack yet control of their body temperature. ( And for some time I have looked that one my toothpick, or rather a fragment of such, as if is not on the same place where I have left it the previous day — I am living alone and there is nobody else to touch it —, but thought that maybe I am wrong, yet when this happened several times I came to the conclusion that these creatures simply ... are exercising sports in the night, they are lifting weights, ah? But maybe this 'cockroach-boy' — because in Bulgarian this insect is 'she', or then 'girl' because in Russian it is 'he', i.e. I mean that the sex may be different from the usually accepted, although in English the usual things sometimes sound unusually —, so maybe this 'guy' or 'girl:' is simply angry at me that I have left nothing on the toothpick, whether I know, but one Bulgarian intellectual cannot allow himself to leave tasty bits even on the tip of a toothpick, so that let this 'insector' or 'insectoress' forgive me. )
But if they can't regulate their body temperature, then they can lay eggs, which survive the cold times, so that it again turns out that they are built physically very well. Besides, they can cling to practically any surface (plaster, paint, wood, faience, etc.) if only it is not extremely polished, and if you think that they sometimes fall from the table — because this has to be the idea behind the Russian name 'tarakan', i.e. that they do 'trr' when they flop to the ground — then you are wrong, they simply jump! Id est they know that they can't fly, but they are light, the reddish ones (and the black ones have hard shell, and surely keep balance better than the cats, so that they land on their paws), and jump from a height of one meter, even of two (what, compared with their dimensions, means that a human jumps from 100 - 200 meters, and without any parachute, maybe only opening a little the flanks of his overcoat!). And they are quite beautiful — all insects are directly perfect in their structure —, and the healthy body leads to healthy ... sex, of course, in every time, like by the humans, so that: how one can not admire them? ( In fact, if there is something for which I don't like them much, this is that one just can't ... swear at them properly, because, you see, with a cockroachess, and more so if it is 'he', isn't the best thing to imagine. )
Well, on parting we can add an eight consideration about the usefulness of cockroaches — this, that they can be quite useful as ... food! Id est, they maybe are not very tasty (I, for my part, have always felt pity to kill them for this purpose, so that I personally have not tasted them), but they contain fats (it is seen when one smashes them with a good hit), proteins (when they are so agile, because we eat mainly muscles, the so called striated, which are some long fibers and with hooks at both ends and they cling to one another), and also contain calcium, because they have chitin shells and non-developed wings (what is nearly equal to ... milk products, for we eat milk and milk products chiefly because of the calcium in them, that is necessary especially for the young and the old). So that here is one such recipe:
Cockroaches with rice a la Myrski
You take one glass jar for stewed fruit, 700 - 800 ml, pour in it half coffee cup of rice (50 g), add a coffee cup of fresh milk (100 ml), pour also a little (10 ml) sunflower oil, put very little salt and sugar (maybe also black pepper, if you have accustomed them to more spicy food), curl around the jar some handkerchief (it might be also used, so is even better) and fix it with elastic band to the orifice, so that it hung down and reached to the floor, but otherwise left the jar open, and put it in the evening in the kitchen or the bathroom, where the cockroaches like to walk. The handkerchief is not obligatory, or can be used also some narrow piece of cloth tied like a cravat, which stretches on the floor, but it is necessary to have something similar in order to alleviate the rising to the top for these little animals, after what they jump — voluntarily, i.e. you do not compel them, this is quite democratic approach — inside, eat as much as they can, but can't climb back out. If for one night there will not accumulate enough — they have to be about 50 -100 pieces, otherwise the meal will be very meatless — then leave the jar for a second (or third) night; don't be afraid that the milk will spoil, it will firstly try to preserve itself through some kind of souring, or add a little vinegar (this may attract even more insects). In the day when you decide to cook this meal you just pour quickly the contents in the saucepan, where you have first fried a little grated union, in more oil, add water for the rice, put the preferred by you spices, but do not forget finely chopped celery, parsley or dill, and after half an hour of cooking (the cockroaches will quickly be ready, they are too small) add, if possible, some grated parmesan. After fife more minutes the meal is ready.
Well, this is portion for one person, so that if you are more people, or if you expect guests, then put several such jars, or even ask some of your neighbours to leave for a night a pair of jars by them; usage of bigger jar with increased dose is also a variant, but don't fill much a small jar (maximum till 1/3 of the it, but preferably till the 1/4), because the food can run away by you. This dish can be prepared also in clay pots, and then instead of parmesan you can knock on top by one (tiny, it can be from quail) egg, but there is no necessity of other meat additions, in order to be able to feel good the taste of the insects.
Well, bon appetite!
And love the cockroaches, they deserve this!
Sep 2012
THOUGHTS ABOUT UKRAINE
This is what is said, contemplations about Ukraine, why this, what is done there, though not new as situation, is not good, by what reasons, how the society evolves and to what this can lead, why Ukraine will in any case only lose if the disorder there will continue, what is best of all to do and to what to aim, who is guilty, and other related questions. Id est this is not political commentary, not only because I am not specialist in these matters, not political commentator or special observer, etc., but also because the situation there develops pretty fast, and while I write and multiply this material for several sites, then it will already become old. But my things usually do not age, even after twenty years, due to the fact that my approach is reasonable and a little philosophical, so that also this time I will write so that this material could have been read after, say, fifty years, or hundred, or two hundreds. Anyway, I for a long time, 3-4 years now, intend to write something of the kind and always can not find free time to do this. Well, then let me begin, and see what will succeed to create.
Although I wish to add in the beginning that I may be wrong in some details. For this reason I will summarize now how I understand the situation there, and you, if you think that the things are not so, the problems are entirely different, and this my idea about the situation there is quite vague, then just exit quickly out of this material. So my understanding of the situation is such: the Ukrainians feel themselves displeased and insulted by this that to them was attributed the role of younger brother, but they are more capable and gifted and more genuine Slavs and Christians, and it is long ago time for them to separate from Russia and unite with the West, with Europe, in order to start living happily among rivers of honey and butter. While in the same time the Russians feel obliged to defend the unity of neighbouring states, as also to exercise military supremacy in the region, and the less states remain in the CIS the harder they will defend its integrity. So that the Ukrainians must simply put up with the situation and try to derive from it as much benefits as possible, because else, if they succeed to separate from Russia, they, in any case, will only lose. That is how I thing in outlines, and as far as the situation in Ukraine is in many aspects similar to that in Bulgaria, at least in regard of the poverty, I have some look at the things, because Ukraine goes, so, twenty years after Bulgaria in its actions of untying from the influence of the "great and indestructible" Soviet Union, and in such case I can give some useful advice. So, and now I begin to explain the things in a bit finer raster.
Nothing new under the Sun
Everyone knows this, right? And this, what I have in mind here, is that the bigger amount of controversies arise between related or territorially adjacent people or territories, for the reason that they have similar views to the things, but differ in details, and because they have what to divide. The same is also true about the conflicts between generations, where the genes, in one or another degree, manifest themselves, and it was nearly the same almost 25 centuries back, when certain Alexander Macedonian decided to conquer first the state of Athens on his way to the East. To conquer not because he did not like them, for they had common gods, and the language as if also was the same, but he needed a strong rear. But he had no desire to fight with them, they were those who wanted to fight whatever happens, and they have even used on expenses for weapons and troops some hundred talents of gold from the neighbouring Persians, which the latter have decided to give them as gift, in order that they, defending themselves, stopped this Ksan Macedonian. Well, they have defended themselves, without any necessity, and have lost the battle. And do you know what is this a talent — where from has come also the word used for such gifted persons (like your author, right?)? It turns out that this was approximately 20 kilograms, because this is the usual load which a person can carry out on his back.
But I give you this example in order to show how the related nations from times immemorial have considered as almost obligatory firstly to fight between them, and later, eventually, to begin making friends. Id est how not necessarily economic reasons, but entirely "human", like excessive stubbornness, unwillingness to comply with reality, desire to show off, and so on, lead to entirely unnecessary quarrels and battles. Because it has to be clear that it is not right that the weak fights with the strong, this is silly, isn't it? Yeah, sure, this is silly, but, on the other hand, this is humanly! Such situations happen quite often, take for example the events in Ireland, or in the beginning of 90ies of the past century in Serboslavia, and in other places. And somewhere in that time when the battles in Yugoslavia were led, I think, I have come to the conclusion that usually, as a rule, in 90 percents of the cases
guilty are the weaker, but the responsibility carry the stronger.
I can not boast that read political commentaries, but have not met officially this statement, no matter that there are quite reasonable causes for it. They are fixed even etymologically, as in the English (your "mean" means average, but also bad, evil, etc.) so also in the Italian (their sinister means left, i.e. here weak, but also like your sinister, evil). And such character usually has the feminine reaction in family conflicts, which, obviously, is weak. Id est the women usually provoke conflicts, hoping that either the men will become ashamed, or there will be some public reaction, but they are those who begin the disputes, and the men are forced to apply brutal force since deep antiquity. And the weak side is usually more dishonest for the simple reason that in a fair fight it, surely, will lose the battle, it has no other choice. At the same time the responsibility carries the strong side, because that is why it is stronger, for to find solution, and with applying of as less as possible force.
So also in this conflict, I think, the situation is, generally, such, the Ukrainians want to defend their independence, this is the right of every individual and every nation, to insist on their language, and on their hryvnia, for else the Russians will assimilate them. And all military bases there, the Russian territories in Crimea, and other things, have to be returned to Ukraine, for to increase its prosperity, think they. The Russians may be similar to the Ukrainians, but not exactly, and their own shirt is closer to their body, as the Russian saying goes, what means that self comes first. Yeah, but when they are weaker, when the Russians are three times more on population, but on territory even about 25 times more, and when the Russians are nuclear state, then they simply must obey them, not to show their own wishes but comply with those of the Russians, maintain common market with them, and then they will only gain by all this.
But let us proceed. I think that
independence is one thing, but to change political blocs is not good.
Because we are living now in 21 century, in which all states are independent up to some extent, there are no colonies. Yet military blocs still exist, and as if in the nearest pair of centuries have no intention to disappear. They are still necessary, approximately in such degree in which the parties are necessary in political life, at which I am spitting nearly in every second of my materials, but this does not eliminate the necessity of them. The blocs are necessary for to make us think, before we come to the utmost means (ultima ratio in Latin), before we begin to combat, but also because they are significantly less than the number of states (say, 50 times) and can maintain reasonable relations, can lead negotiations, not to fight each against each. Blocs are power, and the power has to be taken in consideration, this is clear to everybody.
What means that as if the only reason to leave one bloc is to enter into another one. Very rare some small state can be considered really independent and not tied with military or economic blocs. Let us take Bulgaria. We left the Warsaw Pact, like also Czech Republic, Poland, at cetera, and did not miss (well, there passed 4-5 years, but we have though long ago, even before exiting this Pact) to enter the NATO. I personally am not satisfied with this, for the reason that, judging by the name of this organization (North Atlantic Trade Organization), we have nothing in common with the Atlantic Ocean (neither with the Northern one, nor with the Southern), and have never had, and also nobody has asked the people do we want this or not, but we, after all, are in Europe, and if all states around us are members of NATO, then we also must be such members, there is no other way. Id est, we have acted correctly, because otherwise we would have been forced to oppose NATO, what is not possible, but the case with Ukraine is not such. Ukraine goes, or has for a very long time gone, hand in hand with Russia, and if it can succeed somehow to enter NATO, exactly then it will become at gunpoint of the neighbouring states, i.e. of Russia and its allies, but now nobody aims at it. In other words, the (possible) membership of Ukraine in NATO will only worsen the situation in the region.
To judge that, you see, the Czech Republic and Poland have become members of NATO, have they not, so that why not to expand this bloc a little more on the east, is very naive, because it can not be expanded forever. Now, Turkey also wants to enter NATO but this, still, does not happen. And I will tell you why the whole Western Europe has decided to enter NATO, if you can not guess. Because the world, especially the Americans, do not trust much the Europeans, after the two world wars, and want to control this center of civilization, but also the very Europe, as if, does not trust itself; people there don't love much the Americans (obviously, for this reason they have tried to unite, in order to be in position to oppose the USA), but they want to be in one military bloc with them because it is more quiet in this way (and what if Russia ...). The Baltic states also have become members of NATO, but they are a bit on the outskirts, this is not the same like with Ukraine, not that the Russian military bases were so near as in Crimea. This is all not the same.
And in addition Georgia has also confused the situation. I am at least indignant by the behaviour of Georgia, because they should carry some responsibility for the Stalinism, shouldn't they, and he has brewed the biggest mess in the history of whole Soviet Union in the last century, the entire world would not have looked so at Russia and at the communists if Stalin has not existed. And there was also time when the Georgians have written humble petition to the Russian Tsar, Pavel I think, begging him to take them under his protection because the bassurmans oppressed them severely. And, now, the Russians must protect them when they are in trouble, but they have all rights to leave the Russians when the latter have not felt quite well after the collapse of USSR. So that, Ukrainians, Sirs, don't take bad example, take good one, look at the Cossacks, Tajiks, and other southern nations, who are even not Slavs, for them to speak Russian is, obviously, more difficult than for you.
Then take into consideration, or if you don't know this then listen, that
a military bloc (say, NATO) can not better the economic situation in poor countries,
it has not such goal and could never have it. It can even worsen it, by the simple reason that it will want money for purchasing of new armament. From the inclusion of poor or suffered country in new military bloc can win only the ... prostitutes and speculators in the black market! Believe me, please, because in my old years I have begun to read in Italian, and (for reasons of bad assortment of books in this language) I was forced to read a pair of books about the time of American occupation of Italy in the end of the Second World War, and there the situation was exactly the same. Then also Bulgaria for now 10 years is a member of NATO and what has happened? In economic regard nothing good — we are on the last place according the standard of life in European Union (and earlier were even on the penultimate place, after Albania). So that, you, Ukrainians, mark this well into your minds, if you enter some day NATO, as result of this your life will become only worse!
Let me explain a bit this my prediction. For one thing there is a psychological reason, which is in this that the West, and especially the Americans, will look at the Ukrainians as at more inferior beings. In this case I wouldn't say as at white slaves, but as at something of the kind. From point of view of the Americans, like the Russian language, so also the Ukrainian one, is anyway some Chinese, to such people one has not to give much credit. That's it. And also this is, still, Asia, isn't Europe, right? Well, maybe not exactly like in India, but somewhere around. Then comes the market, the competition with other countries, far more developed than Ukraine. For Bulgaria, after all, this has turned to be the major blow as result of our including in the European Union, and even before the inclusion, because their politicians wanted that we have had predominant exchange of goods with them, not with other countries (say, with Russia). And when we are not "on the level" nobody buys our products, we though give all our money to buy something from abroad, not Bulgarian. All this is elementary and obvious, I have spoken about it in various places, the market, no matter, how good it is for some countries, for more developed, turns to be as much bad for the weakly developed countries like Bulgaria, and I think I will not make an error if say that also for Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and so on. To happen to be not on your own market is, ah, how bad!
So, and now let us turn our attention to the question
about Ukrainian contribution to the Slavonic world.
I am not specialist in these matters, but I suppose it is known to everybody that in Kiev was adopted at their time the Christianity, that there was Kievan Rus, which later has shifted to the north, and also separated from the Ukrainians, who have left to the south. And the acceptance of Christianity was very important deed in that time, it signified their withdrawal from the barbarism (however strange this may seem from the standpoint of today's views). And generally, in the tenth century, and even earlier, when Cyril and Methodius have created the Slavonic alphabet, the center of Slavic world was on south, approximately in the region of Bulgaria, there was also the representative and single Slavonic language, although Slavs have lived in the north, in Great Moravia, as well on the east, around Kiev and even beyond the Urals. The very name of this town, too, in my opinion, is related somehow with the delight or ... kief, this is great town, mother of the towns, like for the Spaniards is Madrid, and for the Italians is Rome. In all probability this has to be exactly so, and the Ukrainians have all reasons to be proud with their Kiev, as well with the Christianity, and also with this, that they were its major pillars at least on the east and toward Asia, because the religion is carrier of morality and without it (when there was not universal education) people are savages
And to all this the very name of Ukrainians has to come, up to my mind (but for me it is obvious) from the border or periphery (okraina in Russian)! Id est these are people on the okraine, they as if are not the major Slavs in the region, but a deep province, agricultural appendage of the great Russia. Their language (to what we will come soon), too, is better than the Russian, and they feed the whole Russia, because on the north even potatoes are hardly sprouting, and despite all this the Russians insult them how they only can, think they. All this is so, yet to accept nationalistic position that, see, we are good but all the others are scum, is not only unethical but also silly and unjustified, because each nation has its achievements. And this, that the nations in their developing are trying all the time to differ with something from the others, especially if they are similar in many aspects, is on the one hand quite natural, this is part of the evolution, but on the other hand pretty oft leads to funny differences, just for the sake to find differences (similarly to various fashion styles of clothing, appearance, etc. — for example, the flower baskets which the great ladies have worn earlier on their heads, or the tin "armors" in which they have confined themselves, or the wigs and men's cylinders, and many other examples). So that, to everybody his own, yet not in the sense that everybody deserves punishment according to his actions (how have interpreted the fascists this slogan — Jedem das seine), but that everyone has his deserts, one some own, but the other also his own, and if the Ukrainians have been pillars of Christianity in their time, then the Russians have been pillars of peace and protection of surrounding countries at their time, and even now are this (don't you think please, that to carry the royal crown and responsibility for everything is easy!).
In this direction, but because here I want to say many different things I separate it under different heading, comes the question
about the Ukrainian (respectively, Russian) language.
As I have said (but not I have come to this conclusion) about 10 centuries back was single Slavonic language, the center of which was approximately on the territory of Bulgaria, because Cyril and Methodius have worked in the monastery of Athos on the territory of today's Greece, and quite near to the contemporary border of Bulgaria (and earlier also on the territory of Bulgaria). And then the question about the primacy of Ukrainians or Russians loses its meaning because first were, of course, the Bulgarians! After all, the Christianity was adopted in Bulgaria in 865, i.e. more than a century earlier than in Kievan Rus, and Bulgarian language was in the basis of Slavonic language, in the sense that contemporary Bulgarian language stays nearer to the old-Slavonic one than the Russian, or else Ukrainian (in it were no Latin letters, like "i", for example). I am laicus also in this relation, have not received linguistic education, but I have quite broad look at these questions (I call myself intelligent laic), for to have the right to pronounce myself on it. So that Sirs, and this time Russians and Ukrainians, there is no need to debate which language is better, I have told you (in my materials in the folder "For all those from CIS", which is in Russian and I don't intend to translate it in other languages but think to compose similar folder only in English for Arabs, Chinese, etc.) that the Bulgarian language deserves to be considered as etalon, standard or benchmark, for all Slavs (and even for the entire world, further more), in many aspects, in grammatical, in phonetical, and in relation to the international politics (now, as one of the languages of European Union). Here can't be whatever discussions, can be only misunderstood preferences due to the inertness of the people, as well also to partiality of judgement ("your own sh. does not smell", I beg your pardon, but this is well known proverb in Russian, not I have invented it, and it is just to the point).
But this question is very important, it continues now for many centuries, I suppose. In any case, in the 70ies of the last century, when I have studied in Saint Petersburg, then Leningrad, the Bulgarian students in Kiev have complained that in their University they read lectures to them in Ukrainian, what is entirely wrong, after all then existed still the USSR (and approximately 20 years later I have listened to lectures in Austria in English, what was though to be quite proper decision). Id est, understand me correctly, please: the necessary for the Slavs language, to all appearances (or else prove justifiably, scientifically, that this is not so) has to be the Bulgarian one, but if it goes about the territory of CIS, then this has to be the Russian, at least in the official institutions (how people speak at home, or on the streets, or at the pub, etc., is irrelevant). One can not imagine a state where they speak in different languages, the only exception in this case is Switzerland, but it is mountainous country, the different areas are isolated, there was somehow establisher such tradition, and now they all study English so that the problem was resolved by itself. In the framework of European Union there is no official language, but unofficially this role performs again the English, though the problem stays also before them. There is no need to remind you, I think, the fable about the Tower of Babel; in the present days to do without official language in some big group of people is simply inconceivable. But possibly it was so also in the antiquity, because at those times the languages have differed one from the other even less, they are for this reason called Indo-European languages (if not necessary one language then there were a pair of similar ones).
And now a bit more concrete about the Russian and Ukrainian languages. Although about the Russian I have spoken in the cited folder (there is even newer material in this sense) and it is entirely outmoded (in the original is said even "antediluvian"), with this language there is no entering in Europe (not that they will stop you on the border, but will laugh at you behind your back). The same can be said about the Ukrainian, too, when there exist cases in it, also similar prolonged vowels ("oy", "iy", etc.), and 32 letters are not enough for them and they are forced to use the Latin "i", too. And in political regard it can lead only to splitting, because the very Ukraine is not monolithic, one part of it is for alliance with the Russians, but the other is for uniting with Europe, due to the nearness to the Poles (with whom earlier, of course, they have fought and not rarely). If the "watershed" between the two Blocs must be drawn through the middle of Ukraine this is the worst possible scenario (and because of this I am afraid that something similar can happen — when people begin to do stupid things they never, as a rule, are satisfied with small stupidity, no, they play "all in", and usually lose).
But, still, the Ukrainian language, from general considerations that it is more southern language, as well also because of some phonetic details, is more correct than the Russian. Say, in regard of the letter "e" or "i" they are right, they say 'divka' (in single quotes I give how the word is pronounced, not how it is written), like in the Latin as also everywhere on the West (diva), what comes somewhere from the Sanskrit, not 'devka' as the Russians say. For this reason they have two letters "i", but not 'ie' like the Russian "e" (i.e. the Russians want to say 'i', but until they take the decision they already give up their intention, and then say 'e'), what in my terminology are modified vowels (like in English 'ae' in the word "back"). And when they are (more) southern Slavs then they must have more southern, understand Arabic or Persian, words. For example, I quite recently have found that they have the word "maydan" as gathering, congregation of people, what is Persian word, exactly 'maydan', and this means the same like Bulgarian archaic word "megdan", i.e. central place in a village where all can gather (if somebody says 'mahay to the maydan /megdan' — this is around the syllable 'may' like in the month May when everything changes fast). And to all this they are nearer to the Bulgarians, they like ... hot peppers, while the Russians — not at all. But in spite of all this, neither the Russian, nor the Ukrainian, are good enough languages, so that they were learned also by the non-Slavic nations of the CIS, and for the Slavic nations using of some other Slavonic language, i.e. of the Bulgarian, would have lessened, a priori, the possible frictions between these nations with about 30 percents, I think!
So, and from here it is easy to switch to the next theme, that
the disturbances in the CIS only make each of the parties weaker!
This is not only because the armament costs money, and all possible destructions in result of the military operations inflict direct damage to the countries, but also because this upsets the normal rhythm of work, this is favorable to no one. What is reduced to this that if the Ukrainians have not "kicked" so strongly against the Russians they would have lived better. And as I have cast a cursory glance in one material on the Internet, it turns out that the Russians propose exactly to maintain or organize common market for Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and other countries of the CIS, if they want this. That is how people act in civilized countries, look at the Arab states, or at the United Europe, or at the Northern America (where are united USA, Canada, and Mexico, if I am not mistaken). Only that the Ukrainians don't want peace, they want disturbances, right? Well, I overdo the things a little, not all Ukrainians want this, but the young ones, who have succeeded to grow up in the democratic time (as also our own, Bulgarian fascists) want exactly this, they want that there were quarrels, battles, actions, in order that they were able to show off with something, because otherwise life seems quite dull to them. They are right in their own way, but this is not the right thing, reasonable people don't behave in this way, the more when the Russians are strongly mixed with the Ukrainians, and there is no sense to stop this process, it goes only to the benefit of gene.
And now see what happens. Because the Ukrainians want to separate from Russia, but in Ukraine live many Russians, then these Russians want to separate from Ukraine, and then Russia is simply bound to help them. It begins to help them, and then Ukraine begins to cry aloud to the entire world, how badly Russia behaves to them and that it is high time that NATO intervened, and the generals there, nothing highly surprising, will begin to send weapons to the Ukrainians. Yeah, but how you, my Ukrainian brothers and sisters, think, will Ukraine in this way become more rich, or on the contrary, will their economic problems be solved in this way, or will worsen? Do you really want that the Great Powers and world community intervened, ah? But when they intervene they usually "are felling many trees", like the Russians say, or "together with the dry woods burn also the raw ones", as the Bulgarians say, i.e. they usually worsen the things, isn't it so? To remind you that the Great Powers have organized the country Israel, and 10 years after this there have begun the disorders and fights and they do not intend to stop at all. For the Western world, and especially for the United States, is preferable to have conflicts all around the world, this comes cheaper for them, instead of specially to provoke the conflicts. Try to come to reason, else the disorders will never end!
Well, and now let me give you some considerations of myself why the Ukrainians have to put up with the hegemony of Russia, why they will never succeed to become "older brother" and begin to rule "the roast". Here everything is simple, in my view,
the civilization nowadays just moves to the north.
In the sense that the nations have firstly moved from east to west, maybe because ... wanted to avoid that the sun shined them in the eyes, I suppose, or this was simply easier, to interfere with China there is no sense (if you start from India or the Himalayas), and further is the ocean, who knows (i.e. has known) where it ends and ends it at all or not? So, have come also to the new world, have discovered America, with their Indians instead of Hindus, and what further? To influence the Chinese is impossible, they are too much. What remains then? Well, it remains to go to the north, in Europe, as well in America, and in Asia, too. In particular, the Russians have made exactly this, some 5 - 10 centuries earlier. And why, how do you think? Well, because it is easier to withstand the cold than the heat! That's it.
And really, the northern nations, now already a pair of centuries show enviable progress in contrast with the southern ones (say, with the Arabic countries, too much to the south, after the equator, to go is equivalent to moving to the north, so that this is not it). This is because the plants easily withstand the cold, than the heat, and give better results. The winter season, if you ask the southern nations, is not cold but wet, and then everything grows and brings fruit. You all know that today all around the world is sold Canadian wheat or lentil, or something else that grows on earth and is nutritious (tomatoes there as if they do not breed, but they are grown in all countries in hothouses); earlier, in the times of Roman Empire, breadbasket of the world was Egypt, the Nile delta, but now this is Canada. And with the fish the situation is about the same, it is caught more of it in the North. And how is it with the people, ah? Where they withstand the weather easier, how do you think?
Well, I personally have given a thought to this issue (because I am trying to economize from what I only can, and decided to measure when I am feeling most comfortably, although this is known to the biologists), and it turned out that this is the temperature of 23ºC (maybe 22º would have been more suitable, but I am old man and skinny and I feel cold). And now let us move away from it in both directions and make conclusions when is better, by 13 or by 33? I personally would have preferred 33, but many people (especially in working premises, when one is dressed), and especially the plants and animals would have preferred 13ºC. And further, say by 3º or by 43º? Of course that by 3º, 43º is difficult to endure, the heart becomes overburdened, and extending this diapason further more the conclusions become directly imperatives, because by -3º people live in clover, but by 53º is necessary a space suite or air conditioner, and the latter is quite expensive. Then -13 this is usual winter for us, but 63 this is inconceivable, then -23º also can be endured, -33º harder but still possible, but in the direction of pluses now the protoplasm coagulates. Such are the things. And the plants and animals withstand even easier the minus temperatures than the humans.
But there is also another aspect, I have thought about this matter. When you want to warm yourself you burn some fire, it raises the temperature of the environment, warms it, too. And when you cool what happens? Well, it happens this, that you cool one place but around it you make it even warmer, this is not real cooling of the environment but only locally, yet this is so because there exists one thermodynamic law that says, that you can not take away energy from some body just so (lowering the energy of electrons, releasing to somewhere the fast electrons and leaving only the slow ones), it can give the heat only if there is someone to take it, but simply so to cool is impossible (though simply so to heat is possible), i.e. the situation here is similar to the ... time axes, it has for us only one direction. Add to this also the possible global warming (about which I have spoken that it is not so much warming as is fast mixing of the air, but little by little we are moving away from the glacial period, so that slight warming exists, after all). In the nearest pair of centuries I simply can't see how something in my conclusions can be changed, the more so on the background of mutated fruits and animals; I am telling you: the cold is better than the heat, for everything alive.
What naturally, if we return to our topic, means that Ukraine will continue to be weaker in economic relation than Russia, and even in Russia will be possible to grow absolutely everything necessary (even bananas, if need be), so that they will be able to do without the agricultural products that Ukraine can deliver to them. But for the minerals, too, the north seems to be better, for the reason that on the south the major part of them has been already used. So that this my conclusion is obviously correct.
But let us proceed further, let us speak now
about the patriotism and fatherland.
You see, the patria, or the earthen part (-ia, what must be the same in phonetical aspect) is a good thing, but in our days it begins to become more and more symbolical, because if the countries do not oppose especially to each other, if there exists global exchange of goods and services around the world, if one can change his (or her) place of residence and have double (and triple) citizenship, and live where only wants, even in Paris, or in New York, if the laws in all countries increasingly equalize, and the taxes, too, also the wages (in equally developed neighbouring countries, but all world moves to such equalizing), then there is no special difference "which god he will pray", so to say, i.e. what citizenship he will have. This is the reality, and the national flags and currency are of secondary importance, they become now insignificant, we all are humans, there are not best or chosen people, there are (still) only wealthy and poor. So that, my dear adolescents, or also military personnel, enough waving of fighting tomahawk, as the saying goes. Let us become friends, ah? And take into account chiefly the military blocs and the markets, so that there all were approximately equal, don't pay much attention to political differences. Have you still not understood that there is not communism or capitalism? What exists is strongly limited monopolistic production in the framework of capitalism, and more liberal capitalist one, that acknowledges both, monopolies and private companies. The communism, generally speaking, has converged with the capitalism, the difference is only in the level of intensification of labour (respectively, in the exploitation) in some countries, but everything is only a question of time, question of pair of decades of years (and even if it is half a century, what of it?).
So my dear (when you are only a few, ah?) readers. It is time to wrap it up, but let me say also something in the end
about the urgent measures in the given crisis,
because some of you are right to object that these moralizing of mine are only nice talk, but when the fire burns there is no need to explain the fire safety regulations, then the fire must be extinguished. So it is, but not exactly. Because we have not yet begun to throw atom bombs around, and what if we come to this? So that the rules for safety and peaceful coexistence must always be explained, even when we succeed to extinguish the fire ii also necessary, in order to know for the future. And then you know that these urgent measures, if we do not count the even bigger rousing of fire in the very process of extinguising (through supplying of weapons from various countries and to various sides of the conflict), is reduced only to applying of stronger force (as I have explained this in several places), in order that the opposing party was horrified and refused to fight (like, say, only to give an example, have done the Americans in the end of World War Two with Japan, or then, how they have acted after the assault of Bin Laden in the very beginning of this century, declaring war to the whole nation), or even to scare both sides (how it was with the bombing in the former Yugoslavia), if intervenes (as if) neutral side.
So it usually happens when casual spectators begin to help; this what they want is to see some real action, but that the fighting parties give human victims — well, after all, we have not forced them to fight, will say the spectators. So that you, first of all, try alone to help yourselves! Because guilty are both sides, the process has entered in cycles, it can't be said that the ones are guilty and the others are victims. For the reason that, if you give credence to my statement in the very beginning, then in the beginning guilty were the Ukrainians, because they wanted to separate from Russia in uncivilized way, mark this, because they were the weak side in the confrontation Ukraine - Russia, and Russia has carried the responsibility, yet it has done nothing, it has not begun to fight with Ukraine. So that on this stage the apparent guilty side was the Ukrainians (like the "kids", also the old ones). Later, however, when have begun the separatists actions in Ukraine, then the weak side were the Ukrainian Russians, and the strong side was the Ukraine alone, so that then guilty were these Russians, and the responsibility carries the Government of Ukraine, yet it has not dealt correctly, has not required reasonable measures together with Russia, with the intention to preserve this union, or else separate in civilized way. But if Ukraine begins (or has begun) to fight with these Russians then the conflict moves between Ukraine, as weaker side, and respectively guilty (if I am still right in my statement in the beginning), and Russia, which carries the responsibility for (not) solving the conflict. So that now, although Ukraine is as before more guilty, nonetheless both countries are guilty and they both carry the responsibility. Only with tanks the conflict will not be solved, maybe is necessary some common denunciation of both sides, of Russian separatists, and of Ukrainian nationalists, but the important things is that this was common verdict.
And now about this what means civilized "divorce". Well, this also is obvious, this is how the Czechs and Slovaks have acted in the distant 1993 (I think). If the Ukrainians are such that they always are ready to suspect the adversary in falsifying (and I think that they are exactly such, because that is how in Bulgaria also happens, the weaker ones, judging by themselves, are always unsatisfied, here is actual — I beg the more squeamish readers to excuse me — the aptly comparison, that ... the bad prick is hampered by the balls), then exists obvious decision: has to be performed open voting! It is true that in this way people run to certain risk, but what is this in the end, in Ukraine people either want to be friends with the Russians and stay in the same boat with them, as it was nearly thousand years, or they don't want this; let it be clear who will carry the responsibility for the next even bigger lessening of the standard of life, mainly in Ukraine, but in Russia, too. Or also conduct voting by Internet, and that the results come to both countries, or use as intermediary link some site of European Union and send their meanings to that site, using passwords, and from there they can be sent to the both countries — something of the kind, there are many variants, and it is not at all difficult to choose such, that there were impossible to falsify whatever. And as result of this referendum must be made exact plan how to perform this process, by months and years, but I think that in all cases must be waited 4-5 years till the final separation.
Or then first outline roughly the separation zone in the very Ukraine on Eastern and Western, where only the Western can enter in Europe. And this also without hurry, because must be taken the necessary measures, by European countries, by Russia, and by other CIS countries. This is not that a single family has divorced, here are millions of families, it should not be acted in a hurry. And even better to conduct a series of votings, two or three, with half an year between them, so that the people were able to think seriously about the things. Or also to set some neutral zone between the votes "pro" and "against", so that, say, the ratio of the bigger to the smaller parts differed with more than 5% (or rather to require initially even ten), and conduct referendums until people show real difference (after all, approximately so is chosen the Roman Pope), so that it was not possible to say later that some error happened. Because Ukraine, even if it is not so big state like Russia, but it is still quite big, this will be nearly as a "fight between dinosaurs".
Ah, it turns out that I can add also something more, about this
how the West looks at the might of Russia in the region.
I can't be quite sure in this case, but up to my mind the whole Europe, as well also the USA, don't want to intervene in open military confrontation with Russia. They don't want because of fears about the many possible victims, but also because Russia is beneficial for them as force in the region, without it would have become worse, it would have been harder to constrain the discontent of entire Arab world (or at least of the Moslem countries), and the fight for supremacy in the region of Himalayas continues to be central point in the geopolitics of the Great Powers! Some of you maybe remember that back in 1968, by the landing in Czechoslovakia, many people hoped that the West will intervene, but it, and this is reasonable reaction, in my view, has abstained to do this, objected for some time, but then considered the matter as internal affair of the countries in Warsaw Pact. I don't understand why now many Ukrainians (I am almost convinced that this is so) think that the West will intervene, I personally don't think so. After all, if the Russia was not so strong, then it would have begun to seek allies, it maybe would have united with India (ancient civilization, peaceful religion), and even with China (obviously also ancient civilization and vast, the most populated country in the world, and, as I have given a thought to the matter, on the whole peaceful, it has not conquered colonies, and even has defended itself from the Mongols in its time, quite worthy ally, and in addition also communist state, will not look at the Russians as at ... monkeys in the zoo, so to say). And if this happens then with such bloc will be impossible to cope!
So that, gentlemen, think, but be wise. The first think here is to stop fighting and begin to think quietly and slowly. And I dedicate you at parting the following tiny verse, hopping that it will cool a little extremely hot heads.
He, the Russian — you are bound
To admit — he knows to fight!
You, Okraynians, are around —
That's the truth, my girls and guys.
Try to fit, or you'll come down
Even more, that's it, bye-bye.
Dec 2014
AN ILLITERATE WORLD
— from "Scientific Feast (PIR)"
Subject:
The next paper discusses the problem with common transliteration for all world languages. This is a draft, of course, for such general problems could not be decided by one person nowadays, but the ideas involved may be used and extended by some group of linguists with fluent knowledge of a dozen widely used languages, including also, say: French, Greek, Arabic, Chines, etc. Then it should be discussed and propagated trying to convince people of the need for this, and if some world authority with not only suggestive power but capable to enforce things will be engaged, then, possibly, the problem will be solved. Because it must be solved in one-two centuries, anyway.
0. Introduction
Well, this is not what the author really means, or he means it strictly formal, wanting to say that in the whole world there are not well accepted common letters in use, i.e. there is not one and the same alphabet used throughout the globe. And this is a hindrance in communications between different nations, of course, which was not so imposing some thousand, or even hundred of years before, but nowadays it is, because, especially through the Internet, the whole world is turning to one single country. And, strangely enough, there are no special problems for bettering of the situation, because we are not speaking about one language for all the peoples, but just for usage of one and the same characters by all.
Still, the problem exists, not only because we are used to make problems where the point is just in rejecting of some old habits, but because there are a great variety of vowels and consonants and not enough characters in the alphabet. This is true, though it is nothing unavoidable, and some combinations of characters can be used, and they have been used from ancient times. The point is that such combinations, and reading rules at all, are not common in the whole world. But well, was it not so with the common measure units, or with the right/left movement on the streets, or with the laws in different countries, etc? But, by the by, the problems were (or are being) solved, because they must to! Similarly, the author thinks, the problem with the common worldwide literation will also be solved sometimes in the near future. And if it shall and will, then why not to make some suggestions about how to do this better?
But let us add some more preliminary remarks. With a common alphabet there will be, in fact, no foreign words, and reading of all written texts will be as easy as reading one's own words, and will easily be done by computer, too, but without any dictionary. Of course reading does not mean understanding but it is a way to this, because our world is tiny and the word's roots are simply cruising around the globe; and it is not a good thing when one could not properly pronounce simple foreign words and names, of places or people (and between "Odyssey" and "Ulysses" surely exists "some" difference). But there is no need to plead for the importance of proper alphabet, because that is the reason why there exist so many of them. And just because they are different we need to use here sometimes other letters, so that for an adequate reading of the paper one must have loaded Symbol font (for some symbols) and Greek letters, and some Cyrillic ones. Let us, also, accept some abbreviations for often used names of languages by their first three letters, namely: Lat for Latin, Ger for German, then: Rus — Russian,: Bul — Bulgarian, Cyr — Cyrillic, Eng — English, Fre — French, Ita — Italian, Spa — Spanish, Gre — Greek, Tur — Turkish, Ara — Arabic, Heb — Hebrew, Chi — Chinese, etc. And now, let us proceed with
1. The Set Goals.
Our proposition is made with intention to reach the following goals:
a. The letters used have to be not more than 32 (choosing this number because it is a power of two, and is widely used in different computer character sets), and if they can be less, then this will be even better. And these letters have to be near to the Latin alphabet as possible, though some chars from Gre or Cyr alphabets may also be used. For some of the letters must be found better graphical images (retaining their meaning), because they continue to be confused with one another, e.g.: "o-0", "I-l", "m-n" and "u-n" in writing, etc. And some of the letters has to be discarded as rarely used or simply as redundant chars, or their meaning has to be changed, e.g.: "x", "q", "w", "y", "j", "h", etc. All in all, 32 chars have to be enough, because in ancient languages there were even less (22 in old Heb, 24 in Gre, and 26 in Lat alphabets, but the Ita use only 21 chars, others are now only for foreign words), and there are not more used in contemporary languages, too (in Bul 30 and in Rus 32, but 3 of them are combinations; in Ger again 30, because they have 4 additional chars for "ä", "ö", "ü", and "ß", where the last one from the year 2000 is rarely used, but they may do very well with the standard Lat chars; in Fre there are many additions above the letters but the basic char set is Lat; and so on). Anyway, if we want to be more precise, then the chars have to be not more then 64 including capital letters (because there might be some letters or special signs for which capital representation might not exist — see below).
b. There should be three types of letters, namely: vowels (let's write V. for short), consonants (C.), and modifiers (M.), and their functions must not be mixed! By using modifiers all possible vowels and consonants have to be represented by at most two chars (with the exception of some triphthongs, but they are building, in fact, two syllables, hence this even isn't an exception in the proper sense). This will make easier the splitting of the words, too, because the modifiers are united with the modified letter and cannot be split from it (no matter they affect V. or C.), also consequent Vs should not be split because they might form diph- or triph- thongs, but all consequent Cs can be split; as for the splitting V-C and C-V this should be allowed only when the C. is a single one, and in this case splitting before the C. is preferred. There is something more concerning the Ms, and let us assume from now on to understand under letter just Vs or Cs, and under char or symbol any char in the char set. So when the Ms are not letters in the proper meaning of the word then they can be written as something above the previous char (but not under it, for to make it possible to use underlining) — a point, two points, a wave, etc., what is widely used method — and this alternative writing will make it easier to read and to guess the pronunciation. Designing all in a simple way there will be no principal problems to make all (or a part of the) Ms, though they will be present on the keyboard, not to appear as separate symbols on the screens of computers, or even on pieces of paper written through contemporary typewriters, but to be just put above the previous letter (though in this paper we will keep to the writing of them as separate chars, because otherwise, designing our own chars, there will be some problems with spreading of the material as a file).
c. The letters have to be read as they are written, if not modified, and if modified then the Ms have to be recognized looking only one char forward. There can be some minor differences in pronouncing of some specific for a given language sounds, but there must not be any efforts to use a third, etc, letter(s) to guess about the pronunciation, or to write chars that are not pronounced at all (like the dumb "e", or doubling of Cs), and have never been pronounced, for they have a meaning of Ms. This means that in languages where one thing is said and another is written there all words have to be transliterated going from what is pronounced and not written (because it will be more difficult to force that people to read how they write — say in French or English — for, if it were easier, why they read many Lat words otherwise, being capable to write them how they want to say them?). This will make easier the automated (computerized) pronouncing without any dictionary.
So, these are the most important postulates, but there are many-many other things in different languages and grammars, which should be unified, too, though we will not discuss this further here. What we mean, however, is e.g.: Ger way of counting from 21 to 99 (and Rus way for making some differences between numbers ending on 1, from 2 to 4, and above 4; something similar in Fre on the base of 20, or Ita before and after 16); Ger way of such honoring of the nouns for to write them all with capital letters (what we reject in our new alphabet by default); transitive and intransitive verbs (with "haben" or "sein" in Ger); different cases for movement and staying (or the peculiar Rus differences when moving with one's own legs and when using some transport — "ходить" and "ехать"); existence of strong or irregular verbs; courteous forms for second person singular (especially in Ger); unreasonably long words in Ger (or bad rules for splitting in English); bad Fre "habit" not only to write one thing and read another, but to write almost always one letter more than is read; all possible differences in geographical and other names in different languages; et cetera.
2. The Proposition
Now, the author proposes the following alphabet, which will be thereafter explained in more details:
Vowels: i, e, ә (like in "her"), a, o, u — 6;
Consonants: b, p, v, f, d, t, m, n (=н), r, l (=л), g, k, x, z, c, s, ζ (=zh=ж), q (=ch=ч), w (=sh=ш) — 19;
Modifiers: "·", "¨", "º", "ˉ", "ˇ", "ˆ", "~"; "`", "´" (="h"), "|" — 7+3 = 10.
All in all this gives 35 chars, but the letters (Vs and Cs) are only 25 (though one may as well count them as 26, because "j" is missing from the letters as redundant, but will be included on the keyboard, to what we shall come later), and as to the 10 Ms, we not only have included the accent ("`") in the alphabet (what is not the case in any of the existing alphabets), but the most of them are old special characters (so that they exist in the char table). In fact, there are just two entirely new letters (ә and ζ) but "y", and "h" are not letters, so we are quit till now (still counting "j" as a letter key); and for the Ms, which are just symbols without capital representation, we need only 5 keys having 7-8 keys not for letters on the keyboard that may be used and prearranged (as it is done, anyway, in Cyr). In other words, we have really 25+5=30 char keys (or 60 chars with capitals), what is less then 32 (respectively 64).
The new alphabet begins with the Vs (because we have to begin with something), and the Vs are separated from the Cs, because it is much better for analyses in this way, and at the end are the left 10 Ms (where, say, the first 7 are in the lower char table, and the left 3 in the upper part, leaving four more empty places). In order not to confuse "o - 0" we propose to write the number zero as "θ" (or diagonally stricken, as "ø", if one prefers so). It has also to be explicitly said that this is a draft proposition and the author does not intend to give the exact rules for writing of each sound in each of the world languages (though we will explain some major situations in 4-5 languages) — that has to be decided for each of the languages by some authorized native instances and then made worldwide consistent. Now, in some more details.
a. The major vowels in all languages are six (in Bul they are exactly present — и, е, ъ, а, о, у), where only the third one ("ә") may need some more explanations. It might have been represented as an "a" + some M., but we have not unlimited number of Ms, and there exists a variation of this V. as in "but" (usually given like "ˆ"), which has to be given now as "әˉ", and also Rus "ы" as in "мы" (we), which has to be written as "ә·". Besides, if we want to overuse the Ms' idea, then "e" may be observed as modification of "i" (or v.v.), "u" — of "o" (then b-p, v-f, etc.), and we may come to about 13 letters or so, and 12 Ms or so, but this contradicts to all alphabets, and the Ms have to be often overwritten, hence we are going to absurdity, or at least to more difficulties, in this way. So, it is much better to accept "ә" as basic V. and to write "hәr" (for "her", though this word will be corrected later), "bәˉt" (for "but"), and "mә·" (for "мы").
But it turns out that the Russians have unstressed "o", which they say is like their "a" (not in Eng pronunciation, of course), but one may be sure they will fearfully object to the proposition to change it with "a" and write, say, "акно" (window) instead of "окно", or "харашо" (well, good) instead of "хорошо", because in this way there will be no difference between "это" and "эта" and they are of different genders. So how to proceed? Well, they might not be conscious of it, but this sound is just the same as in Eng "but", hence they have to write respectively "әˉkno" and "xәˉrәˉwo" (where "w" is the usual "sh"). For the image of "ә" (and in many other cases) new graphical representations have to be invented, and we propose here "ә" to be written in this way only because it is the usually used symbol for marking of pronunciation of "her" in Eng (and it does not mean Russian "back-e", "э"). And the Vs are ordered in this new way because they go in pairs (i-e, ә-a, o-u), and this pairs follow in direction of extending of our lips further forward.
One important point — about the point over the "i": it should be written without any point (like the Greek "ι", or like Cyr "г" in handwriting), because we use the point as special symbol above other chars, and it is at least strange that just one char has to have a point over it. But the letter "i" has the peculiarity to join with any other vowel (even with oneself like in Rus endings "-ий", or "-ij" in usual Lat, or "-ii·" using our new alphabet) and to become, in fact, "j" (or "y", it depends on the language). And now we come to the old char "j", which in any case is peculiar thing, because it is not a proper V. (for one could not pronounce it alone, as syllable), and it is not a C. (because it combines with Vs forming diph- and triph- thongs), but it is not a proper M., too (because when we say "aj", in usual Lat, we do not mean a modification of "a" but building of a diphthong). So our proposition is to reject "j" at all and make it by the combination "i·", i.e. by the usual "i", with a point over it.
However, because this sound is very often used and present in all languages (ancient, Slavonic, and Western ones, at least), then it is better if "j" (i.e. "i" with a point) still exists on the keyboard, but when typing it is to be represented as "i·". But there is another peculiarity with this sound and it is that it may precede another V. (or join with the next V.), as in Eng "yes" or Ger "Johann(es)", or it may also succeed a V. (or join with the previous V.), as in Eng "my" or Ger "mein" (pronounced as 'majn'), or Eng "I". The first idea of the author was not to make this difference and to write "i·es" and "I·o´annes" (the meaning of "´" will be explained later), as well as "mai·" or "mai·n" or "ai·" respectively, but on a further observation it turned out that it will be better to introduce another M., namely "º", which has to tell us to join "j" with the succeeding V., what will give "iºes" and "Iºo´annes"; and when we want to join it with the preceding V. then to use "·" as above ("mai·" etc.).
So, in this way we have two Ms just for making "j", hence let us from now on write "j" only when we mean joining with the next V. ("º", as in "yes"), and write "y" when we join with the previous V. ("·", as in "my"). This may sound not very well motivated, but when "j" or "y" is between two Vs the things become more complicated and using only one M. some other tricks have to be used for to guess with which one it has to be joined — like in Rus "-ая", i.e. "-aja", which we will write now as "-aiºa"; or take Fre "mayonnaise", for which we in Bul think it is "ma-jo.." but in Eng, judging by the splitting, it should be "may-o..", so it will be written as "mai·onez". And there are cases when there must be an unmodified "i" (without a point) as in Lat or Ita "piano" (which only in Eng is pronounced as 'pjaenou', in Lat writing), in which case we have to write it as we are used to (with "ι").
b. The consonants are also ordered in a new way but they are in successive pairs (b-p, v-f, d-t, m-н, r-л), or triples (g-k-x, z-c-s, ζ-q-w), what is, again, better. Some Cs have several images because of font problems, and we will use whatever is easy to type, but the first image in the above list of Cs is nearer to the truth. Here we have in mind also that: "v" is what "w" in Ger is (e.g.: ver, varum, etc) and "f" is clear (so in Ger one will have, e.g.: fu¨r, fater, etc.), but it is preferable to be written something like Gre "φ", for "f" because it is better when the letters are of similar width and height — hence "d" has to be modified as something like "ð" (and it is one of the ways for handwriting it in Cyr), "t" like "τ", "b" and "k" should be a little bit lower (for we have to have enough place for Ms above them), et cetera. Further: "н" and "л" are better for writing in order not to confuse "m-n" and "I-l" (and do not forget that the Cyr "л" comes from Gre "λ" and looks more like it); the letter "x" is not the Lat char but the Cyr "х", what again is nearer to the Gre "χ", hence we have to write now: "xau" (for "how"), or in Ger: "xer" (for "Herr") or "xiәr" (for "hier"). The triple "g-k-x" is in the direction of moving of the tongue forward and it is really needed because these are similar sounds and very often confused in different languages (compare with: "choir /chorus", "Christ", Rus "гер", i.e. "ger", instead of Ger "Herr", etc.).
Later on, "z" is like in "zero", "c" is the good old Lat "c" like in "Caesar" or "circus" etc (but not in "casus"), though not with Eng pronouncing, but, say, with Ger one, and "s" is just the same (and not like in "zero", as Germans read it in, say, "sagen"). By "ζ-q-w" we understand the more vivid "h"-pairs of "z-c-s", so it might have been possible to write "chek" (for "check"), "zhenshchina" (Rus "женщина"), and "shtuhl" (Ger "Stuhl") — though, in fact, it should be used the M. "¨", and for the Ger word also "´", because "h" has another meaning, giving thus: "c¨ek", "z¨ens¨c¨ina", and "s¨tu´l" — but it is simpler to put it as: "qek" (=чek), "ζenwqina" (="жenшчina"), or "wtu´l", and that is why we have included these often used in many languages Cs in the new alphabet. The triple "z-c-s", and respectively "ζ-q-w", is again in the direction of moving of the tongue forward (and opening of the mouth); though here we may also speak of three pairs (z-ζ, c-q, s-w) where the second element might have been modified by "¨" from the first element. And note that for the Slavs "z" is "з", and "ζ" is written as "ж", but the last is too wide to be called a good letter — so that the author is not proposing something good only for people using Cyr.
c. Now about the modifiers, which are the most important part of our proposition. But we shall list them in three subdivisions for better explanation. And let us say again that the Ms can never be used as capital letters for they stand always after some real letter (so for them we will use just one half of a key, to what we shall come in part 5.).
c1. Basic modifiers for vowels (the first seven). In fact, very often two consequent Vs are pronounced together forming a diphthong (and that is why we forbid splitting between Vs), but they may be even more joined forming some new V., for which case, exactly, we need these Ms. Combining Vs to produce some modifications, or "special effects", we usually want to say one V. but say another one, what gives us the new sound. The V. we wanted to say is the basic one, which we type, and the one we try to say we must mark by some M. putting (as was said before) some small sign over the basic one (which sign we will write here after the first V., but when the Ms are not proper letters, in fact, we use always symbols for them, then no confusion may arise). Because we have enough Ms we may use them for modification to each of the basic Vs, as follows: "·" for "i", "¨" for "e", "º" for "ә" (for all other basic Vs but not "i"), "ˉ" for "a", "ˇ" for "o", "ˆ" for "u", and "~" for some special effects, such as Fre nasal Vs. For all basic Vs but "i" a modification to the same V. is meaningless (although allowed); for "i" as basic V. we have an important case of modifying to itself for which purpose we use both "º" and "·" in order to distinguish between "j" and "y" (as was already said), but other Ms can also be used with "i", of course; and only a modification of "i" to "ә" can not be made but there is no need for this, really, because all Vs modified to "ә" sound very strange and are not used (try to pronounce something like "iә", or "eә", or "uә", but in one sound, not as diphthong).
So this is enough, and in this way may be coded, e.g.: Rus "ты" (you) -> "tә·", "хороший" (good) -> "xәˉrowii·" (but "хорош`и" -> "xәˉrәˉwi" what is a bit different), "ëлка" (pine tree) -> "iˇlka" (or "iºolka", if they prefer so), "идея" (idea) -> "ideiºa"; then some Fre worlds, say: "fleur" (flower) -> "flo¨", "deux" (god) -> "du¨", "beau" (good) -> "buˇ" (as in "merci beaucoup"), "je suis" (I am) -> "ζiˇ siºui", their nasal Vs like "bonjour" (good morning) -> "bo~ζur", "entrez" (come in) -> "a~tri¨", etc. (and we do not bother to write "n", because they say it is not pronounced, but the V. before is modified, though if they want to write it, then they may do it as well).
c2. Basic modifiers for consonants. For Cs we use the same Ms as for Vs (why should we add any more symbols?) and because they are more then needed some of them are left free for further usage. We propose to use "·" for some softening of the previous C. where the tongue is kept as back as possible, as in Rus "ь" (the so called "soft sign"), e.g.: "учитель" (teacher) -> "uqitel·", "мышь" (mouse) -> "mә·w·", "речь" (speech) -> "req·", etc, also in Spa "ñ" like in "cañon" -> "kan·on", and in some other languages like "-r·" or "-b·" or something like. Then we will use "¨" to mark the moving of the tongue a little bit to the middle of the mouth, as in Eng or Ger "r" making it as "r¨" (Ger "der" -> "der¨", "Herr" -> "her¨", Eng "problem" -> "pr¨oblәm", but not when in Eng we have a prolonged V. before "r", to what we shall come soon). As for now the author could not find another C. to be modified in this way (though, maybe, in some languages it is possible, because "ζ" may be observed as "z¨", as it was said before), but this "r¨" is not as in Slavonic languages; or then in Ita "bravo /-issimo". The next M. is "ˉ", what means moving of the tongue as foremost as possible, and we found that this is exactly the case with the Eng "ð" and "θ" (which are, in fact, very old sounds), hence we will have: "they" -> "dˉei·", "mouth" -> "mautˉ"; possibly this should be the M. for the Gre "φ", hence "philosophy" -> "fˉilosәfˉi". But the Eng "w", which is not more a C. than a V., can be very well represented by "vº", giving: "what" -> "vºot", "where" -> "vºa¨ә", et cetera. The M. "~" may be used for some nasal endings as in Eng "-ing" -> "-in~", in some old (Ara) languages where there are syllables like "-mb" -> "m~" (possibly the Eng "tomb" -> "tu´m~"), or also "-t~" or "-d~" or "-b~"; and the Fre "r" should be, probably, "r~".
In this way the Ms "ˇ" and "ˆ" are not used at all, and there may be many combinations with the other Ms, so that it is possible to mark "dζ" (as in "just") like, say, "dˇ", or to write Czech or Polish "rζ" like "rˇ", or "dr" as "d¨"), but there may be also "-drζ-" etc, hence this is not a proper way of writing of Cs. Anyway, this has not to bother us now.
c3. Pronunciation modifiers. The last three Ms are: the accent "`", the prolongation mark "´", and the punctuation sign "|". We discuss them separately because they have to be put above the previous letter but may be overwritten with the first 7 Ms, because the first ones are to be put in the middle over the letter, and these — at both corners. The accent should be added to the alphabet because it is a good idea to write it exactly above the letter (when it has to be written at all) and not before the V. (or even the syllable) and it should be presented if one wish to enable good automated (computerized) reading of the text, which does not mean that one has always to write accents (as it is not done, usually, in the books). This sign is clear and has to be put in the leftmost top corner, where the similarly looking "´" has to be in the rightmost top corner (but they may be designed as something like small "\" for accent, and "/" for prolongation). The "´" is an important symbol and by handwriting may be changed to something like "-/", or even written in the old way as "h". It is to replace Ger lengthening of Vs with "h", also in Lat (and in other ancient languages, too), where over the Vs a small line is written, and, of course, in Eng, e.g.: "need" -> "ni´d", "read" -> "ri´d", etc. The last M. "|" must be represented as something like a small vertical strike or a point, again in the rightmost top corner, or better in the right upper end of the sign (i.e. just after the sign), though it may as well not be printed at all (just be kept in the file). The purpose of this "|" is to inverse the rules for splitting of Vs and Cs, or more precisely: when we have V-V the normal way is not to split here, but if we want splitting, and some small pause added, then with "|" between the Vs we will do this; in C-C case splitting is as a rule allowed, so with "|" between it should not be; in V-C the splitting is allowed too, so to disable it we put again "|"; and in C-V there is no place for splitting, so with "|" we make it again and put a little pause there, as in the case of some apostrophe.
Let us give some more examples. In Eng: "for" -> "fo´", "person" -> "pә´sn", etc.; similarly in Ger "gehen" -> "ge´en". Then, we do not always need to write "r¨" in Eng and have just to miss it, but we may want to do this sometimes, as in "trouble" -> "tr¨әˉbl"; where in Ger we almost always have to write "r¨", though in words' endings on "-er" they say "ә" like "Mutter" -> "mutә". About the "|": Ger "bearbeiten" -> "be|ar¨bai·ten" (to allow splitting between "ea"), or Eng "period" -> "piәri|{o/ә}d"; then "|" between Cs means if one does not want to split there, say, in Tur "hadji" -> "xad|ζi", or Eng (probably Spa) "banjo" -> "ba¨nd|ζou" (but in Eng "John" -> "Dζoun" it is clear it will not be split, anyway); then if we want to split after a C. as in Eng "perennial" we have to write it as "pәr|eniәl". However, in the usual correspondence in a given language "|" may as well be omitted, if one does not want to make it world wide accepted, or spell-checking programs may be used to correct and/or translate to the new alphabet. In a way, "|" may be used as an ellipsis between Cs (as in "isn't" -> "isn|t"), because it is, anyway, just a punctuation sign and not to split there is also good, but this should not be a rule, because we may omit whatever we want, wherever we want (as in "'course" for "of course"; though it might be "f|course").
And let us add some exceptions about splitting: two equal Vs (as basic Vs, but they may be modified) are to be split fast always (like in Cyr "instanci-iºa"), and also a V-iº-V may be split before "j" (="iº"), or V-i·-V. may be split after "y" (="i·"), with the exception when on either side of the splitting there is no syllable left (or less then 2 or 3 chars); three or more (if possible?) consequent Vs may be split after the second one (as in Ger "Bauern" -> "bau-er¨n", and similarly with Eng triphthongs like "hour" -> "au-ә" or "fire" -> "fai-ә"), or may not — what depends on the accepted for the language rule (if some language has to be given as a basic one, which should not be the case, because we propose an all-world alphabet); two equal Cs are to be preferred for splitting (if there are more Cs, for otherwise it is to be split and there is nothing to prefer; but doubling Cs should be, as a rule, rejected from all languages).
3. Different Languages
Now let us observe more closely the used by the author languages. We shall begin with the Eng, which, though very good from the point of view of grammar, is possibly the worst one from the point of pronunciation. With the Cs we are easily done, as explained before, having to write, e.g.: "then" -> "dˉen", "thin" -> "tˉin", "cheap" -> "qi´p", "shake" -> "wei·k", "pleasure" -> "pleζә" "hedge" -> "hedζ", "long" -> "lon~", "red" -> "r¨ed", and "wind" -> "vºind". Now about the Vs: "back" -> "ba¨k", "cut" -> "kәˉt", "alive" -> "әlai·v" (there is no need to list all basic Vs), then the diphthongs: "day" -> "dei·", "nice" -> "nai·s", "boy" -> "boi·", "jes" -> "iºes", "grow" -> "grou", "town" -> "taun", "near" -> "niә", "pair" -> "pa¨ә", "sure" -> "wuә", and possibly "more" -> "moә" (instead of "mo´"); then the prolongated Vs: "see" -> "si´", "far" -> "fa´" (after a long V. "r¨" is better to be omitted), "for" -> "fo´", "soon" -> "su´n", "girl" -> "gә´l" or "her" -> "hә´", and also "music" -> "miºu´zik"; and the triphthongs: "fire" -> "fai·ә" or "faiә" (but, according to the author, more like "fai|ә", paying no much attention to the triphthongs), "hour" (here = "our") -> "auә" (i.e. "au|ә"), "lower" -> "louә" (i.e. "lou|ә"), and "player" -> "plei·ә" (again like "plei·|ә"). Let us give some more examples: "alibi" -> "a¨libai" (and not "a¨libai·", I think), "language" -> "la¨n~vºidζ", "quart" -> "kvºo´t", "I" -> "ai·" (and if one wants to distinguish it from the other "ai·", i.e. "eye", one may change the last to "ai·g" or "oug", because this, anyway, comes from Ger "Auge"; or to change "I" to "ai·x", because it comes from Ger "ich", i.e. "ix" in new writing, or Ita "io", i.e. "iºo"), "action" -> "a¨kwn", "thought" -> "tˉo´t", et cetera.
Now with Ger, but there will be less problems here (and with Spa and Ita it should also be so). Let us begin again with the Cs: "f" and "v" (in most cases, but not in obviously foreign words like "Venus") become now "f", where "w" and in some cases "v" (like this "Venus") become "v"; then "ss" (or also "ß") and some "s" (when read as real "s") are now "s", and the most "s" become "z", but "z" is to be written as "c" (again with some exceptions); "ch" and some "h" in the beginning are turned to "x"; "h" for prolongation is changed to the M. "´"; "r" is to be written always as "r¨" (if not omitted at the ends like in "mutә"); and the classical cases: "sch" -> "w", "tsch" -> "q", "st" -> "wt", and "sp" -> "wp". The Umlaut is always to be changed to the M. "¨" giving, e.g.: "Väter" (fathers) -> "fa¨tә" (though they make no difference in pronouncing between "a¨" and "e"), "böse" (crossed with someone) -> "bo¨ze", "Tür" (a door) -> "tu¨r¨". In addition many unstressed endings "-er" are to become "ә", for example: "Lehrer" (teacher) -> "le´r¨ә", "über" (over) -> "u¨bә", etc., but "der" (an article) -> "der¨", "jener" (that) -> "iºener¨", etc. The diphthong "ei" becomes "ai·", "eu" -> "oi·", and this is in effect if instead of "e" stands "ä", as for example: "mein" (mine) -> "mai·n", "heute" (today) -> "hoi·te", and "täuschen" (delude) -> "toi·wen". They have also such cases alka" (or "is: "Johann" -> "Iºo´an", "jetzt" (now) -> "iºetct", "piano" -> "pi|ano" (to enable splitting, as in "beurteilen", meaning to judge, and becoming "be|ur¨tai·len"), etc.; and the triphthongs are represented with "auә" as in "Bauer" (farmer) -> "bau(|)ә", and maybe "ai·ә" as in "Meier" (a name) -> "Mai·(|)ә". Some more examples: "wahr" (true) -> "wa´", "Haus" (house) -> "xaus", "Stuhl" (chair) -> "wtu´l", "machen" (to make) -> "maxen", "schwer" (not light) -> "wver¨", "sagen" (say) -> "zagen", "siegen" (win) -> "zi´gen", "singen" (sing) -> "zin~en" (or "singen", because "-ng" isn't typical for Ger), "Christ(os)" -> "Kr¨ist(os)", "Chor" -> "kor¨" (though "xor¨" will be more adequate as near to the Greek original and written as "хор" in Cyr), "Wachs" (a wax) -> "vaks", et cetera.
What concerns French we will look just superficial, because the author does not know this language. The Cs are more or less traditional, with good "ζ" (written in different way), our "w" (written as "ch", not meant as the old "w"), also "g", "k", "z", "s", etc., though some of them written in more then one way, and the left ones. They does not pronounce the old "h", and seem to miss our "c" and "q", and their "r" is to be given as "r~" (but maybe not always?). Now, we go to the Vs: they seem not to have our "ә", but make a distinction between open and closed Vs, where the open "e" and "o" are the usual ones, and the closed "e" should be now "i¨" (or "e·"?), and the closed "o" -> "uˇ". They seem not to have prolonged Vs, but have diphthongs, by what we do not mean writing "ai" instead of 'e' (or "ou" for 'u'), but the following: our "ua" (usually written as "oi"), our "ai·" (using long "-aille"), our "ei·" (as "-eil"), etc., but here is their "oe" which is of two kinds — open "oe", which has to be now "o¨", and closed "oe" (or "oeu"), which becomes "u¨". And, of course, their nasals "a~" and "e~", but it is their business whether they will want to make any difference between "an", "am", "en", and "em" (what is all "a~" for them), and with the 4 ways to say "e~", too.
Now about Cyr, which means here Rus and Bul (but Ukrainian too, for they seem only to have two "i"-s — the Cyr "и" and the Lat "i"). In Rus exist three "e"-s: "е", "э", and "ë", where the first and usual one has to become "i¨" (hence the already mentioned "женщина" -> "ζi¨nwqina"), the "back" one is the right one, i.e. "e", and "ë" must be "iˇ" (or "iºo", if they prefer it so, but never "e¨" what has no meaning in the new writing!). Here the Bulgarians do the things right, so their one "e" is just the same. The char "ь" in Rus turns to the M. "·" (as mentioned), and Bul "ьо" becomes "o¨", and "йо" must be "iºo". We have talked about the unstressed "o" in Rus becoming now "әˉ" (in Bul we like, too, to make unstressed Vs sounding more dull, like "o" -> "u", "a" -> "ә", but that is observed as non-literate pronunciation). The last letters "ю" and "я" become "iºu" and "iºa", respectively, because they are combinations (like Lat "x", or Gre "ψ") as e.g. "следующий" (next) -> "sli¨duiºuwqii·". Bul "ъ" is just "ә", and in Rus this sound is not readable, as in "подъëм" or "подъезд", and may be made by the M. "|" enabling splitting after the previous C. (and not before) and making some little pause, i.e. "pod|iˇm" and "pod|i¨zd" (or by modifying the C. with "~" what gives "pod~iˇm" and "pod~i¨zd", though that does not sound any better).
There are many other languages and we may give some hints about them. In Lat there are some prolongations of Vs, the classical "ae" -> "a¨", "oe" -> "o¨", "ph" might be now "fˉ", "c" is mostly our "c" (when followed by "e" or "i"), but sometimes "k", or the new "q" (as is in Ita), and some other exceptions. In Gre they have two "e"-s — "ε" and "η" — where the first one should probably be our "e" and the second one — "i¨" (or just "i"?), but otherwise they seem to be badly phonetically endowed. In Tur and Ara and in other ancient languages there are many "dζ"-s, our "q", also "ә", sounds like "dˉ" (or "d~"?) and "tˉ", but we have signs for them. In Chi or Jap there might be "dζ" or "dz", too, but this also is not a problem. Well, maybe some of our propositions for writing will not be accepted looking illiterate or vulgar (say, Ger "fa¨tә", or Rus "әˉkno", or their "ni¨t" for "нет" as "no", etc), and many literary persons will insist to write the words properly and try to pronounce them so, but we have to give some examples and have therefore to make some decisions. Or, maybe, in some languages the usual practice will be to use some "better looking" letters (and write, say, "okno" or "net", or use always normal "r" and not "r¨") but later on, with the use of some spell-checking editors, the text will be converted to the correct new writing. It might be so, but all this has not to bother us at the moment.
4. An Example
As a simple example we will give the new transliterations for just one paragraph of this text (that of the Subject), but in four languages — Eng, Ger, Rus, and Bul — to see how it will work.
Old Eng:
The next paper ... anyway. — 562 chars (without spaces and splittings).
New Eng with Ms:
Dˉә nekst pei·pә diskәˉsis dˉә pr¨oblәm vºitˉ komәn tr¨a¨nslitәr¨ei·wn fo´ o´l vºә´ld la¨n~vºidζiz. Dˉis iz ә dr¨a´ft, әv ko´s, fo´ sәˉq dζenәr¨әl pr¨oblәms kud not bi disai·did bai· vºәˉn pә´sn nauәdei·s, bәˉt dˉә ai·diәs involvd mei· bi iºu´sd a¨nd ikstendid bai· sәˉm gr¨u´p әv lin~vºists vºitˉ flu´әnt nolidζ әv ә dәˉzn vºai·dli iºu´sd la¨n~vºidζiz, inklu´din~ o´lsou, sei·: Fr¨enq, Gr¨i´k, A¨r¨әbik, Qai·ni´z, etz. Dˉen it wud bi diskәˉst a¨nd pr¨opәgei·tid tr¨ai·in~ tu kәnvins pi´pl әv dˉә ni´d fo´ dˉis, a¨nd if sәˉm vºә´ld o´tˉor¨iti vºitˉ not ounli sәdζestiv pauә bәˉt kei·pәbl tu info´r¨s tˉin~s vºil be ingei·dζd, dˉen, posibli, dˉә pr¨oblәm vºil be solvd. Bikoz it mәˉst bi solvd in vºәˉn-tu´ senqәr¨i´z, a¨nivºei·. — 617 chars, or 10% more.
New Eng without Ms:
Dә nekst peipә diskәsis dә problәm vit dә komәn translitәreiwn fo ol vәld lanvidζiz. Dis iz ә draft, әv kos, fo sәq dζenәrәl problәms kud not bi disaidid bai vәn pәsn nauәdeis, bәt dә aidiәs involvd mei bi iusd and ikstendid bai sәm grup әv linvists vit fluәnt nolidζ әv ә dәzn vaidli iusd lanvidζiz, inkludin olsou, sei: Frenq, Grik, Arәbik, Qainiz, etz. Den it wud bi diskәst and propәgeitid traiin tu kәnvins pipl әv dә nid fo dis, and if sәm vәld otoriti vit not ounli sәdζestiv pauә bәt keipәbl tu infors tins vil be ingeidζd, den, posibli, dә problәm vil be solvd. Bikoz it mәst bi solvd in vәn-tu senqәris, anivei. — 509 chars, or 10% less.
Old text in Ger:
Der folgende Artikel erörtert das Problem mit gemeinsamer Transliteration aller weltlichen Sprachen. Das ist, natürlich, nur ein Entwurf, weil solche generale Probleme kann man heutzutage nicht allein entscheiden, aber die vorgebrachten Ideen können von einer von Linguisten bestehenden Gruppe benutzt und erweitert werden, wenn diese Leute ausgezeichnete Kenntnisse von Sprachen wie, z. B.: französische, griechische, arabische, chinesische, usw., haben. Danach soll alles besprechen und propagieren werden, mit der Absicht alle Leute von den Nutzen dieser Schritt zu überzeugen, und wenn eine Behörde mit nicht nur suggestiver sonder auch exekutiver Macht engagiert werden könne, dann, vielleicht, wird das Problem endlich gelöst. Weil es muss in eins-zwei Jahrhunderte jedenfalls gelöst sein. — 687 chars (counted without spaces and splitting everywhere).
New Ger with Ms:
Der¨ folgende ar¨tikel er¨o¨r¨ter¨t das pr¨oblem mit der¨ gemai·nzamen tr¨ansliter¨acion aller¨ veltlixen wpr¨axen. Das ist, natu¨r¨lix, nur¨ ai·n entvur¨f, vai·l zolxe gener¨ale pr¨obleme kan man xoi·tcutage nixt alai·n entwai·den, abә die for¨gebr¨axten ideen ko¨nen fon ai·ner¨ fon lingvisten bewte´enden Gr¨upe benutct und er¨vai·ter¨t ver¨den, ven di´ze loi·te ausgecai·xnete kentnise fon wpr¨axen vi´, c. b.: fr¨anco¨ziwe, gr¨i´xiwe, ar¨abiwe, xineziwe, usv., xaben. Danax zoll alles bewpr¨exen und pr¨opaζi´r¨en ver¨den, mit der¨ abzixt alle loi·te fon den nutcen di´zer¨ wr¨it cu u¨bәcoi·gen, und ven ai·ne bexo¨r¨de mit nixt nur¨ sugestiver¨ zonder¨ aux ekzekutiver¨ maxt a~gaζi´r¨t ver¨den ko¨ne, dan, fi´lai·xt, vir¨d das pr¨oblem endlix gelo¨st. Vail es mus in ai·ns-cvai· iºa´r¨xunder¨te iºedenfals gelo¨st sai·n. — 717 chars, or 4% more.
New Ger without Ms:
Der folgende artikel erortert das problem mit der gemainzamen Transliteracion aller veltlixen wpraxen. Das ist, naturlix, nur ain entvurf, vail zolxe generale probleme kan man xoitcutage nixt alain entwaiden, abә die forgebraxten ideen konen fon ainer fon lingvisten bewteenden Grupe benutct und ervaitert verden, ven dize loite ausgecaixnete kentnise fon wpraxen vi, c. b.: francoziwe, grixiwe, arabiwe, xineziwe, usv., xaben. Danax zoll alles bewprexen und propaζiren verden, mit der abzixt alle loite fon den nutcen dizer writ cu ubәcoigen, und ven aine bexorde mit nixt nur sugestiver zonder aux ekzekutiver maxt agaζirt verden kone, dan, filaixt, vird das problem endlix gelost. Vail es mus in ains-cvai iarxunderte iedenfals gelost sain. — 634 chars, or 8% less.
Old text in Rus:
В следующей статье обсуждается проблема общей транслитерации всех мировых языков. Это, конечно, только первоначальный или черновой вариант, поскольку такие мировые проблемы не решаются одним человеком в наши дни, но изложенные идеи могут быть использованы и расширены некоторой группой лингвистов, владеющих в совершенстве дюжину широко использованных мировых языков, включая также, скажем: французский, греческий, арабский, китайский, и т. д. Потом это должно быть обсуждено и пропагандировано с целью убедить людей в необходимость этого шага, и если при этом будет заангажирована какая нибудь инстанция обладающая не только инициативной, но и утвердительной власти, то тогда, вероятно, проблема эта будет решена. Потому что она, так или иначе, должна быть решена в течении одного-двух столетий. — 688 chars.
New Rus with Ms:
V sli¨duiºuwqi¨i· stat·i¨ әˉbsuζda|i¨tca prәˉbli¨ma obwqi¨i· transliti¨razii vsi¨x mirәˉvә·x iºazә·kov. Etәˉ, koni¨qnәˉ, tol·kәˉ pi¨rvәˉnaqal·nә·i· ili qi¨rnәˉvoi· variant, pәˉskol·ku takii¨ mirәˉvә·i¨ prәˉbli¨mә· ni¨ ri¨waiºutca әˉdnim qi¨lәˉvi¨cәˉm v nawi dni, no izloζi¨nә·i¨ idi¨i mogut bә·t· ispol·zәˉvanә· i raswiri¨nә· ni¨kәˉtorәˉi· grupәˉi· lingvistәˉv, vladi¨iºuwqix v sәˉvi¨rwi¨nstvi¨ diºuζinu wirәˉko ispol·zәˉvanә·x mirәˉvә·x iºazә·kov, vkliºuqaiºa takζi¨, skaζi¨m: francuzskii·, gri¨qi¨skii·, arabskii·, kitai·skii·, i t. d. Pәˉtom etәˉ dәˉlζno bә·t· әˉbsuζdi¨no i prәˉpagandirәˉvanәˉ s ci¨l·iºu ubi¨dit· liºudi¨i· v ni¨әˉbxәˉdimәˉsti etәˉvәˉ waga, i i¨sli pri etәˉm budi¨t zaangaζirәˉvana kakaiºa nibud· instanciiºa әˉbladaiºuwqaiºa ni¨ tol·kәˉ iniciativnәˉi·, no i utvi¨rditi¨l·nәˉi· vlasti, to tәˉgda, vi¨rәˉiºatnәˉ, prәˉbli¨ma eta budi¨t ri¨wi¨na. Pәˉtәˉmu wto әˉna, tak ili inaqi¨, dәˉlζna bә·t· ri¨wi¨na v ti¨qi¨nii әˉdnәˉvo-dvux stәˉli¨tii·. — 853 chars, or 24% more.
New Rus without Ms:
V sliduiuwqii stati әbsuζdaitca prәblima obwqii translitirazii vsix mirәvәx iazәkov. Etә, koniqnә, tolkә pirvәnaqalnәi ili qirnәvoi variant, pәskolku takii mirәvәi prәblimә ni riwaiutca әdnim qilәvicәm v nawi dni, no izloζinәi idii mogut bәt ispolzәvanә i raswirinә nikәtorәi grupәi lingvistәv, vladiiuwqix v sәvirwinstvi diuζinu wirәko ispolzәvanәx mirәvәx iazәkov, vkliuqaia takζi, skaζim: francuzskii, griqiskii, arabskii, kitaiskii, i t. d. Pәtom etә dәlζno bәt әbsuζdino i prәpagandirәvanә s ciliu ubidit liudii v niәbxәdimәsti etәvә waga, i isli pri etәm budit zaangaζirәvana kakaia nibud instanciia әbladaiuwqaia ni tolkә iniciativnәi·, no i utvirditilnәi vlasti, to tәgda, virәiatnә, prәblima eta budit riwina. Pәtәmu wto әna, tak ili inaqi, dәlζna bәt riwina v tiqinii әdnәvo-dvux stәlitii. — 691 chars, or the same.
Old text in Bul:
В следващата статия се обсъжда проблемът за общата транслитерация на всички световни езици. Това, разбира се, е първоначален или чернови вариант, тъй като такива генерални въпроси не се решават в днешно време от един човек, но изложените идеи могат да бъдат използвани и разширени от някаква група лингвисти, владеещи в съвършенство дузина широко използвани световни езици, включващи също, да речем: френски, гръцки, арабски, китайски, и т. н. След това въпросът трябва да бъде обсъждан и пропагандиран с цел да се убедят хората в необходимостта от това, и ако може да бъде ангажирана някаква инстанция притежаваща не само инициативна, но и утвърдителна власт, то тогава, навярно, проблемът ще намери своето решение. Защото той, все едно, трябва да бъде решен за едно-две столетия. — 661 chars.
New Bul with Ms:
V sledvawtata statiiºa se obsәζda problemәt za obwtata transliteraziiºa na vsiqki svetovni ezici. Tova, razbira se, e pәrvonaqalen ili qernovi vari|ant, tәi· kato takiva generalni vәprosi ne se rewavat v dnewno vreme ot edin qovek, no izloζenite idei mogat da bәdat izpolzvani i razwireni ot niºakakva grupa lingvisti, vladeewti v sәvәrwenstvo duzina wiroko izpolzvani svetovni ezici, vkliºuqvawti sәwto, da reqem: frenski, grәcki, arabski, kitai·ski, i t. n. Sled tova vәprosәt triºabva da bәde obsәζdan i propagandiran s cel da se ubediºat xorata v neobxodimostta ot tova, i ako moζe da bәde angaζirana niºakakva instanziiºa priteζavawta ne samo iniciativna, no i utvәrditelna vlast, to togava, naviºarno, problemәt wte nameri svoeto rewenie. Zawtoto toi·, vse edno, triºabva da bәde rewen za edno-dve stoletiiºa. — 695 chars, or 5% more.
New Bul without Ms:
V sledvawtata statiia se obsәζda problemәt za obwtata transliteraziia na vsiqki svetovni ezici. Tova, razbira se, e pәrvonaqalen ili qernovi variant, tәi kato takiva generalni vәprosi ne se rewavat v dnewno vreme ot edin qovek, no izloζenite idei mogat da bәdat izpolzvani i razwireni ot niakakva grupa lingvisti, vladeewti v sәvәrwenstvo duzina wiroko izpolzvani svetovni ezici, vkliuqvawti sәwto, da reqem: frenski, grәcki, arabski, kitaiski, i t. n. Sled tova vәprosәt triabva da bәde obsәζdan i propagandiran s cel da se ubediat xorata v neobxodimostta ot tova, i ako moζe da bәde angaζirana niakakva instanziia priteζavawta ne samo iniciativna, no i utvәrditelna vlast, to togava, naviarno, problemәt wte nameri svoeto rewenie. Zawtoto toi, vse edno, triabva da bәde rewen za edno-dve stoletiia. — 680 chars, or 3% more.
This example, although too short to be called exactly representative, shows that for languages with Lat alphabet (Eng and Ger), the new alphabet gives about 5% more typing when all modifiers have to be put (in Eng it is a bit more, maybe so will be in Fre, too, but in Ita, Spa, and in other western languages there will be about +3%, so on the average this will give not more then +5%). But this is of no importance for the volume of the books because all Ms will be written above the letters, so if we do not count them (what has been done by deleting them), then we gain 8-10% in the volume (number of letters), what looks pretty good. And what is the situation with the other alphabets? Well, not the same, but still not bad, because this initial increasing of even 24% for the Rus text and 5% for the Bul is mainly because in Rus almost all Vs are not from the standard 6, but when we reject all Ms we have the same length as for the original text (0%) in Rus, and just 3% more in Bul. What is to say that probably for all languages the volume of the printed text will be on the average with 3-5% less (the average of: -10, -8, 0, +3 is -3.75). So we have made nothing worse but have gained the universality of the alphabet throughout the world.
5. The Keyboard
Well, the volume of letters in the books will be the same or even less, but will this not give us more typing, because we have to type all the Ms? To answer this question we will turn our attention now to the keyboard, where we have said till the moment only that, in addition to the normal "i" without a point, the letters "j" and "y" have to be included meaning "iº" and "i·" respectively, but this is not enough. So let us see what we have on the main or letter part of the standard ("qwerty") keyboard. We have first to find some way for easy referring to the keys, so let us name the bottom line (with the "Space" key) as "Z" (from "zero"), then going above we have "A", "B", and "C" lines with letters, then the number line "D", and then the function keys (but they are of no interest to us). Then the number "1" letter will be the leftmost one ("z" or "a" or "q", respectively, not counting "Ctrl", "Shift", etc.), and so we have on the major three lines ("A", "B", and "C") 10+12+12 = 34 keys, but they were 33 before (with 11 on "B"), and are now, in fact (at least on the author's keyboard) 35, because there is a "A0" key (and let us not put this coding in quotes anymore).
They are so designed, that if one puts the last finger of the left hand on B1 ("a"), then also the other fingers of the left hand (without the thumb), then leaves two keys ("g" and "h"), and then puts the second finger of the right hand on B7 ("j") and continues with the other fingers, then one ends on B10 (";") covering at least 10 keys on each line (going a little bit on the left). But there are 12 keys on B and C, so you see that it is accepted that one may reach two more keys with the last finger of the right hand, and none or just one key (A0) with the left one (and this only on one line). In short, in the worst case the keys are 33, and they can easily be made 37, including two more keys on the left — B0 and C0 — because there is no need to have wider keys for "Caps Lock" and "Tab" when they are so rarely used. The "Caps Lock" must be split in two keys (as it was done with the "Shift" making place for A0) and so we will have the needed B0 and a small key for "Caps Lock"; and the "Tab" has to be discarded from there and on its place put a normal letter key C0 (the "Tab" will be put on line "Z" either between "Ctrl" and "Alt", where on some keyboards there exists a key but it does not work, or on the left part of the "Space" key which is, surely, a very long one and some 3-4 letter keys length in the middle is just what is needed), so that there will be no increase in the width of the main keyboard.
In other words, although we may do well with 33 keys (25 proper letters, plus "j/y", plus 5 keys for 10 Ms in pairs, gives even 31), we propose to make use of 37 keys (A0 - A10, B0 - B12, and C0 - C12) counting all Ms as full keys, because it is much more comfortable to work in one case, and even in this way we need only 35 keys (25 letters plus 10 Ms, where "j" and "y" are to be put over the corresponding Ms), but the more the better, because in this way we will have 12 free positions for some other chars or combinations of chars (8 over the left Ms, and two full keys). This leaves us without any punctuation signs on these lines (even the point and comma are missing), but this is not crucial because on the Rus (and Bul) keyboard (with 32 letters for the Rus) all char keys are used for letters and the point is on D12 (in Rus, I suppose, on D07). Having enough free positions, however, we may still use two keys for ";/," and ":/." (where the first sign is for capital case) and put them, say, on B12 and C12 and work with 35 keys. But our proposition is more general: to shorten the "Space" for two keys on the right, too, and put these most often used signs there. And so, using 37 letter keys we make the following proposition for the standard world-wide keyboard, beginning with No. "0" and ending with "12", where our reserved half keys will be marked with "+" sign (and "Cə" is capital "ə"):
D: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
C: ~/+5, M/m, O/o, Cə/ә, I/i, Z/z, ζ/ζ, D/d, B/b, V/v, R/r, +8/+7,+?/+?
B: ˆ/+4, N/n, U/u, A/a, E/e, C/c, Q/q, T/t, P/p, F/f, L/l, |/+6, +?/+?
A: ˇ/+3, ˉ/+2, ¨/+1, "·/y", º/j, S/s, W/w, G/g, K/k, X/x, `/´
Z: "Ctr", "Alt", Tab, "Space", ";/,", ":/.", "Alt", "Ctr"
So, and now let us use the twelve keys marked with "+". The trick is very simple: these are 12 places left for the beloved (or often used) national combinations of letters with Ms, making in this way the total number of the used letter keys in each language to 37. Some of them are numbered from 1 to 8 because we think that 8 additional chars for each language is enough for the beginning, and the four positions marked with "+?" are left free (for personal coding). The numbered "+" keys are put nearly all in low case (with the exception of the last one on C11) to be easily accessed for typing, whereas the Ms are left in upper case (with the exception of the prolongation M. on A10) because it is to be expected that they will be rarely used. The keys A3 and A4 are already full with "y" and "j", and the corresponding Ms, and A10 is full with a similar looking pair of Ms. In this way the keyboard will be easily adapted to each language (and they may be 20 or more), but only for small modified letters, and if one wants to type a capital letter with M. ("Dζon" or "Iºu´rop" or "O¨sterraix·") then the combination has to be made by typing the letter and the M. Working on a computer, or even on an electronic typewriter, there will be no problems with forming of the modified image of the new letter by logical "OR-ing" of the pixels (and who uses nowadays an ordinary mechanical typewriter?; but even if one does so, the M. may be written next to the letter, as we are doing this here, or one may make use of the backspace key); with capital modified letters might be some difficulties because of their greater height, but this is noting serious.
Well, eight combinations are not much at first sight, but we shall see that for some languages (like Ger, Bul, and probably Spa, Ita, etc.) this is even more then needed and some syllables have to be included, because a combination is any possible sequence of chars. For the languages which we use as examples we propose the following design of "+"-keys in the given order (without pretensions for the best choice):
Eng: a¨, әˉ, vº, r¨, n~, dˉ, tˉ, d|ζ.
Ger: a¨, o¨, u¨, r¨, au, ai·, oi·, ge.
Fre (prob.): i¨, o¨, u¨, r~, uˇ, a~, e~, ua.
Rus: i¨, әˉ, ә·, iºu, iºa, l·, t·, na.
Bul: na, ta, za, iºu, iºa, po, iz, wt.
Then we will give again our old examples starting from the text with Ms and using "j" for "iº" and "y" for "i·" and numbers (there are not in the text) from 1 to 8 for coding of the above mentioned combinations with one sign. The number of chars counted will be the number of the keystrokes issued.
New Eng typed with new Eng keyboard:
6ә nekst peypә disk2sis 6ә p4oblәm 3i7 komәn t41nslitә4eywn fo´ o´l 3ә´ld l153i8iz. 6is iz ә d4a´ft, әv ko´s, fo´ s2q 8enә4әl p4oblәms kud not bi disaydid bay 32n pә´sn nauәdeys, b2t 6ә aydiәs involvd mey bi ju´sd 1nd ikstendid bay s2m g4u´p әv li53ists 3i7 flu´әnt noli8 әv ә d2zn 3aydli ju´sd l153i8iz, inklu´di5 o´lsou, sey: F4enq, G4i´k, A¨4әbik, Qayni´z, etz. 6en it wud bi disk2st 1nd p4opәgeytid t4ayi5 tu kәnvins pi´pl әv 6ә ni´d fo´ 6is, 1nd if s2m 3ә´ld o´7o4iti 3i7 not ounli sә8estiv pauә b2t keypәbl tu info´4s 7i5s 3il be ingey8d, 6en, posibli, 6ә p4oblәm 3il be solvd. Bikoz it m2st bi solvd in 32n-tu´ senqә4i´s, 1ni3ey. — 525 chars, or 7% less.
New Ger typed with new Ger keyboard:
De4 fol8nde a4tikel e424te4t das p4oblem mit de4 8m6nzamen T4anslite4acion alle4 veltlixen wp4axen. Das ist, nat34lix, nu4 6n entvu4f, v6l zolxe 8ne4ale p4obleme kan man x7tcuta8 nixt al6n entw6den, abә die fo48b4axten ideen k2nen fon 6ne4 fon lingvisten bewte´enden G4upe benutct und e4v6te4t ve4den, ven di´ze l7te 5s8c6xnete kentnise fon wp4axen vi´, c. b.: f4anco2ziwe, g4i´xiwe, a4abiwe, xineziwe, usv., xaben. Danax zoll alles bewp4exen und p4opaζi´4en ve4den, mit de4 abzixt alle l7te fon den nutcen di´ze4 w4it cu 3bәc78n, und ven 6ne bex24de mit nixt nu4 su8stive4 zonde4 5x ekzekutive4 maxt a~gaζi´4t ve4den k2ne, dan, fi´l6xt, vi4d das p4oblem endlix 8l2st. Es zoll, abә´, in 6ns-cw6 ja´4xunde4te jedenfals 8l2st s6n. — 619 chars, or 11% less.
New Rus typed with new Rus keyboard:
V sl1du4wq1y sta71 2bsuζda|1tca pr2bl1ma obwq1y translit1razii vs1x mir2v3x 5z3kov. Et2, kon1qn2, to6k2 p1rv28qa6n3y ili q1rn2voy variant, p2sko6k2 taki1 mir2v31 pr2bl1m3 n1 r1wa4tca 2dnim q1l2v1c2m v 8wi dni, no izloζi¨n31 id1i mogut b37 ispo6z2van3 i raswir1n3 n1k2tor2y grup2y lingvist2v, vlad14wqix v s2v1rw1nstv1 d4ζinu wir2ko ispo6z2van3x mir2v3x 5z3kov, vkl4qa5 takζ1, skaζ1m: francuzskiy, gr1q1skiy, arabskiy, kitayskiy, i t. d. P2tom et2 d2lζno b37 2bsuζd1no i pr2pagandir2van2 s c164 ub1di7 l4d1y v n12bx2dim2sti et2v2 waga, i 1sli pri et2m bud1t zaangaζir2va8 kaka5 nibud· instanci5 2blada4wqa5 n1 to6k2 iniciativn2y, no i utv1rdit16n2y vlasti, to t2gda, v1r25tn2, pr2bl1ma eta bud1t r1w18. P2t2mu wto 28, tak ili i8q1, d2lζ8 b37 r1w18 v t1q1nii 2dn2vo-dvux st2l1tiy. — 670 chars, or 3% less.
New Bul typed with new Bul keyboard:
V sledva8a2 s2ti5 se obsәζda problemәt 3 ob8a2 transliterazi5 1 vsiqki svetovni ezici. Tova, razbira se, e pәrvo1qalen ili qernovi vari|ant, tәy kato 2kiva generalni vәprosi ne se rewavat v dnewno vreme ot edin qovek, no 7loζenite idei mogat da bәdat 76lzvani i razwireni ot n5kakva grupa lingvisti, vladee8i v sәvәrwenstvo duzi1 wiroko 76lzvani svetovni ezici, vkl4qva8i sә8o, da reqem: frenski, grәcki, arabski, ki2yski, i t. n. Sled tova vәprosәt tr5bva da bәde obsәζdan i propagandiran s cel da se ubed5t xora2 v neobxodimost2 ot tova, i ako moζe da bәde angaζira1 n5kakva ins2nzi5 priteζava8a ne samo iniciativ1, no i utvәrditel1 vlast, to togava, 1v5rno, problemәt 8e 1meri svoeto rewenie. 38oto toy, vse edno, tr5bva da bәde rewen 3 edno-dve stoleti5. — 638 chars, or 4% less.
All in all, this gives about 6% economy in typing (the average of: -7, -11, -3, -4 is -6.25), hence we again lose nothing and have even a little to win in typing, as well as in the volume of books. The files might be a bit longer but this does not matter nowadays (and even if this matters, the volume used on disk might be less, because we will need much less char sets to keep in use). But let us compare the percentage between the new text without Ms (in part 4.) and the new text typed with the nationally modified new standard keyboard (above), for each of the languages, because this forms an interesting characteristic of the language. For the Eng we have a difference from -10 to -7%, what says that they still can not make the whole win from the new proposition for the keyboard and need some more combination keys (though this is not a "discrimination" of Eng because they have reached the average percentage for our choice of languages, 6.25 to be precise, and besides, the original text in Eng is with 16% less (562 chars) then the average for the four used languages, 650 chars); probably the same will be the difference in percentage with the Fre. In the Ger we have a better situation (from -8 to -11%), what means they have reached the limit of the keyboard and the further diminishing (to -11%) comes from the syllables. With the Cyr alphabet, being very well suited for the languages, we have not much more to gain: in Rus from 0 to -3%, and in Bul from +3 to -4%. And the author is almost sure that a gain between 5 and 8% will be reached not only for languages like Lat, Ita, Spa, etc., but also in Tur, Ara, possibly in Gre, Chi, Jap, et cetera. And we still have not used the other four reserved key positions, so that even 10% economy in typing, as well as in the volume of the books, is to be expected.
So, and now let us add some more remarks about the bettering of the whole keyboard, because it was made in parts or stages without global point of view. Let us make the main (letter) part of it modified according to our proposition: with 37 keys on lines "A", "B", and "C", with new "Z" line, and let us split the "Back-space" key on the number line in two keys making thus "Back-Del" and "Fore-Del" (because they go in pair), and also split the right "Shift" in two keys but put the new key (say, "Insert") on the right (because the "Shift" has to be easily accessed), and finish with this. And now let us turn our attention to the right part of the whole keyboard. There is numeric keypad, what is a very good idea, but it contains under (or over) itself a movement keypad, and these movement keys are doubled and nobody knows exactly why? Well, the numbers are also doubled, but they form another small keyboard so that it is better to be put also here, but these movement keys are not on its place, and even the other movement keys are strangely split in two small pads. We propose the following: the numeric keypad retains the numbers and arithmetic signs, but the "Num-Lock" key is to be rejected and the other case to be switched in the usual way by "Shift" (there are two such keys and the right one is pretty near to the numeric keypad); but above the numbers have to be put some often used in calculations chars as, e.g.: "%", "o/oo", "No", "<", ">", "=" (as a sign), and some positions are to be left free to enter, say, national currency, et cetera. Even more to this: the space for the glimmer-lamps and above to the border of the keyboard may be used and this keypad has to be redesigned as proper scientific calculator, with memory (-ies), special functions, etc. (and if need be, then with smaller keys).
Then we go to the both small movement pads, which must, of course, be joined (because we have moved "Ins" and "Del" out of here) in one 9 key pad (3*3) placed to the bottom, where in low case should be the movement keypad (from the numeric keypad), but in upper case, which has to be switched again in the usual way with "Shift" (and/or "Ctrl" and/or "Alt"), to be put another movements (say, the "left" key in upper case may be a movement to the beginning of the word, or the line, then "Home" may move to the top of the screen, or the file, or the first window, etc.). In the place above this keypad will be a new, let us call it "symbolic", keypad (switched again by the "Shift"), where is enough place for 12 more symbols. All in all, in this way we gain places for at least 30 more chars.
6. Conclusion
As you see, we may as well state that our main proposition, and its possible enhancements, is a very important one for the whole world in the 21-st century. It may not start being applied with languages like Eng or Fre, because the traditions there are very strong and the native people have so badly tried to show their national individuality (reading the Lat letters in a different way), that it is not much probable they will want to change the status quo. But there are other folks, like Germans, Italians, Spaniards, etc. who have not great differences from Latin alphabet and could easily adjust to the new proposition. Still, they will not be the initiators and may only be ready to participate in the movement, if it will be world-wide accepted. But there are other more people and some of them use Cyr, which is a very good alphabet for their own purposes, but for, say, an Englishman, it looks like Chi or old Heb, so these folks are almost ready to accept the proposition (if being made to them) and to be included in the civilized western community. And there are also Greeks, also many Arab folks, and Persians, and Hindus, and Chinese, and Japanese, and more and more others. For them an universal world alphabet should be like a manna from the heaven (providing that this alphabet is really suitable for them, as the author expected). Because the letters are just signs, symbols, and as such they could take nothing from the national individuality of the folks.
And even if the time when this (or some other, but also universal) alphabet will be applied (and it will be, because when something is obviously bad people never cease to try to better the situation, even for centuries and millenniums) may not be so close to out time, then the ideas exposed in the paper may be used starting from tomorrow. What we mean by this is to use such alphabet for some internal representation of the words in computerized reading, spelling, and speech understanding systems. The existing systems can do wonders sometimes, but they work in one given language, and surely not for, say, Arabic. If some system for computerized reading of texts written in this universal alphabet is made, then texts from all languages may be converted to this internal representation (with national dictionaries and spell checking programs, but there is no need to do this simultaneously) and these files may be copied and pronounced (by computers), and, by the by, this standard will be accepted also for human reading. And it is good also for the usual dictionaries, especially for etymological ones, because there are always differences in writing and pronouncing of the words (especially for old languages). And what about the geographical names? And so on. And do not forget also the corollary ideas about a better design of the keyboard. Hence this draft may be a little bit (or more) distanced from the final decision, but it treats one very important problem.
Jan 2003, Dec 2013
REFLECTIONS ABOUT THE NUMBERS
(popular etymology and more) — from "PIR"
Introduction
Here it goes about different ideas, that are hidden behind each digit, its graphical representation, the meaning of its name in one or another (or a third) language, about some special bigger or very big numbers, about some bordering, if I can call them so, numbers (like Russian 4, till which the numbers are in singular but later on they are in plural; or French 16, till which firstly goes the second number and then the first, as also in many languages with 11 and 12, but later is on the contrary), as well also about the very name of the digit in various languages. The questions are obviously complicated, and lost in the darkness of centuries, as it is accepted to say, but the very ideas are not difficult, because they were invented and used by the common people, only that these layers in out minds have now entirely disappeared.
To all of the things explained here I have come alone (what means that on some of them might be argued, yet, as you will see, I am sufficiently convincing with my cumulative proofs, so that I don't advise anybody to begin to argue with me), but this was possible for me because of my mathematical education, where for the common readers, I'm afraid, the guesses will be very hard and downright impossible (in any case, I have tried with some school students, as persons with more awakened and non-rigid model of thinking than the adults, and they have guessed about almost nothing). And the theme is interesting practically for everyone, because there is nothing really scientifically, this is reflection of ordinary human thinking and views to the world. Every symbol means something, but in most cases this is a matter of insinuation, that it must mean something — take for example the national coats of arms or banners —, like the letters, for example, which are many and have come though so many variations and rotations, and writing from left to right, or from bottom to top, and so on, that it is now hard to guess something simple and clear about them (for instance, the letter "A" was a bovine eye, but do you find it like it?; and if it is similar then why of a bovine?; etc.).
The letters carry some ideas, and in some cases, and on some places, I cite some of them, but with the digits it is easier, they are only 10, where the 0 and the 1 have obvious ideas (although here, too, something can be added), for the numbers 2, 4, and 7 the ideas are easy (for the 2 there is even something written in some children's primary books, but without explanations why), the 8 is a bit more difficult, but the ideas hidden behind the 3, 5, 9, and especially 6, are in such extent concealed — though very interesting, at least for me it was quite interesting to detect them — so that hardly one out of a hundred persons (maybe even one out of a thousand is nearer to the truth) would have guessed about them. I have explained this in two other places (in one multi-lingual dictionary with about 12 thousand chiefly roots of words; as well also in one big book in English) but these works are pretty large and are also not published officially. For this reason I decided to explain popularly what I can on some 20 pages here.
Because the digits, as I said, are part of our everyday life, and it is not bad to know how the ancient people — the Arabs, but they have only carried them from Ancient India, so that the digits are from the Sanskrit — have looked at them, this is simply interesting and mysterious (and this reasonably mysterious, not indoctrinated mysteries like the zodiacs, for example, where something reasonable exists, but this, surely, are not the stars — though let us not be distracted by this here). So that I advise you to scratch a bit you head (or what other place you are accustomed to scratch when thinking intensively) and see to what you can come alone. Let us add to the these digits also the big ones, the thousands, millions, and some smaller, 40, 16, 4, as well also 12 (i.e. why the months, and the apostles, too, must have been exactly 12 — at least this is very easy). And begin to think but stop to read further! After a month or two you return to this material, in order to check yourselves. And in order not to be pretty easy for you to look ahead I will begin first with the word about the very number.
The number
Well, this word has several variations, at least Slavonic and Western. As a Slav I think to begin with the Slavonic number (or because I am translating this paper from Bulgarian, what is also important reason), but let me first clarify some things, namely: normal citation of foreign words I will give in double quotes ("so"), especially if this is on the language of narration (here the English), but when the words are from foreign languages I will almost always miss them and will be content to apply only Italic font, although it can be used also for emphasizing (yet I hope you are intelligent enough to make the difference), and if there will be used Greek letters then surely without quotes (it is clear that the word is foreign); the single quotes I will use to mark how the word is to be read (in the nearest to the language of narration way) and will usually miss the Italic if the word is given in such quotes, but also very often 'this' quotes will be used when I am citing words in different from the Latin (usually in Cyrillic) alphabet (and then I normally will put Italic font to stress that the word is foreign); and the bold font is for underlining, something like subtitle.
Now about the reading, because there is no universal standard, the way out is to use some language with simple phonetics, like Italian (or rather Latin, and maximally simplified, say -ti will be read as 'ti'), or Bulgarian, but we have another alphabet, so that it is not suitable to be applied here; there is also one newest method that I have invented (in "Myrski's English Transliteration) but I will abstain from it here (because this paper was written earlier). Hence, if there are several adjacent vowels they must be read somehow so, with only this addition on new basic letters: "þ" is the so called soft sign in Russian and means softening of the previous consonant (like in the Spanish canyon-'kanþon'), and the "å" is this vowel like in your "girl"; it is supposed that "sh", "ch", and "zh" are obvious, "c" is like in Caesar (but in order to avoid any doubts this sound will be given as 'tz'), "j" is "yot" /"jot" what in English is usually given with "y" (or just "i", but there's a difference, the 'j' is not full vowel), your "w" remains for the moment, maybe something else (I am not very precise here in order not to bore you), and French nasal words will be marked with "~". And by "somehow so" I mean that, say, your "year" will be 'iår', "where" will be 'weår', etc., but the second vowel can have meaning of modifier, like also in Russian 'måi' what is "we", or their 'åokno' what is "window', or your "but"-'båot'. Well, and because there will be met many times names of various languages, I will shorten them to 3 (sometimes even to 2) letters, about which meaning you will be quite able to make the right guess; also lang. will mean "language". If there will be something else I will explain it on the very place.
So, and the Sl. number, which is 'chislo', has to be simply something pure ('chist' in Bul. or 'chiståij' in Rus.), and here is our 'chetà'-to-read (what we use not only for letters bur also for numbers, what is not correct); this is so also from mathematical point of view because the number, really, is some abstraction, numbers as such can't walk on the streets, figuratively speaking. And in order not to think that this root is only Sl. (and I am teaching you here something useless), let me tell you that here is also Eng. "gist" like (quint-) essence, Fr. geste ('zhest') as gesture (in the Lat. gestio means to make something, to launch), or Ger. Gestalt ('geshtalt'), what means kernel, image, essence, or also Tur. 'dzhaskam' as to hit, shove, push, or if you want also the Ar. ... jin /gin (or cin in Tur. but read again 'dzhin') as spirit, and others, what is to say that the 'chislo' is something squeezed, compressed, or abstracted.
The Western number, for its part, i.e. Lat. numerus, or Ger. Nummer, could be said that is something like Rus. 'nu' (or Eng. "now", or Ger. na, etc., particle for attracting of attention) + Ger. mehr (or your more, what ultimately is related with the mare-sea as something big), i.e. "something more"; or at least I think so, because this is how the numbers are built, with adding of one more. Well, specially one number in Eng. is digit, what is directly taken from Lat. digitus, only that it means a finger or fingernail, but this surely tells us that people have counted on fingers (or that the digits are as many as our fingers are, ten).
But if we make difference between one number as digit and many numbers, then in Rus. etc.(Sl.) a digit is 'tzifra', what is old Heb. word, cefir, and Ar. chifr, and from there also Fr. chiffre, Ger., etc., what is the cipher, something twisted, hidden, again some essence of the real things; and, when it begins with 'sh' or 's' then it can easily become 'tz' like in the Sl. langs; and here turns to be also Eng. "zero", maybe as the first "ciphered" thing. Let us, though, not go into many details because the very numbers are quite more interesting.
The zero and the one
The zero, obviously, is the "feminine" number, the "hole", naught, nothing, and for a long time if was not counted for number, because it is not natural number (and one number is natural, as I like to explain popularly to the school children, if it can ... run, otherwise it simply does not exist in the nature, i.e. the 0, the negative numbers, and the fractions of any kind, are not natural numbers), and in old Gr. was absent their contemporary word νουλα (read 'nula' because the Greeks — can you imagine this? — just have not a letter 'u' and are forced to combine 2 letters). This zero comes from the Skr. (for Sanskrit), where it is nullah, but the point is that this does not mean there zero, it means a valley, lowland, and then I think that here has to be added one ... river. Did you guess which? Well, as far as the nulirane in Bul. /Sl. (zeroing) often becomes nihilirane (nihilus in Lat.) or an- /nihilate in Eng., then we come to the root 'nil-', or to the river Nile. ( By the way, only the syllable 'ni-' in the Skr. means something low, lowland, valley, because is said — for the author does not know Skr. — that nivar meant lowland — where from must come Bul. 'niva', what is a field (sown with something) —, and udvar meant height, hill, something cocked up, like, hmm, like the cited in Rus., out of decency, hoping the people there will not understand an once that this is some cynical word — as it also happens — Ar. 'ud', what in Bul. and Rus. is written with 3 letters, but in Eng. with 4, and means something utterly masculine, or said relatively decently, a cock. Well, when I translated this in Eng. I saw that in Ar. is given some oud or ud as stringed musical instrument, and the Sl. ud is old Sl. but both things have to be related to the Skr. ud, in my opinion. ) And to the zero being the Heb. cefir, this really has to be so because in Tur. sifir means also zero, although this is a bit strange for this is the most insignificant digit, but when it is the first one, then this has to be so.
The one in Rus. is 'odin' (or 'edin' in Bul.) and it has to be the same also on the West, though this is not clear to everyone. This is in the sense that here is also Eng. "one", Ger. eins, old Frisian an, en, Hol. (for Holland or Dutch or Netherlands) een, and so on, and old Greek οιοσ (but now is ενα), and Avs. (this is from the sacred books of old Persians, called Avestas, i.e. nearly old Per.) aeva, and Skr. ekas. Though, if you think what we will run away from the "cock" you are wrong, because even in Ger. the prefix ein- (read 'ajn' — yet not 'adzhn' of course) is the same as Eng. (and Lat., too) in-, what means into, to enter somewhere (in the "zero', to be sure). And in addition to this, why must Sl. odin has this letter 'd', which is in the 'ud' (for there is no such letter in uno, eins, ενα, ekas, etc.)? Obviously because 'odin' is the masculine digit, and to confirm this let us mention also one well known on the West ... god, the Scandinavian Odhen or Woden (which in Rus. is given again as Oden), and somewhere in the etymological dictionaries is said that I.-E. (for Indo-European langs) root wodh- meant to burn, or to inflame, excite, cause erection.
Although the letter 'd', or the root 'od-', is also massively met on the West, for example in Ger. Öde (a desert, bare land), Eng. "odd" (as not even but the idea is that of the number 1, i.e. when you begin to count them by 2, first and second, then one number will remain alone, without brethren), or Heb. od (what means 7, and to which we shall come later, but 7 also is odd number), and here — for the Slavs this should have been now obvious — is the Sl. 'ad' what is a hell (and it has to be somehow related with our 'jad' what is an ire, rage, and it eats us — jade in Bul. — and makes us alone, like in the desert, what contacts also with Rus. jad what is a poison)! This Sl. ad-inferno is old Gr. Αδησ (Hades), but there is also one god of death, 'Aid' in Rus., who was son of Cronos and Rhea and ruled in subterranean kingdom, i.e. in the ad (so that the jad as rage or as poison can also not be accidental here, no matter that the jad-rage is related with the jadene-eating). We may add here also Rus. 'odnako' (but) as some objection, single exception, here most probably is the known ... poetic "ode", too, as something for singular or exceptional personalities, and (in my opinion) also the ... jod /iode /iodine, because it burns us like in the hell, and other things.
But together with 'od-' / 'on-' there is one more Western root for the 1 and this is 'mono-', where is Fr. monde (world, earth), Ger. Mond (this time the moon), Ger. Monat-month, Gr. μοναχοσ (monk, surely, i.e. lonely person), even your monarchy as well as the monarch (what is Lat.). And if you ask yourself what is the common thing between the Earth and the Moon (Fr. and Ger. "mond"), then this is that both things are something tight, single, and from here is the idea of monism in the philosophy. ( On this place, if you allow me — and if you do not allow me this then jump everything till the end of the paragraph —, I would like to squeeze a remark about this, why ... are given as presents only odd number of flowers to living persons, and, resp., for the dead only even number. This comes from the meaning of "perfect" as finished, in some way even, there is nothing left or sticking out when one has died, and while the person is still alive he changes all the time, he is not perfect, like also the imperfect times. Yet in the Sl. langs this sounds better because in Bul. we have the word 'svårshen' as finished, and also 'såvårshen' exactly as perfect; similarly also in Rus. Now people don't take the numbers so seriously and may think that these are silly things, but the ancient people, in old Greece and not only, have even deified the numbers, especially the Pythagoreans, and the first difference between them is whether they are even or not. )
The two
The two, which in Bul. is 'dve', in Rus. 'dvoe' etc., can mutate a lot, changing to 'tv-' (in Eng. "two") or 'tzv-' (in Ger. zwei, 'tzvaj'; where some old Frisian "twa" can explain this Eng.-Ger. mutation), or in Lat. duo, or in old Gr. δυο ('dio'), or in old Heb. bina, and in the Skr. it was dwan. This, that here are all binary things, like It. bicicletta or Eng. "bicycle" and so on — ah, also the "bio"-things (βιο in Gr.), because everything living divides, and prior to this it copulates or makes couples —, is clear, but before we proceed to some religious aspects (and also to the picture of the digit) let us explain what does here the Sl. ... door, which in Rus. is 'dverþ', or also Bul. court, which is 'dvor', what seems puzzling. But it just can't be otherwise (although I personally have not guessed about this before the etymologists have told it to me). Ah, the point is that the court divides the space in two parts, our and foreign (and for that reason it is surrounded with fence), and the same does the door (in Bul. it is 'vrata' and tells us that it rotates, 'vårtja', but it also divides, it has two sides).
The religious aspects must be clear, this is the god-two or pair, because it is Deos in Lat. (resp. dea is a goddess) and Θεοσ /Theos in old Gr., and this is so in accordance with Bul. saying that "he who knows 2, knows 200", i.e. when one exceeds the one, himself, then he comprises everything! And the graphical image of the two is, as it is given in some primers, the swan's neck! It is so, but nobody explains to the children (neither later, to the grown ups) why this is so, why the swan is the two. This surely is not because it is a nice bird, but because it is ... simply a bird! In the sense that since the swan is nice bird we say that this is its neck, and it is sufficiently characteristic for to symbolize the digit, but behind this beauty hides any bird, and behind every bird, say, behind the hen, which is 'kokoshka' in Bul., is hidden, hmm — what is hidden, in your opinion? Ah, there are hidden two things (which in the end reduce to one thing), it is hidden the syllable "ko", respectively co in Lat., and from it comes Sl. "co" — because in Cyrillic (Cyr. for short) the letter 's' is written exactly like the Lat. "c" —, what means "with", or very often just the Cyr. "c" means this, but together with this also the ... act of copulation, obviously! Well, at least for me it was quite obvious (after the swan's neck), and phonetically this fits well with the "co-co" of the hen, so that it remained only to explain why the ancient people have taken for such representative example the hen, not the pig, say, or the sheep, the bull, the dog, if you want, and so on?
Well, shortly, because the hens are under our noses. Id est hens were in every courtyard, while cows were far away from everywhere, and they are grazing during the day, the sheep for a whole season are outside, the pigs, in fact, stay in their pigsty, but all those animals, hmm, they copulate significantly less than the birds. So that thousands of words, even in one and the same lang., have started from these animals, like, for example: copulation, correlation, cooperation, coalition, Rus. kolkhoz (if you want), i.e. collective, congress, conspiracy, constellation (and, resp. in Rus. 'sozvezdie' where star is 'zvezda'), also the ... constipation (some tightening of the bowels), and what not else, plus Rus.: 'sojuz'-union, 'skleivanie'-gluing-together, 'svjazåivanie'-tying, and so on. And as to words for the hen and related with her things these are, say, Rus. 'kura'-hen, which goes in parallel with Ger. Hure, what is not a hen, it is a prostitute, then Fr, coquette ('koket', i.e. like a hen, because coq-'kok' is a cock), then Ger. Vogel (a bird — for the reason that it flies like a 'foga' as we say, I'll tell you, what means very fast, and the word surely is twin with your "fog"), but then vögeln is already to copulate, to "screw", and then it is necessary to mention also Bul. jargon 'kopele' what is translated as "son of a bitch" and is the direct result of copulation. In the purest form, however, this root is presented in Sp. where coño ('konjo') is exactly vagina (and because of this those people have the hard curse "el coño le tu madre").
The three
By the number three the idea about its graphical image (to which I came at once, but till now have not met someone who has succeeded to find it) is simply a ... woman's breasts! Now, this is not cumulative proof, for it is only one and it isn't a proof at all, but in such cases I draw my strongest trump card and say: "But what else can it be, ah?". And really, what else can relate two semicircles if not two bursting female "peaches" (like the Arabs have the habit to say)? And the breasts of a woman, obviously speak already about a child (because the men can "use" them sometimes, but this is not their direct purpose). So, and what concerns the names of this digit, then in them always is present some friction, like in the triangle (which may be love one, but may also not be such), where Bul. /Sl. 'tri' /'troe' becomes drei by the Germans, tria /tre /tres in the Lat. langs, τρε in Gr., and trdyas in the Skr.
Hear are a heap of word, like the: triumph (thriumpus in Lat.), tribune, Christian Trinity, triangle, triviality (only three things, not much work, used initially for the 3 compulsory learning subjects: grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric), but also the ... tree in Eng. (which is not exactly old Gr. dendro but is a 'derevo' / 'dårvo' in Rus. / Bul.), and the curious thing is that in the same Rus. / Bul. 'trava' / 'treva' means not this but only ... grass (yet it has to here, too, there is no other possibility, right?), and the grass usually begins to grow with three leaves, if you have marked this, i.e. it has not pairs of opposed leaves. The 'treva'-grass is not at all accidental here, and there is also Eng. "thrive" (throve, thriven), as to grow, prosper, i.e. something like to triumph, and in Ger. this becomes treiben ('trajben') what is to move, spur, incite (where from Treib means instinct or drive, most often sexual, i.e. some driving force; this is derived from some Teutonic, Teu. further, dreiban as to sow, initiate). Somewhere here is also the rubbing of hands ('trija' in Bul.; in the Eng. may be mentioned the "try" as effort to push something), Ger. treten as entering (like your "trot"), their treffen as to meet, It. trovare (also to meet — just as one 'tropa'-trotts-stamps on the "dromos"-path, I'll tell you, and 'tropam' is in Bul.), old Gr. τριβω (read then as 'tribo'), what means to rub, ruin; we can add also the known Fr. travail ('travaj', to work), what is as if spitting image of Eng. "travel" no matter that it means something else, and surely others.
Generally speaking the three is very important number, the most stable body in the plane (which is defined by 3 points), and it is used in many other places. For example, I strongly suppose (but can't prove this) that the meaning of number three is the reason to be 3 Eng. feet in their yard, and not, say, 5 or 10; in addition also one Eng. mile is about 5/3 of a kilometer (1,609 m), although here the things are a bit more twisted, i.e. (I suppose) that when one goes on foot one makes for 1 hour usually 5 km, and if this distance must consist of some 3 parts, then they have to be by 5/3 of it.
The four
The graphical image here is trivial, this is a square, eventually with a handle, in order to carry it raised. Phonetically, though, there is significant difference between Western and Sl. views on the matter (in sounding), because in Eng. it is "four", what is Ger. vier, and it as if has nothing in common with Sl. 'chetiri' (in Bul., in Rus. is 'chetåire'), but also with Lat. quattro (in fact in It.), what is the square. Only that in old Heb. this number was gevura, and it signified strength, courage (the hardness of diamond, which is pictured as rhomb). Yet here I recall myself Tur. ... gevrek (known also in Bulgaria) what is a circular bun in form of a torus, i.e. something twisted, curved, and to the gevrek, obviously stays also the 'cheverme' (in Tur. çeverme, what is something that not only is roasted on fire (on a grill) but is also rotated (because çevre, 'chevre', in Tur. means circle — and then maybe this is the hidden meaning of Bul. archaic 'chevråst' as agile, quick, moves to everywhere, like a top-toy)! For the moment let us not digress to this how (and why) the square can sometimes become circle (and vice versa), and continue with similarly sounding words, like Bul. ... 'chervej', what is a worm and we maybe think that it is red ('cherven'), yet not this is the point here, but that it curves or rotates (well, also twists and writhes, but this is something similar for the common person), which word has to be here due to the fact that in Rus. it is 'chervþ' or 'chervjak' where the latter is the known in mechanics worm-gear, which spins like a worm and rotates the cogwheel in perpendicular direction.
Well, but when we begin to rotate then arise new words and ideas, because here is Lat. roto (to rotate, and from here comes Bul. 'rota' as military company, for the reason that they are three and rotate by 8 hours during the day), then Ger. werken (which has given also Eng. to "work" and means the same, yet also Bul. ... 'otrertka' as screwdriver, as well as the jargon 'chovårkam' meaning to do something insignificant, to repair — nearly the same as the 'cheverme'), then (or before, don't formalize about the time, I'm moving in it, I am such person) in old Gr. the 4 is τεσσερα, and in Skr. is catvaras, what can lead us to 'katr', what is Fr. (quatre), but also vier /four now comes nearer to the old Heb. gevura, where our Sl. 'chetiri' can be derived directly from catvaras (i.e. the Russians sometimes take their words directly from the ancient Hindus, without being forced to go to the Latins). Well, but from "gever-" we can reach also to "kver-", and to "skver-", too, what is Rus. 'skver' (small garden), which is supposed to be square.
And here is the moment to explain you why the Russians take the numbers up to 4 for small (for they say "2, 3, 4 cheloveka" — in singular), while from 5 and above they become at once big ("5, 6, etc. chelovek" — in plural). Now, you have to look mathematically at the things, like in counting on ... fingers, of course, for the reason that when one counts he curls the fingers (beginning from the last one) and when he reaches 4 he has only the thumb left and he decides that this finger, as well also anything bigger than 4, will mean "much"! This is the idea, though the Russians will never explain it to you, because they have forgotten these rudimentary things, which earlier were inculcated in their heads, and today they say "2, 3, 4, goda" for years, and after this at once "5 let" for the same word "years", so that it turns that the 'godini' (this is in Bul.), although are synonymous with the 'let'-s, are as if smaller than the latter (which, in my opinion, though not only mine, simply fly, because this verb in Bul. is 'letja' — well, it might be that I imagine things, and here maybe the summer comes in play, which in its turn involves Lat. ... laetus as fat, well-fed, pure, etc., but let us not go in deeper details here). More than this, the relation of 5, or this what is after 4, with the "many" can be found also in Ger., where the number 4 is vieR, and "many" is vieL (what is built not in the usual way, because in comparative it becomes mehr and then meisten, so that I hardly imagine wrong things).
But let us continue with the 4, which, as we have remarked, in result of the twisting can sometimes look like circle (like 'gevrek', which, by the way, in Rus. is 'bublik', something swollen, like the Eng. bubble-gum). Well, the task for finding of the quadrature of the circle has tormented the minds from deep antiquity, but this can never happen for the reason that in the circle enters one unit that can't be measured with the digits and their parts, the number π, which is such "beast" that with whatever measuring stick you try to measure it, it can't be measured exactly even with fractional parts (as much as we fracture then, even to the infinity — this is something that both, children and adults, know, but don't understand, do not feel it). But the twisting remains, and because of this here are, for example, the following words: Tur. and Per. ... 'gjaur' /'gjavur' (gâvur), what is unbeliever, one who has gone "awry" from the proper faith, then Bul. ... 'gavrja se' (to hurt, abuse, in a way, like a 'gjavur', but which is also Western word because here is Fr. gouverner-governor and Lat. guberno (to rule, govern), respectively the governesses (who, as it turns, often 'se gavrjat'-abuse the naughty children, ah?). As far as all this is derived from old Gr. κυβερναω (to rule, govern), then here has to be also the ... cybernetics, which begins with 'si-', and the cyborgs, and even the ... shiffres-ciphers (in old Fr.), because they are also twisted, aren't they?
Generally said, the 4 can have two opposed aspects (what is wholly dialectical view), of something very good, square, double, diamond, or then of something very bad, twisted, made to a square (you see, now it turns that the circle is very nice thing, while the square is simply angular). We can add more "square" words like: Bul. 'gabårche' (a tack, and it can't be from the tree 'gabår' what is hornbeam, which, surely, is pretty twisted, something similar says us also the Eng. name), Bul. obsolete word 'guberka' (big needle), maybe also ... angel Gabhriel in Lat. ('Gavrail' in Bul., who probably 'se gavri'-abuses somehow, i.e. governs), and then maybe also our Sl. ... 'govor' (speech, talking, and this is in Bul., in Czech will be hovor, and in Pol. gwar), because the speech is a kind of command (as also Gabhriel, he might have been quite garrulous "man", or then uncompromising, who knows?). This, surely, is guttural sound, but it is very ancient, and in the Skr. gavate meant to sound (somewhere nearby is the known guru) and this does not preclude that there was also some twisting or rotating (i.e. rotating of the tongue in the throat).
And that around this fuzzy root there are many words in the world (with their own ideas) has to be clear. For example, there are old Gr. tetrarchs (τετραρχοσ), who were great rulers (either of 1/4 of some lands, or of the four directions of the compass, I suppose), then comes old Gr. (and Bul.) ... τετραδα ('tetradka') as notebook, because it is only one folded in four piece of paper, then is the tetrahedron (in Lat., or τετραεδρον in Gr., i.e. something with 4 sides, "edri"-s in Gr.), the tetragon or quadrangle, the ... cathedra (maybe), because it is quadrangular and raised up, Bul. 'edår' meaning big, surely (this isn't Sl. word, it is absent in the Rus.), as somebody with many (understand big) sides-"edri"-s. But there is also something else, there are "kaisers" (Keiser in Ger.) or 'kesarþ'-s in old Sl., what is Lat. Caesar ('tzezar'), obviously, and he might have been taken exactly for equivalent of old Gr. tetrarchs. There are also Lat. "teselations", something like "teslations", maybe, where the Tur. (also Bul.) tesla, meaning this useful axe-like tool called in Eng. adz, comes in play, the adze is used for cutting of pieces, so that the tessellation, what means covering (or dividing) of some area with equal figures, most often squares (though they might be also hexagons, and others; for triangles is used the word triangulation). And here, naturally, is also Sl. etc. 'kvartira'-quarters, the quadrangle in which we live, various square-carres (which can be also pieces of meat), the known old Eng. title esquire (which, in fact, is Fr., and will say simply one who owns some piece of land, which is supposed to be quadrangle), the squadron /escuadron, the It. squadra (which is squadron and some other things, but also football team), and other words. But in order not to think that I have forgotten about the bad, twisted "squares", let me tell you also that there is old Sl. word 'skverna', which is very similar to their 'skver'-garden, but means bad stain, shame, disgrace.
The five
The image of five, I am sure, you have not succeeded to guess (you might think that have, but surely haven't), yet it is very simple. This is ... a pendulum in Lat. ('mahalo' in Bul., or 'majatnik' in Rus.), where pendeo is to sway, dangle! As some combination of 'mahalo' and "pendalo" in Bulgaria is heard the word 'mandalo', but this mixing of roots have to come from quite ancient times because this is the Skr. 'mandala' (sacred circle). Be it as it may: why the five sways, ah? Have you guessed it? Well, until you "switch on" I will give you some other words, like: Eng. "depend" (and you rightly say "on", for it is hanged on something, where in Sl. it is "from" what isn't very correct), Bul. jargon 'pajantov' as ramshackle or unstable, also Bul. 'panta' as door hinge (because it hangs on it), Tur. (and archaic Bul.) 'pendari' as golden coins, yet not any such coins but only the swinging ones, those that are strung on a cord and are pending (or rather pendeo in Lat. meaning of the verb) on the bosoms of young brides (together with this on what they lean), the very number five in old Gr. which is πεντε, and from here also Bul. 'pet' or Rus. 'pjatþ' as five, until we come to the Skr. where this number was pañca (read 'pancha'). So till the moment it became clear where from is Sl. five, but Ger. fünf ('fjunf') or Eng. five are not from there, though in old Heb. it was tiferet and meant beauty or abundance, where is heard some 'fit- /fet-'.
Good, let us tell now why the five sways, because there are also other ideas and we must not become confused without necessity. But this is the idea of the wrist of the human hand, with its five fingers, that simply sways easy, right? And that is why it is perfect and abundant (in old Heb.) Yet here arises some mixing of 4 and 5, maybe as adjacent digits, which is quite old, because in old Gr., as we said, 4 is τεσσερα, what is pretty similar with old Heb. tiferet (5), and what may be the reason for the mentioned Ger. relation vier - viel, and, in general, for the names of these two digits in various Western langs (e.g., in Ger. vier - fünf, in Eng. "four" - "five", in It. specially fourth and fifth are quarto and quinto, what must not be accidental). And the five, when it is beautiful and flexible like our hand, is symbol of strength and security, because the pentagram lies in the basis of ... Pentagon, to be sure, and of the five-rayed star (as much as it is not liked now by many people), because all stars are pictured usually with five rays (if we don't count the Heb. Star of David, built from two interwoven triangles).
So that the five is the wrist of the hand, but also the span of the hand, or the sole of the foot, and from here are all "pedies"-children (as well also those who like children but not just so — i.e. the pederasts, what is well known word in many langs, yet in the Eng. people prefer to say homosexual men), but the curious thing (even for me) was that the ... heel of the foot must also be here, which in Rus. is 'pjatka' and in Bul. 'peta' (i.e. the relation 'pjatþ - pjatka' or 'pet - peta' simply cannot be accidental). Well, the heel surely is part of the "span of the foot", it is stamped on the earth by walking, but in it for the first time is seen the curvature in the picture of five, because the wrist is just torn, like a rag (what also is not accidental, for in Ger. the rag is Lappen, and the foot-sole is Fußlappen, where Fuß is foot). ( Here emerges also the ... petal, or Lat. petalum which is old Gr. πεταλον, but it will be too much for you to digress now also in this direction. )
And one more small addition: many digits are written stylized with as many strokes, as there signifies the very digit; it is so with: 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8. And, because many school children confuse 2 with 5 as fractions, let us explain this, too, it is so because 1/2 = 0.5, and 1/5 = 0.2, so that it turns as if the 2 and the 5 are mirrored images (if you put the mirror below the 2); this is consequence of arithmetic, but it has also found its reflection in the pictures of these two digits.
The six ...
Here, naturally, is the place for the six, but because it is so important and interesting we will ... jump over it at the moment. In order to give you more time to think about it. Well, let me give you one important hint: what is the relation between six and ... sex?
The seven and the eight
We discuss them together because there is not much to be said about each of these digits, but also because in some cases they are related. First the simplest moment, the image of 7 is, of course, ... a banner, on a long handle, which undulates (with the "iron" argument that: "And how else?)! Ah, but have you guessed why? Well, a Hebrew thing, in two words. God has created the world for 6 days and rested at the 7th, but this is 1/4 of a lunar month, so that there are reasons for its usage, and this is also prime number (and the ancient people have paid much attention to such numbers, although it can happen that in them are hidden ... secrets of the creation, more precisely in the distribution of big and enormous prime numbers towards the infinity). So that in old Heb. the 7 was od, what is exactly your word for odd, but to me personally it sounds like ... "Oh (said "daddy God", I have finished at last — and wiped the sweat from His forehead)" (yet let me remind you that we, the Bulgarians, bur also many other nations, read the "h", so that there is not big difference from 'oh' to 'od'). While the 8 in the same old Heb. was yesod /'jesod', what now must be "yeah + od", but however we split it the 8 is subjugated to the 7, is formed with adding of something to the 7.
Now, it is true that this is a Hebrew thing, but it turns out that also all Slavs now already thousand of years think in the same way, because, really, in Bul. 8 is 'osem' and it is close to 7 what is 'sedem' (i.e. osem = do-to + se(de)m), and in Rus. it is also so (vosemþ-8 = vot-here + semþ-7), what is not justified because the 8 is very good number (as we will see soon), while the 7, at least according to the West, is one ... well, rotten number! Is it so? Yeah, it not only is so, but the people there tie the 7 to the 6, not to the 8, because, for example, in Ger. we have sechs ('zeks') - sieben ('ziiben'), in Fr. six - sept — and this is rotten due to the fact that it is septic —, in Hol. is zes - zeven, in It. is sei - sette, and so on (and exactly this is cumulative proof, by the way, with many examples). This "septic" (attracting of all bacilli, cocci, and whatever may happen) by the 7 exists also in the ancient langs (without Heb.) where in old Gr. it was επτα (and now maybe is εφτα), and in Skr. was sapta.
While look at the 8, very twisted thing, twisted torus, what is so because it is the first cube (2^3), and its name on the West is simply an exclamation of astonishment and delight! Let us check this: in Ger. it is acht ('aht', i.e. "ah", and as a verb achten means "beware"), in Eng. it is "eight" what says 'ej', in Fr. is huit ('jui', i.e. something like your "gee", in Bul. I would have said 'uhaa'), in It. is otto (exactly the thing, so to say, ottimo there means excellent), in Sw. is atta, and so on, and in old Gr. is οκτο (something like "oho", what has gone unchanged in the Lat.), in Skr. is aštau ('ashtau') and in Avs . ašta, what is directly ... astounding. So that, as there is a phrase, "to the court everything is clear".
The nine
Yeah, but the 9 is not reversed 6, as you most probably have decided, because there is no logic in this (from mathematical standpoint). No, it is not this, it is rather one ... "no"! But let us look around firstly on the West, where we have: Ger. neun ('nojn'), your Eng. "nine", Sw. nio, Hol. negen, Fr. neuf ('njof'), It. nove (but 9th is nono), Sp. nueve — maybe enough "cumulating", ah? — and in the old langs respectively εννεα in old Gr., and in Skr. and Avs. nava. If you still have not grasped why the 9 means "no", then look that in some langs it means also something new. Does this help you? Well, if you are of those people that watch the ads then this surely will say nothing to you, but if you still can think a little, you are bound now, if you close your eyes, to see why the 9 is symbol of the new. Right? Because with it the digits finish, and we must begin again (in another decimal position, as it is by the meters). And for this reason the graphical image of 9 consists of ... two digits — the first two, the 0 and the 1, where the 0 is above, and the 1 is below. This is the whole philosophy here (i.e., we have begun with the 1 and have reached to the 0, as a 10).
And what is the situation in the Sl. langs? Well, again so, because, in this situation (but not otherwise — without the above explanations one would have hardly guessed this), Bul. 'devet' or Rus 'devjatþ' mean that the digits have ... gone somewhere ('djavam se' in Bul. /'detþsja' in Rus. is to disappear, to hide somewhere) — the bloody digits, ah! Id est this time we are wondering, like the West wonders at the 8, only that we do this with the 9, because where is 'devjatþ' there is also the 'deva'-virgin or 'diva'-beauty (this is Skr. Diva or Deva, meaning also a goddess), and our 'divak' (in Bul., a savage, yet also 'diven'-marvelous creature, if you make this relation, that everything alive is marvelous and beautiful God's creation), and Rus. 'devatþ' (to put, but the meaning is of wondering where to put is, to take it away from here), and so on.
The ten
Well, the ten is not a digit, from point of view of mathematics, but can sometimes be counted for such (especially if we do not begin with the 0). Anyway, let us say something about it. Here also exists mixing of ideas, for in Eng. it is :ten", in Ger. zehn, in old Gr. δεκα (dieci in It., decem in Lat.), and here are the "deans" ('dekan'-s or 'djakon'-s in Sl.) and the "decades" and the ... "doctors" or "docs", as well as the "docents" (for doceo in Lat. is to teach). Then we may add here also the various "doctrines" (or "doxies") together with the ... "paradoxes" (this what is around and out of the "doxy"), and the orthodoxes (exactly according to the "doxy"-norm), which come from old Gr. δοξα ('doksa', a thesis, account, name, reputation, etc. — in the ancient langs one word often has quite different meanings, for the reason that the people have started from the hidden in it ideas, which can be found in different things, in this case this is the essence of the thing), as well also from Ger. decken what means to cover. Look, in short this is the idea of the "cap"-hat, which, now as Gr. letter (καππα, kappa in Lat.) is exactly the tenth, and it simply crowns the things. Because of this here is Fr. chapeau ('shapjo'), Eng. "cap" and "cape", and even "cup", Lat. capito, the Capitolium, the "captains", the "capitalism" (i.e. the capital is the main thing, not the human), and a heap of other words. And the ancient word was old Heb. keter meaning crown or wreath, from which has left at least the first letter, though it meant 0 (i.e. this is some circle which is put on the heads of people, on which is worth to put some circles, in order to distinguish them from the others).
Now, the roots are pretty mixed, at least 'kapa-' and 'doks-' are entirely different things, more so zehn or ten, but at least our Sl. 'deset' is the Lat. deci-, and the "cap" came here due to its tenth place in the order of letters. The Ger. zehn is something pulled out (from their ziehen, i.e. climbed above, if we take the ten as last digit), or then, what seems more logical, is related with their counting, zahlen, to what we will come later again (though it is possible that it has something in common with their ... Zehe as a toe, i.e. something wiry, strong), and from there also with the Eng. ten. ( I personally, however, don't exclude entirely the possibility that the old Teutons have made their zehn taking the second syllable of Lat. deci, for the simple reason that have thought that "de" is a kind of prefix. )
Other special numbers
About the special position of the 4, eventually of the 5, we have already spoken. Then comes 12, what, quite obviously, is a very nice number because it divides by first four numbers (2, 3, and 4), and from here come the hours, apostles, minutes (they are divisible also by 5), and there existed some ancient systems of counting based on the number 60. There also the "dozen" ('dusina' in Bul.) is something like a cap, from the root "doc-". Together with 12 become special also 11 and 13, the first number because it is before 12, and the second — after it. But here are other moments, too, because 11 is simply beautiful number, it can give also ... 1001, what likewise looks beautiful, and in addition is divisible — this even mathematicians nowadays don't know, because have not thought about it — by 7, 11, and 13 ! So that, when we take the two adjacent prime numbers around 12 (and such two adjacent primes are not many, they are the nearest possible, like 29 and 31, and this is interesting by itself), and when multiply them, and once more time multiply this by the previous prime number, we get 1001, what, if we take away the zeroes, gives exactly the middle number of those 3 primes, 11. This is part of the magic of numbers, in the old times, but also nowadays, it has filled the heads of the people. In addition to this 1001 is good number in the present days for the Hindus, because they don't like to sell (or buy) something for round amount of money (these are a kind of "dead" numbers, remind yourself the even number of flowers), and with 1 less there simply something of the number is missing, so for this reason they prefer to be 1001, 12001, and other similar variants. And when 12 is such beautiful number, then 13 can now be unpleasant, right, and for that reason the Russians (but surely also other nations) call it "devil's dozen".
Well, and 16, what for the Latins (at least in Fr. and It. this is so) is the limit till which we say first the second digit and then the first, while later it becomes on the contrary, is also remarkable because it is the first (if we don't count the trivial 1) fourth degree (of the 2). The Germans, though, change nothing in the reading of the digits even to ... 99, and who does not know this will look at it as at something quite perverse. Well, this is so, but for the reason that the other nations don't do this (but the English until two centuries ago, in the time of Charles Dickens, have done this, say, they have said that somebody is on "6 and 50 years"), but otherwise there is some reason in this, for when we add the numbers we begin with the last digits and then come to the tens; this, what is not convenient, is that for all numbers bigger than 100 this is already not so, yet 100 is quite a big number, and for this reason the English say, for example, not 1984th year digit by digit, but "19 hundred and 84th", and the money they also count in this way.
In the Eng. there is one "score", what means literally a stroke, but with the numbers it means 20, archaic. So why is this so, how do you think? Well, this is obvious (how Sherlock Holmes would have said), this is because we have finished all our fingers, including the toes (which are named also fingers in the Sl. langs), so that when there is nothing on which to count further we put a stroke somewhere and begin anew. The English have "gotten" this bad habit, surely, from the French, who even nowadays can't say, for example, 80, but say 4*20, or do not say 96 (even not "6 and 90"), but 4*20+6+10, yet when they reach 97, then they say 4*20+10+7. Here the points can not be in the special position only of 16, but of 6, too (to which we will come soon), but that's that. By 70, though, they decide that 60 is quite a good number (divisible by: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) and call it 60 + 10 (soixante-dix). The number 60 is strongly attracting, and for this reason the degrees in the circle are 360, not 100, what would have been more correct, but here comes also the period of our rotation around the Sun, so that 1 degree is one day, and by one minute a day increases (or decreases) the length of the day in each of the directions (i.e. by 2 min). Yeah, such curious moments, which nowadays are pure rudiments.
Big numbers
Well, here we can start with the 100, but firstly in the Western variants. Ger. hundert speaks about some ... dog (Hund), what might have meant earlier something important, or big amount (in any case they, as also the Russians, have the saying: "This is where the dog is buried", in the sense of something important, the core of the things). And the Eng. thousand, which is from Ger. Tausend (obviously), hides some hitting, crashing — from the throwing of the money (eventually with the purse) on the table, I suppose —, though the etymologists give some old Teu. forms like: tusund, dusund, dhüsundi, Sw. tusen, and others, and explain that this was combination of dhüs + hundi, meaning many hundreds, but, as you see, the "dogs"-hundreds are again here. And what concerns the hitting and thumping (dhüs), this was some I.-E. root meaning inflating, swelling, and there was their thumb (Daumen in Ger.), only that for me the thumping is more convincing than a possible inflation. Be it as it may, this is near to Rus. 1000, 'tåisjacha' (for where is 'djus-' there is also 'tåis-'), and in addition the root 'djus-' is simply the 2, which leads us to the dozen, where we can add also Lat. duodenum what is some special bowel, so that the point hardly is in the inflating.
And here we come to the 'djijm', which is Rus. (and Bul.), but means the same as Eng. "inch", and also the same as Ger. "tsol" (Zoll), so that let us clarify the things a little. Well, the 'djijm', in my view, is simply Sl. variant of pronouncement of the ... Eng. "thumb", where is necessary the following explanation: this is not the length of the last phalanx of the thumb, but the thumb looked athwart (which is normally broad about 2.5 cm), because in this way can be put thumb to thumb and to measure. And when you arrange in this way 12 "thumbs", this must give exactly 1 foot, i.e. sole of the foot, and I personally measured it and by me it turned nearly so (11.5 thumbs, i.e. on the 12th the sole ends)! So that these relations are not at all arbitrary, they may be adjusted a little, but are quite close to the truth, for an average man (by the women the hands are finer).
The very inch (for me obviously) means that this is something that is put "in" something what we measure. And the Zoll had come from Lat. telonium (what is not at all obvious, but has to be so, for the reason that 't' can easily become 'tz' by the Germans, I'll tell you), what was from old Gr. τελωνια and meant a tax or charge, but this is so because here the idea is of some dividing (compare with Ger. Teil, 'tajl', as part). So, but the more important thing is that from the Zoll we can come directly to Ger. zahlen (to count), or the variation zählen (to pay, understand, paying the money), which was entirely Heb., namely tsoln, what meant to count. So that the Zoll is a measuring stick, where the root is not only Lat., but first of all Heb., and from here quite easily can come the Ger. ten (zehn), and the very counting. ( Ah, there is something more here, by the thousand, here is a relation with the Rus. ... 'tuman', what is your fog, and this root is quite spread in the world, but the idea is for something that is very 'gåsto' (in Bul., or 'gustoj' in Rus.), what is closely, very thick, because the ancient people believed that the darkness is something that conceals the light, but it is not the place here to indulge in such digressions. )
And the millions and milliards, more so the Am. variant billion, are something very ... — but you surely will not guess this, ah? Well, the root 'mili-' is just something very nice, exactly 'milo' in Bul., what is related with the ... honey, which is 'meli' in old Gr., and there is something Ar. of that kind, and also in the Skr., because out of honey was made from quite ancient times the alcoholic beverage mead, and in Bul. (and other Sl. langs) 'med' is exactly bee honey (while the mead is 'medovina'). Here I also have not the possibility to digress, but can add at least that in this heap are all ... military people, i.e. 'mili hora' (in Bul., and 'hora' is people)!
Yeah, but we have almost forgotten about Bul. 1000, which is 'hiljada', and this neither is something 'milo'-nice, nor is swollen like the thumb, so what can it be then? Surely nobody could have guessed, and such things are not written in etymological dictionaries, because this word is typical Bul., not Sl., and in such case has to be something ancient that has come to us, either from Per., or from ... Mongolian, or from the Skr. But we can relate it easy with one Bul. jargon, ... 'hilja se', what means to smile happily, or rather to giggle! Yet in order not to think that I am inventing something with the ancient langs then compare it with Lat. hilarious (merry), or with Ger., rather Tyrolean 'ailaripi' (what isn't exactly a word, but then with their heil-'hajl', only without Hitler). And the idea about this giggling number — well, it, naturally, giggles not the very number, but we, that see so many money at once (because the people, usually, think about money) — gave me one Pakistani word, Naulakha, which meant 900,000, so that if the beginning is related with the 9 /neun /nine, then the "lahing" has to symbolize the 1000 (and in Ger. lachen-'lahen' is exactly to laugh, where the root is very ancient at least because ... the wife of Vishnu was Lakshmi, and she was pretty hilarious "girl", and had many faces). So, and here can be added also Tur. (and Bul., too) laf, what are usually funny stories told at the table during the eating and drinking (what leads us to your Eng. laugh, of course).
And what about our Sl. 100, which is 'sto' (in Bul., or 'sotnja' in Rus.)? Now look, the etymologists derive it from old Gr. εκατον (where we can mention also Lat. ... hecatomb, hundreds of vaults-tombs), and include in this heap also the hundred, and Lat. centum, but this may be so only because we want it to be so, for the reason that it means the same, yet the ideas hidden behind the words are different. In the ekaton there is some musical "tone", and " let us not make here guesses about what says to the Greeks the "eka"; in the centum is hidden some ... tinkling, clanging, like by the cents, or like also by the weighing scales which are centenarium in Lat., which was Gr. κεντηναριον (and from there we can go to Bul. archaic 'cantar' as the same scales — they are iron, they clang); and in the word 'sto', in my view, is hidden simply ... the exclamation "stop", i.e. enough (hundred hits with a rod, for example, ah?). For us 'sto'-hundred is not a few, and similar idea, only that twisted enough around the 4, exist by the Russians, who call the ... centipede exactly 'sorokonozhka" (where 'sorok' is 40 and 'nozhka' is a small foot). If you so much want more ancient root then take the Skr. or Avs. satam, or some pre-Sl. 'såto', what is the root of satiation.
Again the six
To have guessed what should have been the relation between six and sex I don't believe, but let us first convince ourselves that this is so (cumulating the things from various langs). For example, in Lat. the number is sexis, and the sex (which for many nations means the gender) is sexus, in Ger. the number is sechs, read 'zeks' (what is pure sex, because they read each first "s" as 'z'; the gender there is Geschlecht, 'geshleht', what means a "bad thing", schlecht is "bad", because they are — well, were, I mean — moral people), and in old Gr. the number is εξι ('eksi', what, surely, sounds pretty sexy). But let be clear also on the point that the sex is identified with the sexual organ, and more precisely with the masculine one (because who has counted earlier the women for humans?) so that it turns that this body organ has to be tightly related with the 6. Now it becomes clearer, right? Because, if one decides to look at one such "sex", more so if he is a man and looks at the river, he will see there that it is similar to the 6, i.e. it has its stick and its circle (well, two circles, but in profile they look like one). So that it turns out that from deep antiquity (some 3000 years is a good guess) the number 6 was compared and likened to the male penis.
But, of course, these are things with mathematical idea in them, because the number six was considered as the perfect number (and that the penis is perfect creation must be clear to all women, and to the men, too), what means that it is equal, as to the sum, so also to the product of all of his simple divisors: 6 = 1*2*3 = 1+2+3. For the prime numbers is clear that there is no other such number because their sum is always with 1 more than the product (which is equal to the number), but for the compound numbers, too, it is intuitively clear that this must be so, because for 4 the sum is 5 and the product is 4, for 6 they are equal, and further more the sum is always less than the product (for 8 the sum is 1+2+2+2 = 7, and the number or the product are 8; for 9 the sum is 1+3+3 = 7; for 10 the sum is 1+2+5 = 8, end so on, where for, say, 100 the sum is 1+2+2+5+5 = 15, and so on). ( Well, this depends on the definition, and I give you the simplest, but in the "Elements" of Euclid was accepted that a perfect number is such for which the sum of all its divisors is equal to the number — now not to the product —, and then, for example, 28 is also such number because 1+2+4+7+14 = 28, and there are also big such numbers like 496, for which 1+2+4+8+16+31+62+ 124+248 = 496 = 16*31, and so on, they are not limited. But even by this definition 6 is the smallest such number and it is only one digit. )
So that this idea was present in the heads of ancient Greeks and other nations before them, because also the Star of David is with 6 rays, and the die, i.e. the cube, has six sides (and in Bulgaria up to the present day is used six-point grading system in the education, where 6 is the highest grade), what again shows that not the male penis looks like the number 6, but the image of number 6 was so designed in order to symbolize this perfect (maybe the most perfect, or at least most emotionally accepted) organic creation. But these ideas can, up to some extent, be found also in the Sl. langs, for the reason that in Rus. the 6 is 'shestþ' (in Pol. is szešč, 'sheshch', and was some Baltic sheshi), while the ... rod or the stick is 'shest' and: just say now that 'shestþ' and 'shest', and this in one and the same lang., are not related! Besides, the very name 'shest' (so is the number in Bul.) is not very different from "sex", or take It. sei, what, if we read it with 'sh" in the beginning, is quite like in Bul., and in the Skr. this number was šat ('shat', what is practically the same sound that is heard when we brandish some stick) or also šaštiš, what can't miss to ... "shashtisa" you (if you know Bul., where to 'sashtisa', surely of Tur. origin, means to astonish, stupefy), right!? Let us add also that in Tur. the number 6 according to the dictionaries is alti, what is impossible not to correlate with their altin ('altån', for them the Lat. "i" very often is read like Bul. 'å', for the simple reason that they have not a big choice, either so, or with "a"), or rather a golden coin, but in the game of backgammon I am sure that 6 & 5 is called 'shesh-besh', where beş, 'besh', really, means 5, so that this root is not unknown by them. And also don't forget that all Skr. gods, when they look like humans, are with 6 extremities.
And what concerns the stick 'shest' in Rus., then their etymologists say that there was some old 'shåstå', then Belarusian 'shost', and mention some Latvian shiekshtas as ... tree trunk without branches. Well, but "that thing" is exactly like a tree trunk without branches, isn't it? They, surely, don't explain this, they rather guess, but if so then I can continue with other words, like Rus.: 'zhjostkij' (hard), 'zhestjanka' (a tin), 'zhelezo' (iron), 'zhezl' (a rod, scepter), as well also the ... 'zhele'-jelly, which is liquid, liquid, and at once hardens (well, nor exactly like iron, but nearly so). Id est the iron is a kind of jelly (while is liquid), and there was some old Sl. 'zhelåi' what meant ... turtle (because it is with hard shell), but the very word 'zheljaso'-iron (that's in Bul) corresponds well with Ger. Stahl ('shtahl', steel) or Stiel (stem of a flower). ( We could have thought that the ... 'zhålt'-yellow colour (in Bul.) is also somewhere here, but this is mixing or roots, the 'zhålto' is rather "gålto", or "goldeno"-golden, so that let us not digress with it. ) Ah, the Russians have also the word 'shesternja', what is a cogwheel, what may be so for the reason that the profile of the cogs looks like hexagonal, or may be minded the stick on which the cogwheel is placed (for there can't be a gear without axis).
But enough accumulating, now everything is clear, the six is a "great thing", like the "thing" of the male. And let us on parting return to the Gr., where their εξι-6 can be written also as εξ, what, obviously, has given the Lat. prefix "ex-" (which is 'iz' in Bul., and in It, only "s-"), as something that jumps at once — so, there is nothing, nothing, and at once something suddenly pops out, ah? This is the 'sashtisvasht'-astounding number six, with which, quite deservedly, we finish our opus about the numbers.
Oct 2012
MYRSKI'S ENGLISH TRANSLITERATION
— from "PIR"
0. Abstract
Here is given one author's way for using only the letters of Latin alphabet to signify how to read all English words, and then these ideas are extended for many other languages. Having in mind that the Latin alphabet is well known around the world it is supposed that this not only will give to all nations a common way for writing of their words, equally readable by all of them, but may also encourage many nations with different alphabets (like Arabs, Hebrews, Hindus, etc.) to use this proposition to make good presentation of their words accessible to all. The material stands upon the earlier "Illiterate World" yet is not continuation of it but rather an alternative to the described there ideas.
1. Preliminaries
This is a paper about one new way for transliteration of English words so as they are pronounced using only the 26 (and even a bit less) letters of Latin alphabet (and with nothing added above or below) for coding of all 40 and something English sounds (vowels, consonants, semi-such things, diphthongs and triphthongs), and from here, taking the English as one of the most difficult in writing with the Latin alphabet languages, also for all other languages, like: other Latin ones, Teutonic, Slavonic, Greek, Arabic, and others. Naturally, this can be done using several characters for marking of one sound, but the point is not to use more than the "decent" two characters (like, e.g., "sh", or "ae", with the exception of some triphthongs where is justified to use three characters), while there are languages where up to 4 and even 5 characters are used (e.g., in German "ch" is written using "tsch"), and working in one only language (e.g., "ng" in English may mean not the same as in French), i.e. this proposition is language specific. Also there should be looking only forward for the next character modifying in some way the previous (not to use "gn" to read soft 'n' — like in the Spanish canyon — what is the way how the Italians read their "signore", and the English, too).
By the way, you have seen now that I use both kinds of quotes, because for many years I have decided (when there are two such characters) to use the single ones for marking of the way how the word is to be pronounced, where the double just enclose some word or phrase. In this way this my proposition (which I found appropriate to call Myrski's) becomes a way to signify how English words have to be read (what usually is given in square brackets and using very strange signs that are missing from commonly accepted character tables), as well also for almost any other language with not much peculiarities, or else not very precisely. For example, at the present it is difficult in English to write correctly some foreign words (like the Greek goddess 'Gea' which you write as Gaea, or the Russian Baical, which has to be in English 'Baykal', but in German is 'Bajcal', or the strange Russian vowel "eri", which is something alike the 'i' but very different from it, or the Turkish "kismet" which is not read with 'i', and many, many others), and having one (bad, sorry) alphabet badly used in various Western languages poses many problems, which don't exist, for example, in Bulgarian language where is made perfect use of its alphabet also for the words of many other languages. This is very important thing for almost every language (with the only exception of Bulgarian — I don't like to boast being Bulgarian but it turns to be so), yet there are languages where people cope more or less good with the situation (like: Teutonic, Italian, Spanish, Russian or Ukrainian, etc.), and there are such where the situation is simply terrible (like in — I am again sorry to tell this to some of my readers — English or French).
So that I have begun to think about the problem of finding a proper way for writing of the words of all possible languages before more than a decade and have given one good (working) proposition in my "Illiterate World" (further cited only as "Ill.W."), where the approach is really universal and starting from the requirements, not from the restrictions of a giver language. And I mention this here for two reasons: one is that in that paper I have come to some fundamental ideas about the types of sounds in all languages, which I will use mainly in the same way here (only not with so many explanations why I am doing this), and the other reason is that there the approach was different, there I have proposed new letters to be invented and made worldwide used, while here I am using the old Latin alphabet (which even from the beginning was not made good, there was reading of some characters in different ways depending on the next character, but not modifying it, no, just changing it to another one, say, their "c" and "g" are read in two different ways). About the expressed there Ideas I will try here not to sent you obligatory to that material and explain briefly the things; and about the as if duplication of the proposition and even proposing later on something less generalized, language specific, and not so precise, I have to give some explanations now.
Well, generally speaking, people don't like much to generalized ideas (especially between many nations), and here, concerning the language matters (which are a bit chaotic and fuzzy), and looking at the not too big interest at my former proposition (it is read, but as if only out of curiosity, not thinking about really using it), I have come to the conclusion that something simpler could have been of better use, even if not very correct in some cases. But one can always consider this as just another similar proposition, which for the English is, still, a bit drastic (in changing the habits to read their words), but not exceedingly so (the major part of the letters have retained their meanings), but for many other languages it is very suitable. And in addition this may be some intermediate step to finding of one only alphabet for the entire world, because from here will be much easier to come to something similar to my proposition about the new alphabet. So that it is good to have it, and I suppose to begin to use this somewhere later.
Now, as to the basic landmarks of this my proposition, which follow from the basic drawbacks of the English language, as well of the Latin alphabet, looked at in the spirit of my old ideas about basic, modified, and combined, firstly vowels, but later also consonants, the major points are the following: clearing of the very Latin alphabet from dubious characters, what will leave some characters unused and ready for our needs, then standardizing of the representation of English sounds so that they will be signified more or less like in other Western languages, and only what is really specific will be given in a new way, and then extending of this approach for several other languages. From the point of view of specifically used characters in English the stress will be set on the "y", "j", "w", and some vowels written in series; and from the point of the sounds will be underlined the importance of one basic, but missing from the Latin alphabet, vowel like in your "bird" or "girl" (which only temporary we will signify here as "ir"), and the easiest possible modifications of the vowels as well of the consonants.
I must also explicitly state that this material will be only in English (not like my usual way to use before this Bulgarian and later Russian languages) for the simple reason that it is intended basically for the English language, and there is no need to give explanations in other languages if one is not familiar enough with the English; though there is also the reason that these are scientific matters and it is normal to use English, as contemporary Latin, to make the things accessible for all nations.
2. Purifying of the Latin alphabet
For many readers the idea about bettering of the Latin alphabet may seem pretty bold but this is not my only view, the Italians do quite well with only 21 characters, without "j", "k", "x", "y", "w", and in addition "h" is not used as letter, it is only what I call modifier (to tell how to read "c", "g" or "sc"). I don't say that such decreasing of the number of sounds (because a character is, basically, a sound, or so it has to be in a good alphabet, and the less characters are used the less sounds there are in the language) is a good thing, it isn't in my view, but we can use it here as an advantage. So that we will better the ways of reading of "c" and "g", retain "j" as modifier or as semivowel, use the same approach for "h", leave "k" as necessary, then remove "x", "y", "w", and then remove also "q" (being a kind of 'k'). In this way the letters "q", "x", "y", and "w" will be made free for specific usage in the English or in other languages.
Now more precisely. About the "c" and "g" I think everything is obvious, because these are entirely different sounds (I mean "c" like in Caesar or Slavonic tsar and "k" like in king or column; the same about "g" like in great or go or French gare or garçon and 'zh' like in French Giselle or etage-floor or je-I or bijou or in the middle of English measure), so that Latin cielo-sky (though in Italian it will now become 'chielo') or then your celestial will remain the same (although for you beginning with 's'), but the cadaver will be 'kadaver' or Italian capriccio will be kaprichcho and the captain will become kaeptin; also the gare will be the same (i.e. gar) but the bijou will be bizhu. As you see I introduce also other new (combinations of) characters but they will be explained a bit later and for the moment I suppose that you are intelligent enough to guess the right pronunciation. Also, allow me to use some shortenings like: char for character, let. for letter (lets in plural), V. for vowel, C. for consonant, then lang. for language, comb. for combination, Lat. for Latin, Eng. for English, Fr. for French, It. for Italian, Rus. for Russian, Ger. for German, Sp. for Spanish, and others (I like very much to use bc. for because). And, well, I economize very often all kinds of quotes, when the quoting is obvious, and Italic stile use except for emphasizing also for foreign for the Eng. words.
And now about the "j" and "h". The let. "j" as semi-V. is necessary bc. in many langs there is difference between, say, 'ai' and 'aj' (like in I or mine), or 'jo' like in Lat. (Ger., Sp., etc.) Johannes or in your (i.e. Eng.) yogurt. There might sometimes arise doubt about the way of association of this 'j' — and let's call it 'jot' how it is proper to be called — (with the previous or with the next char) and in such cases is necessary some divider or delimiter, like "|" (say the Mayas people will be Maj|a). There are combs (combinations) of all possible Vs with the 'j' and in both kinds of association (like in "maybe", yogurt, etc.). And this char is semi-V. bc. it can't be pronounced alone, but it isn't a C. It isn't also a modifier (and let shorten it to M.), but the "h" is one, making 'sh' from 's', 'ch' from 'c', 'zh' from 'z', as well also the known 'th' and 'dh', but there can be also (say, in Ar. for Arabic) 'bh', 'gh', 'rh' (not only in Ar., in all Sl. for Slavonic langs the let. 'r' is clearly pronounced, maybe not exactly like in the rhino, but like in rhetoric, and, e.g., in Rus. the paradise is 'raj').
Yet I see an interesting parallel now between 'h' an 'j' which may be used here, I mean that like 'h' is M. but 'j' is semi-V., so 'h' may be used as semi-C. (this time, it can in no way be V.) and 'j' as M.! So why the last two things? Well, when I have begun in my old years to learn It. I have come to the conclusion that for them this is a ... — sorry, sorry, — shity letter. This has to be so bc. they call it 'akka' what must be a variation of Lat. caco (or Bul. for Bulgarian akam as to sh##, or also Rus. 'kakashka' as a small sh##, a shitlet, so to say). You can laugh, yeah, that is why I write this here, but in every joke there is a grain of truth and here what I tell you is true, no matter that the Its (Italians, to be sure) will not admit it (without whipping, as we like to add), bc. they don't say, for example, honour /honor but just il onore, and not honesty but la onesta, and Gers town Hamburg is for them Omburgo. So that they miss this letter, but the other folks use it, say, the Gers use very often their Herr-Master, or haben-have. Still, "h" isn't full-right C., it is pronounced (according to the Gers) like exhaling when you want to blow out a candle, and when they want it to be heard like real C. then they just double the char, only that they write "ch" for that purpose (similarly like "ck" is, in fact "cc" meant as 'kk'), e.g., machen is to make, or lachen is to laugh. And that is why, by the way, for the Gers "ch" is not like in Eng. (and here, too), neither what is in It. (making the "c" to be read as 'k'). In Eng. "h" is written, especially in the beginning of the words, as you know well, but it is simply not read (also in Sp.), so that you feel somehow that this let. is not a proper C., and this comes from Ancient Greece and is applied also to the let. 'k', and sometimes these both lets are even confused (like in our Sl., i.e. Eastern, Persian maybe, title of ruler, han, which you write as khan).
I give so many examples from different langs in order to convince you that the things must be standardized, and that in any case some nations will suffer and raise their indignant voices but this is unavoidable and I try to choose the most correct way of usage. Here the correct way is to use "h" as M., for Cs, but also for Vs, like in ah, or oh, what is used to mark a but prolonged V., say, of one and a half length, but not 2 equal vowels (not aa or oo), and when this let. is read as real let. then it must be written as 'hh' (say, Ger. mahhen, but Eng. 'onirr'-honour, for the moment). Making of prolonged V. is very important not only bc. they may differ in Eng. (say, sit or bit, and 'sih' for see, or 'soh' for saw), but also bc in the ancient langs, especially in the Lat., there are not so much accents in the words as there are short and long Vs, and the long ones are the accented. ( So that, by the way, if you want to imitate the way how the Gypsies, or maybe also the Ars, speak you have to prolong the stressed places of the words, e.g., 'dimohkrasi', 'kontihnjuejshirn', 'pirtejhtou' etc. — if you could have succeeded to decode my writing of the words; something similar do the Its, who like to simplify the words doubling one C. which they like and missing the others, where the fact is fatto, the Bible is ... bibbia, and they, as also the Ars, I suppose, simplify in this way also the V. in the Eng. words saying, e.g., 'rihli' instead of really, 'apehrans' instead of appearance, etc., though I have heard an It. girl to say 'rilli' for really. )
Ah, for those who have read my "Ill.W." I have to add that there "h" and "j" are not Ms, bc. there the Ms must be different from the lets, but here I have said that we will use only the 26 (and even less) lets from the Lat. alphabet. There are 7 Ms there, and here we have only these two chars. And this is one more reason why in one lang. the things may differ from those in another one. Still, the important point is to have good possibilities for marking of the words maximally near to the way how they are pronounced in a given language.
But let us continue. Maybe it is worth saying that "h" in the Cyrillic alphabet (further just Cyr.) looks exactly like the Lat. "x", what comes from the old Greek, so that the Lats (Latins or "Latinians", to coin a new word) have decided to make it to sound for 'ks', but this is compound C., these are two different Cs, hence there is no need of such char., and in Eng., e.g., we will have nekst, or tekst, et cetera. The "y" exist in the Lat. but it is just another, Greek, "i" ('igrek'), and in regard of the pronunciation there is no difference from the normal "i", so that it may freely be written as "i", say, "tipe" instead of type, of "holli" instead of holly (or Mirski or Mirsky, for that matter). Historically there is a difference, and the Greek let. looks more or less like the Lat. "v", which was confused in old times with their "u", but written with long tail it becomes Lat. "y", which let. looks exactly lake the Cyr. 'u', and I suppose the Greek let. must have sounded in old times a bit like a cry of a ... donkey, what is nearly to the mentioned Rus. eri (which is used very widely there) and is the alternative to this strange let. which I continue to write here as "ir", but which is one let., and we will come to its real signification when we come to the Eng. language. Well, I may spit out something in advance, the idea is that this Greek 'i" will become now a Bul. "i", but this sound is old and used in many langs, including the Eng.
Then "w" surely is not necessary for the Western world (excluding for now the Eng.); it is widely used in the Ger. (and that is the reason why this is almost the single error that the Gers made in pronunciation of Eng. words), but there is the good old Lat. "v" which is to be used, and nobody is guilty that the Gers read "v" as 'f' (as also "f") and "w" as 'v' (i.e. in Ger. we is "wir" read as 'vir', wind is the same read as 'vind', father is "Vater" read 'fater' or rather 'vatir', and so on). The let. "q" becomes simply 'ku' (say, ekuivalent, ekvator or something similar, it depends on the lang.). Yes, and the sign "j" may be used as M. also for C. adding meaning of something opposite to the "h" (as far as there are only two Ms then this is the most reasonable thing), i.e. as some softening. Like with the let. "r". I have explained that in the Sl. it is always well heard (like in your ring, but not like in performance or car), but it is not necessary to write it there everywhere as 'rh', only 'r' will be enough (e.g., brjag-shore, mir-peace, rab-slave, or rob in Bul., as well as the robot); 'rh' may be used for some old Eastern words (like rhinoceros, which must become 'rhajnocirrirs' but later will be given better presentation, rhithm, or my new God Urrh, about which I have written an extensively big book); and then it may be a soft "r", 'rj', like, maybe, in the car as kahrj, or then, to use one really used word, like in Skr. for Sanskrit prjd what was the same as you vulgar noun fart — sorry, sorry.
Now, the point isn't in the let. "r" only, there is the known Sp. 'canjon', where you write it as canyon (what now is not right) and the Sps (i.e. Spaniards) as cañon. But, especially if you ask the Russ, each C. can be softened, like Rus. uchitelj-teacher, or rechj-speech, or voshj-louce, or It. sogno, now sonjo as dream, and many other words. So, and with this we are done with the good (or not much, it depends) old Lat., and where they like to write "-ti" but read '-ci' then the latter will be used (say. demokracia, nacion-nation, publikacion-publication, etc.). There are no modification of vowels there (well, there exist the "ae" and "oe" but we shall come to them later; even "ae" in Lat. was pronounced like in Ger., their "ä", what is simply another way for writing of the simple "e", just marking the history of the word, these are usually derivatives, plurals), and no diphthongs like in Fr. or Eng. (only the normal associations with 'j', like 'aj' etc.), and if there are combined Cs they are obvious (like "sch" in schola becoming now skola). And we have gained the lets "q", "x", "y", and "w", but now we will find what to do with the "y".
3. Treating of the English words
A more clever reader should have guessed till now that the freed "y" char will be used for this fundamental sound like in girl which we marked till now with 'ir' but, surely, to write gyrl or even gyhl will be better; in this case the mentioned a bit earlier rhinoceros, will become 'rhajnocyrys'. This is so bc. (according to Myrski, ah?) there are only six basic Vs, namely: a, e, i, o, u, y (like in girl)! But there may be many modified (shorten to Md) Vs, which in my view are those where we want to say one V. but say another (this is explained in the "Ill.W."). The simplest Md Vs are "ae" where one wants to say 'a' but says 'e' and then arises the phoneme like in back or black, which will be written as baek and blaek. But there may be also a Md 'y' to 'ya' what is like in your "but", a bit more open then in girl, and then "but" becomes 'byat'; and however strange this may seem but the Russ use the same sound for their non-accented "o" (like "oknò"-window or "otec"-father, which must be now 'yakno' and 'yatec'), though they usually say that it is like 'a' but it isn't the same (for they don't write it as "a"). And to finish with the 'y' must be added the "chewed" several times Rus. eri sound, which becomes now 'yi' (hence myi is we there, tyi is you, myishj is a mouse, myislj is a thought, vyiigryishj is a gain, and many many more words). Practically every V. can be modified to every other (6*6 = 36, or rather 6*5 = 30, bc. modification with the same V. is meaningless) , but with the 'y' this is all (you try to pronounce 'ye' or 'yo' or 'yu' — more than this, I think that even this Rus. 'yi' might become a nightmare for some of the Eng. speaking people).
Another Md V. is the mentioned Lat. "oe", which for the Gers is "ö", and they modify in the same way also "ü" meaning 'ue'. Then there is the Rus. "ё", but it is an obvious mistake, bc. it is pronounced like 'io' (surely not 'ee'), which let. has been introduced relatively recently, before about a century; yet the more interesting in Rus. is their usual "e" which is pronounced as 'ie' (say, 'niet' is no), and they have another "e", which they call "reversed e" which exactly is the right 'e'. Another possible Md Vs can be 'oi', 'ou', or 'uo', 'iu' or 'ui' etc., and some of them are similar to some of the Fr. Vs (which differ whether the syllable is accented or not). In the Eng. might be found one more Md V. as part of a diphthong and this is the first V. in words like there or their, where, pear, etc, where must be written 'aey' (i.e. thaey, whaey, paey, etc.), though I suppose that this may be simplified to just 'ey' if it will be so decided. But let me stress once more time that these are Md Vs, not combined, and the proper way of writing will be using subscript and then have: 'byat', 'baek' and 'blaek', Rus. 'yakno', 'myi', 'tyi', 'niet', Eng. 'thaey', 'whaey', 'paey' (or just 'they', etc), and in some other cases or langs several Vs may be read just consecutive, like: in It. piano (pi-ano), or the exclamation (in Bul. but not only) vyj (similar to vaj), a Bul. name Baev, Bul. (in fact Lat.) word meander, Ger. bearbajten, and other examples.
And except the basic and Md Vs can be also combined Vs forming diphthongs (as well also not combined but just consecutive like in the It. piano), and here the major representatives are the combs with 'j' which we discussed above ('aj', 'ej', 'oj'). There are many such groups in Eng., like also: 'iy' (like in 'iy'-year, 'niy'-near, etc.), 'au' (like in 'bau'-bough, 'nau'-now, etc.), 'ou' (like in 'nou'-know, 'toun'-tone, 'stoun', 'roud', etc.), 'uy' (like 'puy'-poor, 'tuy'-tour, 'shuy'-sure, etc.), the mentioned 'aey' /'ey' (like 'paey'-pear, etc.). And there are also prolonged Vs like 'ah', 'oh', 'eh', etc. (in fact for all 6 basic Vs), only that there are not all short basic Vs (just 'a' is missing from the Eng., and the short 'y' becomes 'ya'). But I would like that you make difference between real diphthongs (say, 'mej'-may) and some complex method for writing of single V. (like in Fr "ai", as in "paire"-pair, what comes from the Greek lang., but is read as mere 'e', what from the viewpoint of pronunciation is not a diphthong, or also their "ou" read as mere 'u', bc. they read "u" as 'ju' and this now becomes a diphthong although written with one char). So, and the triphthongs are 'aiy' (like in 'faiy'-fire, 'taiy'-tire, etc.), 'auy' (like in 'auy'-hour or 'auy'-our, etc.), and 'ouy' (like in 'louy'-lower, etc.), for which I allow myself to think that they may be as well be thought for two syllables (and this will make better sounding the verses, in my view), if you count the last 'y' for separate V. (and what that it is not prolonged?), like 'fai|y' or 'mou|y'-mower etc, at least that is the way the Gers do (say, in their Bauer-farmer, what they pronounce as 'bau|y', ending in the same way like the Eng. "our").
And now about the Cs. But here are no special problems and we have already said that they remain, in broad outlines, the same, with some exceptions for: 'c' (as in Caesar; and there is no need to use "ts" /"tz", like in the Sl. 'car'-"tsar", when there is a proper char), 'k' (or 'kk' if needed, for "k" or "ck"), 'h' (for "h" but only when it is read, i.e. 'auy'-hour, and then even as 'hh' — say, 'hhit' but it might be simplified to 'hit' when "h" is in the beginning and can not be taken for M., similarly 'houm'-home, 'hjuhmy'-humour, etc.), 'z' (as in zero), 's' (for the same, there is no necessity to write "ss" in order not to read 'z'), also to the 'sh' and 'ch' is added 'zh' (like in measure), the Eng. "j" becomes 'dzh' as a difh-consonant, to the usual 'th' and 'dh' are added, if necessary, 'bh', 'rh', 'gh', but "ph" in some old words is changed to 'f', "q" is changed to 'k', "x" is changed to 'ks', it is added a "soft sign" with 'j' after the C., 'ng' remains the same and it is clear, "r" is the same when is read (like in read) and when is only hinted is better to miss it at all (instead of to write, e.g., 'gyhrjl' is enough to write just 'gyhl', or 'cah'-car, etc.), and remained only to say that the peculiar Eng. "w" will be marked as 'vh'. The last may not seem very fitting but it is a kind of 'v' and 'vj' seems worse, though if one wants one may use 'vq' (what I don't find better); on the other hand it is as if V., so one can pretend to write 'uj' or 'uh' what I don't advice bc. this will lead to confusion. But mark that, no matter that there are used 2 char these are simple C. ('sh' etc.), only 'd|zh' is a comb. (and also 'ng' but there in the original form are 2 chars). Some examples with "w" are: 'vhaey'-where, 'vhot'-what, 'vhen'-when, 'vhedhy'-whether, 'vhosh'-wash, 'vhaeks'-wax, and others. In this way we are again left with the 3 free M. ('x', 'q', and 'w') I don't know for what use.
But I must turn your attention to this moment, that when we write as we read then there several words may be confused bc. (and this is the bad moment in the Eng. and what makes it difficult to learn it good) there are many cases where one and the same sounds are represented in different ways (like the classical example of I and eye). You have taken that bad habit from the French, it is clear, bc. they have, for example, 4 ways to write one of their nasal sounds (and 4 for the others), namely: -an, -am, -en, and -em, are all read as '-ang' (if that is the way to write it in Fr.). I have asked myself long ago the question why some nations like to stick to the writing (the Western, usually, but not all), and others to the pronouncing (the Eastern, usually, and chiefly the Slavs), and have come to the conclusion that the root of this must somehow lie in ... the Bible, where is said that "In the beginning was the word", i.e. in the understanding of the written truths, and that to change words is a bad habit. Yeah, but this is pretty formal taking of the things, bc. the truth (no matter whether you mean it as God's words, or just some written words) lies behind the words, this must be obvious, but you try to argue with profane — sorry — people. Normally people who like to show their own judgement change the words how they like them, and this do not only the Russ and Buls who use Cyr. alphabet, this do also the other Sl. (I think), and even the Its, who are fervent Catholics (but maybe they just think more than the Fr. or the Eng.).
Anyway, this is simply silly in the present days, and if the people have the Lat. alphabet, and also this my proposition, then they can as well make use of it and help a bit to the foreigners in the learning of their langs. And as to the different ways of writing of the same (or even very similar) phonemes there are only two ways out of the mess: either you leave them as they are (saying: what of this that some words sound the same, people can tell the difference, can't they?), or you change a bit one or another of the words (say, let the eye become "eyg"-'aig' or "aug"-'ohg' or something of the kind, or the "I" become "ik"-'ik' or "ike"-'aik' or "yo"-'jo' or something else).
Sou this is evrithign koncerning only dhy Inglish laenggvhidzh aend juh kaen rajt nau, vhidhaut aeni nehd foh inventing of njuh aelfybit, begin tu lyhn it in skuhls as dhy Inglish of dhy fjuhchy aend, hens, dhy vhyan aend ounli vhyhld laenggvhidzh (foh yadhyvhajz it mej haepyn thaet dhy ... Bulgaeyriyn vhil tejk its plejs; oh dhen dhy Spaenish, oh dhy Aerybik, huh nouz?). Bikohz dhy Inglish haez its guhd sajd, byat it haez ohlsou its baed sajd, aend if juh duh not vahnish dhy baed vhyan it vhil kome in obliviyn.
Not that this will be easy for the English, it has to be done word by word, but it is possible to begin to print books in this modified English. Well, I have proposed, and you may dispose (what is to be supposed). But let us take one standard piece of text and convert it, also for some other langs, in this new manner, and even count the chars.
Original Eng. text: Here is given one author's way for using only the letters of Latin alphabet ... . — chars with spaces 703.
Transliterated Eng. text: Hiy is givn vhyan ohthor's vhej foh jusing onli dhy letys of Laetin aelfybit tuh signifaj hau tuh rihd ohl Inglish vhyhds, aend dhen dhihz ajdiys ah ikstended foh maeni yadhy laenggvhidzhiz. Haeving in majnd dhaet dhy Laetin aelfybit is vhel noun yraund dhy vhyhld it iz sypousd dhaet dhis not ounli vhil giv tuh ohl nejshyns y komyn vhej foh raiting of dhaey vhyhds, ihkvhyli rihdyble baj ohl of dhem, byat mej ohlsou inkyridzh maeni nejshyns vhidh difyrynt aelfybits (lajk Aerybs, Hihbruhs, Hinduhs, aetc.) tuh juhz dhis propyzishn tuh mejk guhd prezntejshn of dhaey vhyhds yksesybl tuh ohl. Dhy mytiyriyl staends ypon dhy yhliy "Ilityrit Vhyhld" jet iz not kyntinjuejshn of it byat rahdhy yn ohltyhnejtiv tuh dhy diskrajbd dhaey ajdiys. — chars with spaces 738 (+5%)
4. The same ideas about other languages
There will be, surely, not all the other langs but only those of them which the author knows (good or not much), namely: Ger., Rus., Bul., and with some reserves the It. and Fr., but this will be enough for Europe and part of Asia, and, hence, for the whole world, bc. the only one important lang. left is the Sp., which must stay somewhere between the Ger. and the It. in respect of its difficulty (the Arabs, Hindus, Chinese, and some other nations will follow the current; at least for the first pair of centuries I don't believe that the Americans, for example, will try to follow in the steps of the Chinese, or the others).
4.1. The German language
Here are almost no problems and I suppose that there transliteration could be done even automatically, without whatever dictionary. This is so for several reasons. Let us take first the V., where we have mentioned that they also use sometimes the let. 'y' but in the endings of the words and write it as "-er" (e.g., Lehrer-teacher), have some Ms and use "ä", but pronounce it as single 'e' and not as 'ae', then really Md Vs are "ö" for 'oe' (like in böse-bad), and "ü" for 'ue' (like in Übung-exercise, what is entirely correct; and have also the traditional combs with 'j' like 'aj', oj', and 'jo', as also 'au' (e.g. Bauer-farmer). Still, there are some peculiar moments and one is that they read everywhere "ei" as 'aj", what seems a bit funny, when they can write also "ai" (as they very rarely do) and I have wondered long time about this their habit, until once have occasionally looked in one short multi-lingual dictionary and have seen that almost the same as Ger. words (also the ways of building of derivative words) are the ... Hebrew (Heb. for short) words, and there "ei" is read 'ej'. As a result of this I raised the guess that maybe the Gers exactly for this reason, to differ from the Hebs, in spite of them, have decided somewhere about 15th century to begin to read "ei" in this way. ( Such things often happen, take the new Greek who have decided to read their beta as vita, i.e. 'b' as 'v'; as also to remind you that there was in the antiquity the invented word ... sibolet, used to detect the Hebs, bc. they would have pronounced it as 'shibole'; or take the bad Fr. habit almost always to read one let. less then written, bc. earlier, when they have made their lang. from the Lat ., they have read all the lets. ).
Further, they have 'oj' but they write it in another way, as "eu", and here I think they have taken the Fr. for bad example, and when the latter can write "oi" and read 'ua' then why the Gers not to write "eu" and read it as they like (bc. you see perfectly well that there is neither 'o' nor 'i' in "eu"). But these are just peculiar moments, they pose no difficulties bc. the Gers are consecutive, they write so always, and this can be changed with one operation in the whole dictionary. Then they use "h" for prolongation of the V. (like in Ehe-marriage, Ehre-honour, etc.), but not for 'i', where they write "ie" (e.g., Kompanie, marschieren, etc.), and when 'h' has to be read use "ch" (like in machen-make), as we said, what becomes now 'hh'. So this is about the Vs, they have not such big number of complicated diphthongs, and in other cases when there are two adjacent Vs they are read separately.
With the Cs they are also better than the Eng. bc. use "k" instead of "c", also "g" is usually read as 'g', don't misuse "y", have no "th" and "dh", "ng" is normal comb. of chars and not Md and instead of your -ing, have their -ung, et cetera. On the other hand they are worse with the Cs in another aspects, bc. misuse "w" for 'v' and both "f" and "v" are 'f'-s, use widely "z" as our 'c' (say, Zahn-'cahn' is a tooth), write often "ss" for 's', read beginning "s" as 'z' (say, singen-'zingen' is to sing), and their most beloved C. is 'sh', which they write with big care as "sch" (e.g. Schaf is the sheep, schlaffen is to sleep, schön is nice or good, etc.), and in the beginning of the words each "sp" is read as 'shp' and "st" as 'sht', and for 'ch' (as said before) use "tsch". Still, on the whole, the Gers are better also with the Cs., bc. here the Eng., taking roughly 2/3 of their words from the Gers, have tried to show their originality changing some Cs to older sounds (like 'vh' — I have met something similar in the Skr. —, 'th', 'dh', "j"-'dzh' — this, surely, is the most loved by the Gypsies sound —, etc.). As far as I don't intend to give you Ger. lessons here, let us go to the sample text, first in "normal" Ger., and than in "Myrskied" such.
Original text in Ger.: Hier ist eine Methode von dem Autor für Verwendung nur von der Buchstaben des lateinischen Alphabets, um zu zeigen wie man alle englische Wörter zu lesen sind, gegeben, und dann sind diese Ideen für viele andere Sprachen erweitert. In Hinsicht auf die Tatsache dass das lateinische Alphabet auf der ganzen Welt gut bekannt ist, es ist anzunehmen dass dies nicht nur allen Völkern einen gemeinsamen Weg für Schreiben ihrer Wörter, der gleichermaßen lesbar für alle von ihnen ist, geben wird, sondern auch viele Nationen mit verschiedenen Alphabeten (wie Araber, Hebräer, Hindus, usw.) ermutigen kann, diesen Vorschlag zu verwenden, um eine gute Darstellung ihrer Wörter, zugänglich für alle, zu machen. Das Material steht auf der früheren "Analphabetische Welt", doch ist keine Fortsetzung von ihm, vielmehr eine Alternative zu den dort beschriebenen Ideen. — chars with spaces 855.
Transliterated Ger. text: Hihr ist ajne Metode fon dem Autor fuer Vervendung nur fon der Buhhshtaben des latajnishen Alfabets, um cu cejgen vih man ale inglishe Voerter cu lezen zind, gegeben, und dan zind dihze Ideen fuer fihle andere Shprahhen ervajtert. In Hinzihht auf die Tatzahhe dass das latajnishe Alfabet auf der gancen Velt gut bekant ist, es ist ancunehmen dass dihs nihht nur alen Foelkern ajnen gemajnzamen Veg fuer Shrajben ihrer Voerter, der glajhhermassen lezbar fuer ale fon ihnen ist, geben vird, zondern auhh fihle Nacionen mit fershihdenen Alfabeten (vih Araber, Hebreer, Hindus, uzv.) ermutigen kan, dihzen Forshlag zu fervenden, um ajne gute Darshtelung ihrer Voerter, cugenglihh fuer ale, cu mahhen. Das Material shteht auf der frueheren "Analfabetishe Velt", dohh ist kajne Fortzetcung fon ihm, fihlmehr ajne Alternative cu den dort beshrihbenen Ideen. — chars with spaces 850.
Now, you can well see how near to the standard (in my view) usage of Lat. chars the Gers are, when they need not more chars for this transliteration; there are used even a bit less chars but I have rejected some doubling of Cs when have felt that this is not necessary. I should have removed all capital lets, too, bc. this is one "appendicitis" in their lang. (to write all nouns with capital lets), but have decided to leave this to them for some future moment. You can also see that the original text has grown in Ger. up to 22% (855 / 703), but the normal situation must be about 10 to 15%, I suppose (hence my translation leaves something to be desired, but let us not formalize too much). Anyway, would have not the Ger. lang. been too (i.e. unnecessary) precise, it wouldn't have come down from the pedestal of major European lang., and I would have proposed it for a world language, as also this wouldn't have forced the old Eng. people, I suppose, to make so drastic changes in their lang., coming in this way to the other pole (as people usually do, and maybe making necessary now some complication of the lang., but that is another matter). Alas, the Ger. lang. is very difficult grammatically, with its 4 grammatical cases and strictly tied coordination of adjectives, but then the Lat. langs (Fr., It., etc.) have also very difficult grammar (meaning now the tenses), and there are even worse cases, bc. the Rus. and other Sl. langs (but excluding the Bul., mark this) are a real nightmare to study with their 7 cases like in the old Latin.
4.2. The Russian language
Here I also have mentioned something before: their eri ('yi'), the 2 kinds of 'e'-s (but then the Ukrainians have two 'i'-s), their "ё" being Md 'io', and the unstressed "o" being 'ya', and will continue from here. The Sl. langs, as a rule, have their bright side, they have almost no real diphthongs (except the natural combs with 'j'); there are here and there (and were in old times) some a bit more complex sounds, like 'ou' (say, in Cz. for Czech 'mouhha' as a fly), some nasal sounds (like in the Fr.), but they have disappeared now. There are 2 special chars with 'i' in them which are whole diphthongs ('ju' and 'ja') but this does not pose any problems. The Rus. lang. in my view is a highly latinized lang. (as also Polish, Serbian, and others) in regard of the words, but this is difficult to be seen bc. of the endings, which are like: 'ij', 'oj', 'yi|j', 'a|ja' /'ja|ja', 'yim' /'yimi', 'u|ju' /'ju|ju', 'ovo' /'evo', 'elj|nyi|j, etc.). These things can be represented (without necessity everywhere to write this sign for disconnection bc. the association is clear in the lang., say 'nievyayabrazimyij' is unimaginable, 'samyastyajatieljnyij' is independent, 's uvazhieniem' is "with regards", etc.), but it is difficult for the ear of a Western person.
The Russ have also some strange combinations of Cs, like 'sh|ch', what is even written with one Cyr. let. (in Bul. this let, is read as 'sht' what is little better), and we (the Slavs) have all possible "warm" Cs ('zh', 'sh', 'ch'), and single lets for them, where on the West sometimes something is present, but always something is also missing and the ways to write them are different. Still, the problem with the Cs begins when there is nothing to divide them (like in Cz. name 'Bendrzhihh'), and the worst cases are the Poles and the Serbs (who say, e.g., 'srpska' for Serbian). But the good side of the Russ (in regard of the phonetics) is their "soft sigh" 'j', as we have mentioned it. Ah, the ending "-sja" is read as '-ca', and also "-ogo" as '-ovo'. Now to the example, but it will be in Cyr. bc. after this I will give the "Myrskifation" in Latin.
Original text in Rus.: Здесь приведён один авторский способ для использования только букв латинского алфавита для обозначения того, как нужно читать все английские слова, и потом эти идеи расширены для многих других языков. Имея в виду, что латинский алфавит хорошо известен во всём мире, полагается что это не только даст всем народам общий способ для выписывания их слов, одинаково читабельный для всех, но и подтолкнёт многие народы с другими алфавитами (как арабы, евреи, индусы, и другие) использовать это предложение для того чтобы придать хороший презентабельный вид их словам, доступный для всех. Этот материал стоит на прежнем "Неграмотном мире", но он не продолжение его, а скорее другой альтернативный подход к описанным там идеям. — chars with spaces 719.
Transliterated Rus. text: Zdiesj priviedion odin avtorskij sposyab dlja ispoljzyavanija toljkya bukv latinskyavya alfavita dlja yabyaznachienija tyavo, kak nuzhnya chitatj vsie anglijskiie slyava, i pyatom eti idiei rasshirienyi dlja mnogihh drugich jazyikov. Imieja v vidu, chto latinskij alfavit hyaryasho izviestien vo vsiom mirie, pyalagaietca chto eto ne toljkya dast vsiem narodam obshchij sposyab dlja vyipisyivanija ihh slov, yadinakovya chitabieljnyij dlja vsehh, no i pyadtyalkniot mnogiie narodyi s drugimi alfavitami (kak arabyi, ievriei, indusyi, i drugiie) ispoljzyavatj eto priedlyazhieniie dlja tyavo, chtobyi pridatj hyaroshij priezientabieljnyij vid ihh slyavam, dyastupnyij dlja vsev. Etot matierial stoit na prezhniem "Niegramyatnom mirie", no on nie pryadyalzhienie ievo, a skyarieie drugoj aljtiernativnyij pyadhhod k yapisannyim tam idiejam. — chars with spaces 838.
Now you see that, for one thing, the original text has grown a bit (with 2%) in what there is nothing bad, but having in mind that the Cyr. alphabet has more lets and is better suited for us it has to be fallen with a pair of percents, and, for another thing, that there is an increase in the volume (albeit the original is in other alphabet) of 16%, 838 / 719), what is a nuisance bc. the Cyr. is a better alphabet also for the Western langs (it is at least newer, made in 9th century). The increase in transliteration is bc. there are very often met the Vs 'ya' and 'ie' (as also 'yi' which can not be avoided), so that I suppose that, having in mind that the usual "e" is used much more often than the back "e", it will be better to write the usual one as 'e' and the other one as 'ae', what is more or less correct if we stay in this lang. only. In relation with this I may also propose that the Russ just omit their back "e" and use everywhere the usual 'ie' which can then easier be written as mere 'e' and said that it must, in fact, be read as 'ie'. There will be nothing disastrous, I suppose, if they will be forced to write, say: 'poiet'-poet instead of 'poet', 'ieto'-this instead of 'eto', 'ievyaljucija'-evolution instead of 'evyaljucija', like they write 'pobieda'-win or 'polie'-field, and so on, but while they make this difference there has to be difference also in the writing. A similar (but not the same) remark may be made about the non-stressed "o": when they say that it is pronounced as 'a', then let them begin to write it in this way (and have 'atiec'-father, 'akno'-window, 'sposab'-method, etc.), otherwise it has to be different. So I give below the same text where only the normal and the back "e" are chanced.
Transliterated Rus. text — II: Zdesj privedion odin avtorskij sposyab dlja ispoljzyavanija toljkya bukv latinskyavya alfavita dlja yabyaznachenija tyavo, kak nuzhnya chitatj vse anglijskie slyava, i pyatom aeti idei rasshirenyi dlja mnogihh drugich jazyikov. Imeja v vidu, chto latinskij alfavit hyaryasho izvesten vo vsiom mire, pyalagajetca chto aeto ne toljkya dast vsem narodam obshchij sposyab dlja vyipisyivanija ihh slov, yadinakovya chitabeljnyij dlja vsehh, no i pyadtyalkniot mnogie narodyi s drugimi alfavitami (kak arabyi, evrei, indusyi, i drugie) ispoljzyavatj aeto predlyazhenie dlja tyavo, chtobyi pridatj hyaroshij prezentabeljnyij vid ihh slyavam, dyastupnyij dlja vsev. Aetot material stoit na prezhnem "Negramyatnom mire", no on ne pryadyalzhenie evo, a skyaree drugoj aljternativnyij pyadhhod k yapisannyim tam idejam. — chars with spaces 808.
As you see only this has given nearly 4% decrease (838 / 808) and 808 / 719 = 1,124. If we change now also the non-stressed "o" (i.e. 'ya') to 'a' will have total volume of only 776 chars, or another decrease of 4% and the total increase of the original text will be only 8%. The third variant is given below.
Transliterated Rus. text — III: Zdesj privedion odin avtorskij sposab dlja ispoljzavanija toljka bukv latinskava alfavita dlja abaznachenija tavo, kak nuzhna chitatj vse anglijskie slava, i patom aeti idei rasshirenyi dlja mnogihh drugich jazyikov. Imeja v vidu, chto latinskij alfavit harasho izvesten vo vsiom mire, palagajetca chto aeto ne toljka dast vsem narodam obshchij sposab dlja vyipisyivanija ihh slov, adinakova chitabeljnyij dlja vsehh, no i padtalkniot mnogie narodyi s drugimi alfavitami (kak arabyi, evrei, indusyi, i drugie) ispoljzavatj aeto predlazhenie dlja tavo, chtobyi pridatj haroshij prezentabeljnyij vid ihh slavam, dastupnyij dlja vsev. Aetot material stoit na prezhnem "Negramatnom mire", no on ne pradalzhenie evo, a skaree drugoj aljternativnyij padhhod k apisannyim tam idejam. — chars with spaces 776.
4.3. The Bulgarian language
Ah, now you will see what means a good language. About the peculiarities here everything is much better than before, bc. we have no Md Vs at all! We have the usual diphthongs with 'j' only, no special endings, no exceptions in reading of the Vs or Cs, nothing more to mention, really! I have even not used 'hh' for "h" as let. bc. we have no prolonged Vs (our ... Gypsies have, but the Buls don't). Here comes the standard text in original, and then the 'Myrskified'.
Original text in Bul.: Тук е даден един авторов начин за използуване само на буквите от латинската азбука за означаване на това как да се четат всички английски думи, а после тези идеи са развити за много други езици. Имайки предвид, че латинската азбука е добре известна по света се предполага, че това не само ще даде на всички нации един общ начин за записване на техните думи, еднакво читабелен за всички тях, но и може да подтикне някои народи с други азбуки (като араби, евреи, индуси, и др.) да използуват това предложение за да получат добро представяне на техните думи достъпно за всички. Материалът стои върху по-раншния "Неграмотный мир", но не е негово продължение, а по-скоро алтернатива на описаните там идеи. — chars with spaces 700.
Transliterated Bul. text: Tuk e daden edin avtorov nachin za ispolzuvane samo na bukvite ot latinskata azbuka za oznachavane na tova kak da se chetat vsichki anglijski dumi, a posle tezi idei sa razviti za mnogo drugi ezici. Imajki predvid, che latinskata azbuka e dobre izvestna po sveta se predpolaga, che tova ne samo shte dade na vsichki nacii edin obsht nachin za zapisvane na tehnite dumi, ednakvo chitabelen za vsichki ot tjah, no i mozhe da podtikne njakoi narodi s drugi azbuki (kato arabi, evrei, indusi, i dr.) da izpolzuvat tova predlozhenie za da poluchat dobro predstavjane na tehnite dumi dostypno za vsichki. Materialyt syoi vyrhu po-ranshnija "Negramotnyij mir", no ne e negovo prodylzhenie, a po-skoro alternativa na opisanite tam idei. — chars with spaces 729.
Hence, the original text in Bul. turns to be no longer than even in Eng. (which is, maybe, the most succinct of all langs), what isn't exactly so, in my view a translation from Eng. to Bul. usually becomes about 5% longer. And the increase of 4% by the transliteration is explainable with the worse Lat. alphabet (there are no 'zh', 'ch', 'sh' as single chars there).
4.4. The Italian language
Well, this is a language which I have begun to study after 55 (not 5), so that for me it is the less known of all langs. Still, I will give an It. version, with the help of computerized translators, in order to be able to do some quantitative comparisons. First some remarks about the phonetics. From the basic Vs they have not only the 'y', what is the usual situation in the Lat. langs, and they haven't modified Vs, what is a big advantage; the accented Vs are pronounced a bit longer but I don't think this has to be marked as prolongation, this is just their ... Gypsy soul showing up (no offense meant, of course). But they have many combined Vs (diphthongs), not only after "i" as 'j' ('ja', 'je', 'jo', and 'ju'), like in italiano-'italjano', pieno-'pjeno', piove-'pjove'-to-rain, piu-'pju'-more), but also after "u", or rather "qu" or "gu" ('ue', 'ua', 'uo', 'ui'), like: qui-here ('qui'), quota-t.s. (the latter meaning the same) also as 'quota' what we as a rule don't give with indexes, or guano-t.s.; other more complex cases of consecutive Vs are read as divided (say, nuovo is 'nu|ovo', leone-lion is 'le|one', fiato-fi|ato'-breath, corridoio-'corrido|i|o'-corridor, etc.). Still, there are exceptions when is used "i" as softener, like also "h" is a "hardener", and they are not read, like in: ciao-'chao', ufficio-'ufficho'-office, chi-'ki'-who, cucchiaio-'kukkjajo'-spoon, etc., and this approach is applied also after "g" (read softly, i.e. before "e" or "i", as 'dzh', and otherwise as 'g') and "sc" (read softly as 'sh' and else as 'sk'), say in: giovane-'dzhovane'-young-man, giardino-'dzhardino'-garden, sciopero-'shopero'-strike, schiaffo-'skjaffo'-a-slap, scherzo-'skerco'-a-joke, vagheggiare-'vagedzhdzhare-to-yearn, et cetera.
As to the Cs there is nothing very special, bc. we have mentioned that "c", "g", and "sc" are read in different way depending on the next V., but it turns that "ch" there is not what we mean hear. Well, there are always some other exceptions, like that "s" in the beginning is 's' but between 2 Vs is 'z', that "gn" and "gl" is 'nj' and 'lj', that "z" sometimes is 'dz' and sometimes 'c', and maybe something else. Ah, they insist on the doubling of Cs bc. there are cases when with single C. is meant one thing and with double one — another thing. So, and now to the standard example.
Original text in It.: Qui è dato un metodo dell'autore per l'uso soltanto le lettere dell'alfabeto latino per significare come a leggere tutte le parole inglesi, e poi queste idee siano propagati per molti altri linguaggi. Tenendo in mente che l'alfabeto latino è ben noto in tutto il mondo si suppone che questo non solo darà a tutte le nazioni un comune modo per scrivere loro parole, egualmente leggibile da loro tutti, ma può anche incoraggiare molte nazioni con differenti alfabeti (come gli arabi, ebrei, indù, ecc.) a usare questa proposizione per far una buona presentazione delle loro parole accessibile a tutti. Il materiale sta sul precedente "Illiterate World" ma non è continuazione di esso, piuttosto è una alternativa delle idee li descritti. — chars with spaces 735
Transliterated It. text: Kui e dato un metodo dell'autore per l'uzo soltanto le letere dell'alfabeto latino per sinjifikare kome a ledzhere tutte le parole inglesi, e poi kueste idee siano propagati per molti altri linguagzhdzhi. Tenendo in mente ke l'alfabeto latino e ben noto in tutto il mondo si suppone ke questo non solo dara a tutte le nacioni un komune modo per skrivere loro parole, egualmente ledzhdzhibile da loro tutti, ma puo anke incoradzhdzhare molte nacioni kon differenti alfabeti (kome lji arabi, ebrei, indu, echch.) a usare kuesta propozicione per far una buona prezentacione delle loro parole achchessibile a tutti. Il materiale sta sul prechedente "Ilityrit Vhyhld" ma non e kontinuacione di esso, piuttosto e una alternativa delle idee li deskriti. — chars with spaces 746
As you see, the text looks almost the same (because in the basis of this proposition lies the Lat. alphabet), and there is insignificant increase of only 1.5% in the transliteration, what is due entirely to the char. "g"-'dzh', which in addition to all is doubled. Yeah, but here I like to show you how good the text will look in Bul. alphabet, though you are not supposed to know it, but then you can believe me that I will not lie to you. The result is that the number of chars remains the same as in It.
Transliterated It. text in Cyrillic and with Bulgarian phonetics: Куи е дато ун методо делл'ауторе пер л'узо солтанто ле летере делл'алфабето латино пер синьификаре коме а леджере тутте ле пароле инглези, е пои куесте идее сиано пропагати пер молти алтри лингуаджджи. Тенендо ин менте ке л'алфабето латино е бен ното ин тутто ил мондо си суппоне ке куесто нон соло дара а тутте ле национи ун комуне модо пер скривере лоро пароле, егуалменте леджджибиле да лоро тутти, ма пуо анке инкораджджаре молти национи кон дифференти алфабети (коме льи араби, ебреи, инду, ечч.) а узаре куеста пропозиционе пер фар уна буона презентационе делле лоро пароле, аччессилибе а тутти. Ил материале ста сул пречеденте "Илитърит Вхълд" ма нон е континуационе ди ессо, пьутосто е уна алтернатива делле идее ли дескрити. — chars with spaces 733.
4.5. The French language
Well, this language I don't know at all, I have only some vague ideas about the reading of their words, which, although much more strict than in the Eng., are still bad enough to be followed, so that I am glad that this lang. came down from the scene in the end of 20th century. Not that I don't like this lang., I like it, but it just isn't civilized, it sounds like in the jungle, it may be used, say, to curse in it, or, then, to be spoken at home, to children (they would like it, I suppose), or in pubs, but not in the open and surely not wide around the world (as it was in 18th and 19th centuries). But let us look at the lets a bit more precisely.
They have the same 5 basic Vs (without 'y'), and use "y" as usual 'i' like in the Eng. They simulate diphthongs as "ai" and "ei", which both are read as 'e', also "ou" is simple 'u' bc. "u" is 'ju' again similarly to the Eng. But they have open and closed syllables and then the open ones are more or less the same, i.e. the single "o" and "e" are the same and "oe" is 'oe'; and then the closed are as follows: "o" is Md 'uo', "e" is Md 'ie' (practically like in the Rus., though it comes from the old Greek), and "oe" is 'ue'. Still, there are more problems bc. they write "oe", open and closed (i.e. 'oe' and 'ue'), as "eu" or "oeu", then "au" and "eau" are used for the single "o", closed and as 'uo' (bur as if sometimes open and as 'o'); then "oi" is 'ua', "-aille" (5 chars!) is '-ai', "-eille" is '-ei'. Then "e" more often than not is not read, but sometimes it is; and they have the same Ger. "ie" (what has to be Lat.) bit read it as 'i|e' (like derrière-'deri|er' what is a bottom, that's why I have remembered it) and bc. it can be confused with the closed "e" (as in santé-'santie'-health) it has to be written with this dividing streak (although this is not so important). But they have three kinds of strokes above the Vs neither of which is a stress, and each one means something.
And as to the Cs the things are more or less easy, their "ch" is 'sh', and "j" is 'zh'. Then there comes something similar to the It.. with the "c" and "g", but the soft ones are 's' and 'zh' respectively (the hard ones are again 'k' and 'g'). Further, "gn" is 'nj', but "gu" is just 'g', "qu" is just 'k', "h" is again not read, but there is not "ch" to harden the now 's' and they put something like a comma below the let. (say, garçon). And their "r" must be written as 'rh' bc. they like to gargle, rinse their throats very often; on the other hand, as far as this is always so, we may miss the "h" and write only 'r'. All in all, maybe the ... crazy Eng. way of reading is, still, some simplification of the even more crazy way of the French?
Ah, and their traditional nasal sounds, about which we have said something before, may be written as '-ang', and '-eng' but there is no need to write in 4 different ways the sound '-ang'. On a further thought, though, I decided that in honour of the Fr. we can use one of the 3 left Ms, namely "q" (it looks like a nose, a?), and only this after the V., to mark the Fr. nasals (say: the garçon will become 'garsoq', the session will be 'sesioq', the meeting-rendez-vous will be 'raqde-vu', or the enter-entrée — 'aqtre'). And though I don't know this lang. I will give you some version made with the use of internet translators, which are not so bad if one gives to them small portions of logically completed words, try the translations in several langs, and use some intuition to avoid blunders (which sometimes occur). It is good to see this bc. the important thing is the transliteration and if the words are grammatically right then this will do; I surely will make errors also there, but let us hope they will be not many.
Original text in Fr.: Ici est donnée une méthode de l'auteur pour utiliser seulement les lettres de l'alphabet latin pour signifier comment à lire tous les mots anglais, et ensuite ces idées sont étendu à de nombreuses autres langues. En tenant compte que l'alphabet latin est bien connu dans le monde entier il est supposé que ce non seulement donnera toutes les nations une voie commune pour écrire de leurs mots, également lisible par tous d'elles, mais peut aussi encourager de nombreux pays avec différents alphabets (comme les Arabes, Hébreux, Hindous, etc.) d'utiliser cette proposition pour faire une bonne présentation de leurs mots accessibles à tous. Le matériel se tient sur la précédente "Monde analphabète", mais non est une continuation de celui, il est plutôt une alternative aux idées qui y sont décrits. — chars with spaces 799
Transliterated Fr. text: Isi e donie un mietod de l'otoer pur jutilizie soelmaq le lietr de l'alfabie lateq pur sinjifi|e komaq a lir tu le mot aqgle, e aqsjuit sez idie soq ietaqdu a de noqbroes otr laqge. Aq tenaq coqpt ke l'alfabie lateq e bieq konu daq le moqd aqti|e il e sjupozie ke se noq soelmaq donera tut le nasioq jun vuae komjun pur iekrir de loer mot iegalmaq lizibl par tu d'el, ma pue osi aqkorazhe de noqbroe pei avek difieraqt alfabie (kom lez Arab, Iebrue, Indu, ets.) d'jutilize set propozicioq pur fer jun bon priezentasioq de leur mot asesibl a tu. Le matieriel se tien sjur la priesiedent "Moqd aqalfabet", me noq e jun koqtinjuasioq de seljui, il e pljuto jun alternativ uo idie ki i soq diekrit. — chars with spaces 694
As you can see the original text is with 14% longer than in Eng. (799 / 703), what isn't so important (in Ger. the text also has risen, even more than this), but my transliteration reduces its length with 15% (799 / 694), what says (bc. my errors surely will not change these results with more than one-two percents) that my idea is even more suitable for the Fr. lang. than for the Eng., if the Fr. wanted this, but I'm afraid that they don't want this. What they want is to simplify the spoken words, but retaining the written as long as possible, and how they will decode the proper words I can hardly imagine — this isn't correct, this is hypocritical, this is — sorry, my Fr. readers — simply barbarous. But that's the French. There are many cases when I curse the Eng. for writing one phoneme in several ways, but the Fr. win the contest unquestionable (if there is such contest, of course).
4.6. Other languages
As you know well there are many other langs but when the Eng. and the Fr. are done the others will not pose special problems. I would have liked to give here also something about the Spanish, but let me not be tortured by this bc. it should not be much different from the It. (phonetically there are differences, but not big ones, and grammatically all Lat. langs are similar). Then there is also the Greek, but phonetically it is more restricted than the It., and will be done more easily, I suppose. Then there are also the Scandinavian (Scan. for short) langs where are many sharp sounding Vs, but they must be either Md (and there are no other basic Vs than what we use here and we can modify each with each), and /or comb-d (diphthongs) in which case we also write the chars consecutively, and /or are simply adjacent lets, so there is nothing new. There are also the Japanese and the (funny, in my view) Chinese (shorten to Chi.), and there are also sharp sounds (but we have not used till now Md 'oi', 'ui', 'ua', 'ao', and others), yet all people have the same phonetic organs, they can't be really much different. And the Ar. and Skr. I have had somehow in mind, they are, still Indo-European langs.
And don't forget that we have other free Ms, "q" is used only in the Fr., it may have different meaning in the Chi., and there remain also "x" and "w", they can be used; there can even be 2 or 3 modifiers joined (only 2 different chars are enough to write each, however big, number or char., and if we use "h" as "0" and "j" as "1" we can have binary numbers of modifiers — say, 'ahjh' may be some Scan. V., or 'eqh' be something Chi. or whatever). So that my idea is powerful; the point is not to make the things excessively complicated and after some minor practice everyone has to be in condition to guess roughly how the given word is to be pronounced. But this is very important nowadays bc. one just can't read properly some name or geographical place, and now the world more and more becomes one country and this is a necessity. I have told in the beginning that my idea is not to force people to transliterate their whole dictionaries, this will be funny for many langs, and tedious, and also bad approach — the right one is to use better alphabet, say, the Cyr., where exist at least 'sh', 'ch', and 'zh' as single chars, and 'j' as soft sign, I have mentioned this, or even better if a new alphabet will be made for all, like it is described in "Ill.W." But this approach can be something temporary, for a pair of centuries. And it is always good to have other alternative.
5. Short user's guide for the proposition
This must be relatively short point where I will put succinctly how each of the used chars are to be coded, and how to make the usual, but also new ones, combinations of chars to signify every sound that one may pronounce. I intend to copy this piece where I will use this transliteration so that I will repeat some things of the said above in the material, but this will be also another approach to the clarifying of the things.
Firstly the Latin (Lat. for short) alphabet is purified using each letter for only one sound, what means that "c" becomes 'c' and 'k', "g" becomes 'g' and 'zh', "y" is freed (with using of the "i"), as also "q" (substituted with the 'k'), "x" (changed to 'ks'), and "w" (it isn't used in the Lat.). In addition are introduced "h" and "j" as modifiers (M. /Ms), where "h" is M. for the vowels (Vs), used for prolongation (to 1.5 sounds approximately), and also for consonants (Cs), used to harden their sounding (like 'th', 'gh', etc.) , and "j" is M. for Vs, used to build diphthongs (shorten to diph., usually written as "ai" or "io" etc.), and of Cs, used for softening of their sounding (like in the Sp. for Spanish cañon); when there is a necessity to write "h" as readable char then 'hh' is to be used (if in the given lang. for language may arise confusion). As you have seen, the double quotes are used for direct quotation of chars, and the single ones for this new transliteration, and in this manner it also shows how the chars are to be pronounced.
Then is introduced one new basic V., in addition to the usual "a", "e", "i", "o", and "u", which is coded with 'y' and sounds like in Eng. (for English) "girl". In addition to the basic Vs we may have also Md (for modified) what means that one begins to tell one sound but ends with saying another one; examples for this are: the Lat. "ae" (like in "back") and "oe" (used mainly in the Fr. for French), but also many others, like: 'ya' as in "but", "yi" (this is Rus. for Russian eri, as in myi-we etc.), Fr. 'uo', 'io', Fr. and Rus. etc. 'ie', and whatever you want; mark though that here can't be used "j" bc. it isn't V. Then there can be also diphs, mainly with "j", like 'jo', 'ja', aj', uj', etc. (the examples are obvious and in other langs they are usually written using "i"), but also how one wishes, like in: 'iy' (as in 'niy'-near), 'aey' (as in 'paey'-pear), 'ou', 'au', etc.; there can be triphthongs, too, like 'auy' (as in 'tauy'-tower), 'aiy', etc., but they are better to be thought as two syllables (like in Ger. for German 'bau|y'-Bauer). As the basic, so also the Md Vs, as well as the diphs, can be prolonged adding "h" after them (like in 'gyhl'-girl, 'fah'-far, 'suhn'-soon, 'mjuhzik'-music', etc.). If one wants to make the way of combining the Vs indisputable one has to use subscripts for the Md Vs (like in 'byat'-but, 'blaek'-black, 'myi'-Rus.-we, 'paey'-pear, etc.), and /or superscripts for the diphs (like in 'boj'-boy, Ger. name 'Johanes', 'grou'-grow, 'taun'-town, 'tauy'-tower, etc.), and /or put between the Cs "|" or "-" to signify that they are not to be joined (say, like in Lat. pi|ano), but usually this is rarely necessary because every lang. permits, either simple combining of Vs read separately, or modifying or making of diphs.
As to the Cs, there are used all usual ones, with the following remarks: 'c' is like in Caesar, or Ger. Zahn-toot), "h" is written like 'hh' when read (with exception of beginning but still somehow read "h" like in Ger. 'haben'-haben-have), "k" is 'k', hence "ck" is 'kk', "q" is written with 'k', "r" may be sometimes given as 'rh' or even 'rj' (but if it is equally read in the given lang. only 'r' suffices), "v" is 'v' (so Ger. "w" is changed to 'v'), the Eng. "w" is written as 'vh', "x" is 'ks', 'z' is like in "zero", then 'sh' is like in "shop", 'ch' is like in "church, 'zh' is like in "measure" or Fr. jour-day, 'th' and 'dh' are the same like in the Eng., "ph" is not used in new langs and changed to 'f', in some langs may be met also 'bh', 'gh', etc., the Eng. "j" is 'dzh', and is added usage of "j" as softening sign after Cs (like in Sp. 'kanj|on').
So that is it. Don't forget that this is method for writing of the words how they are read, so that if there are several ways for writing of one phoneme then confusions may happen, the responsibility for which take the very lang. It is lang. specific, but except of this it is still universal for every lang., and the Lat. alphabet is well known. Well, use it better, that is what I propose.
6. Singing laudations
Now I suppose that you are just bound to sing laudations for this brilliant proposition, aren't you? Even I myself may join you and sing together the following verse:
It's now a big temptation
For people of all nations
To Myrski just laudations
To sing for his creation
Of this transliteration.
I mean, the opera deserves it, and I may sing laudations with everybody else bc.: who is Myrsky? He is real person, yes, but the name is invented (as something coming from Rus. mir as world, i.e. I am a person who speaks to the whole world, a world author who defends no special interests and sticks to no concrete nation). And I may also sometimes be the real me, and sometimes be (the well known around the world, a?) Myrski, you see how twisted it is, don't you? Well, after so much reading of serious things I think the reader deserves some refreshing of the air, some fun, and I give it to him (or her) using the (familiar for me) name of Myrski. That is how it is.
But if more seriously, the point is that I am not a well known etymologist (though I have done much serious research in the field of meanings of the words around the world, of the human psychology expressed in the words — I mean my Urrh, of course), and what I have proposed might have been proposed by many other specialists in the area, yet it is not done (maybe there are similar propositions, I don't know, I've no time to check this in my age, but there is no world alphabet, and no unified way of using of the Lat., or whichever other, alphabet for all nations). And I'll tell you why this is so, why no other comes to my unique ideas (not only in this field). This is bc. I am working as, how I have named myself once, intelligent laic, i.e. one who can think but is not hampered by the canons of the field in which he (or she) works. And in my view it turns that this is very important and may be fruitful (though there always remains the problem how to bring the ideas to the masses). Bc., especially in the etymological field, every scientist with name will defend his lang. and country and will never come to such crazy idea to use one alphabet for many entirely different langs, he will recognize easily that this is utopia!
Yeah, that is how it is, this is something similar to the ancient parable about the Babylonian tower, though I am not speaking about one lang., only about one alphabet. This is so bc. people want first to differ from the others, and only then to think that something may be made common (usually based on something of their own, what for that reason is bound to be good — to give just as an example the fact that the Indo-European langs are called in Ger. Indo-German; or, then, that the Turkish coffee in Greece is called Greek coffee). And if one has already a name in a given field he will only lose it proposing such utopias. Well, I lose nothing, and the world may win something by my propositions; and I also fill in this way my time with creative occupation. And also sing laudations to myself, which nobody else can allow himself to sing. So that I am glad. And that some pigs don't like to eat pearls, this is true, but it is true also that one never knows what the "pigs" want. One has to try; what if they will begin to like pearls (they are shining, and one may ... roll them with his piggy nose, right?). So that I am trying. I may try to make also other proposition in the field of langs. If I will live long enough.
July 2015, Sofia, Bulgaria
FANTASY IN ETY MOL*
(on theme of genders and sexes)
[ * The material belongs to PIR-folder. ]
This is belletristic work, and rather etymological essay, but it, still, can be taken as libretto for a musical piece with one introductory and 5 other movements, namely:
0. adagio, lento, asessuale;
1. andante assai cantabile;
2. rondo mirabilmente giocoso;
3. allegro vivace e sessuale;
4. larghetto pensoso e melodioso;
5. finale burlescamente furioso.
Abstract: This is an etymological and educational paper, but written in a frivolous and funny manner, discussing the grammatical genders, some forms related with them, the sexes, the very sexual organs and other similar notions, as well also some philosophical observations about the sexes, interesting ideas which various nations keep in their heads related with the sexes. It was intended to be relatively moderate in its volume, but turned to be decently big, because of the wholeness of the nature, and uses quite indecent words, because such is the life.
CONTENTS (Of This Paper)
0. Introductory remarks
1. What tell us the genders?
2. Pronouns, diminutives and words for women
3. The sexual organs as words
4. Why two sexes are necessary?
5. The hand of the man and his wisdom
0. Introductory remarks
There is nothing new under the Sun, except the form of the old things, and here and there some new details, you know this, I suppose. Still, the form can be something pretty catching (the eye) sometimes, and the details quite often make the dance. With what I mean that I have explained almost everything in my enormous "Urrh" (cum commentis), then I have for a second time given expression of my unique — you bet it — ideas in my "Letters" (to the posterity), but the good thing of well designed work is that when new ideas arise they fit well in the picture, they don't reject the core but enrich it — and my ideas are thought through, I at least am convinced in this. Besides, nobody reads me thorough, and new details really arise by me (on the border between dream and reality, when I am awakening but not entirely). So that I thought there will be nothing bad if I write a kind of essay on the theme of genders and sexes.
The plan of narration will be roughly the following. In this beginning "movement" I will provide you with some basics for the further points making you familiar with the way I will give all foreign words, because the English language is nearly the worst of all other langs (and I will begin also to make some shortenings of often repeated words). I have begun to give a thought or two to the way for writing of all words (in all langs) in the way how they are to be pronounced before more than a decade; I will give this pronunciation in single quotes (when there are, anyway, two kinds of quotes) and the double ones will mean literal quoting, how something is written. Yet my early ideas concerned a world-wide alphabet, while here I will use one later idea of mine, the so named "Myrski's English Transliteration" (METr), for using the old Lat. (for Latin; like also, say, Fr. for French, Eng. for English, Sl. for Slavonic, Bul. for Bulgarian, Skr. for Sanskrit, etc.) alph. (for alphabet), and surely not only for the Eng. lang.
Then in the second movement, which has number 1, I will dwell about the grammatical genders, what is good and bad in them, and how they have to be used if we want to approach the things logically. These are pretty interesting observations, especially on the background of Eng. lang., which has tried to make a good step forward but has done a pair of wrong ones backward. In the next movement I will add smt. (for something, I, at least, use this word pretty often) about the fem. and masc. (obvious shortenings) beings, which theme I will treat in more details in the part number 4; here will be focused chiefly on the pronouns, diminutives and some words for fem. professions, which reveal unexpected funny (not to say cynical) ideas. In the part number 3 I will explain (again, yeah, after my cited above books) the various sexual organs in various (several) langs, where are hidden quite interesting ideas, which are piquant enough to be mentioned again, having in mind that are mostly unknown (being chiefly my guesses). In the fifth movement (with number 4) I will make some philosophical observations about both sexes, which are, for one thing, too simple to be subject of deep scientific researches, but, for another thing, too important to be known by everybody, what they are not. And in the last part I will share with you my recent guesses in the old man- root (or syl. for syllable) where appear some funny moment, suitable for the final accords of this my Fantasy, which will make you not to forget this "music" and want to hear /read it from time to time again.
Now, what is the basic idea in the cited METr? Well, I am from Bulgaria, and I have in mind our perfect — I explain this ideas in the small folder "For the Arabs" (Dear reader, its for you \Arab, Chinese, or Hindu!, what I can name here as FAr) — Bul. lang., but my ideas are usually universal. So what I mean is that there are exactly 6 basic vowels (V.), namely: 'a', 'e', 'i', 'o', 'u', "y", where the latter is pronounced like in Eng. "girl" (or "bird", but not "but", where the sound is similar yet not the same)! You see, this is very old sound, present in all ancient and East. langs, in Skr., Per., (or Av. for Avestan), Tur., etc., also (as I have just given example with the Eng.) in the West. ones (in Ger., too, they pronounce, e.g., der Lehrer-teacher as 'lehry'), it exists as char. in Sl. alph., but only the Bul-ns write it and read it properly. Because of this it is better to consider the 'y' sound as Bul. "i" (or i-Bul) like "y" is the Gr. "i" (or i-Greko). So maybe this is the "cap-stone" of this my proposition.
There has to be added that C. is a consonant, M. is a modifier, what means that this modifies the previous (and only the previous and only one) letter (like "h" in the traditional "sh" read as 'sh' — if you make the difference, because the Ger-s use "sch" to read 'sh', and also "tsch" to read 'ch', what in Eng. is again "ch" ). Then there has to be said that there are (according to me, that's it) 3 kinds of Vs or Cs, namely: basic, modified (like the traditional "ae" from Lat. times, like in "man", what in Ger. is done with the use of umlaut, 2 points above the letter), and combined (what are chiefly the diphthongs, 'ai', Fr. 'uo', Eng. 'iy', etc.). There is a difference between M. Vs or diphthongs but without using indexing it can't be seen, yet it is expected that this is clear from the lang. This sounds difficult (and it is, I alone forget smt. sometimes) but you will not need much precision in order to read relatively good the given words, you'll see this, yet for greater exactness I copy below some paragraphs from this METr (which will chiefly repeat the more important moment that I have just explained, but this repetition is not unwished).
—
Firstly the Latin (Lat. for short) alphabet is purified using each letter for only one sound, what means that "c" becomes 'c' and 'k', "g" becomes 'g' and 'zh', "y" is freed (with using of the "i"), as also "q" (substituted with the 'k'), "x" (changed to 'ks'), and "w" (it isn't used in the Lat.). In addition are introduced "h" and "j" as modifiers (M. /Ms), where "h" is M. for the vowels (Vs), used for prolongation (to 1.5 sounds approximately), and also for consonants (Cs), used to harden their sounding (like 'th', 'gh', etc.), and "j" is M. for Vs, used to build diphthongs (shorten to diph., usually written as "ai" or "io" etc.), and of Cs, used for softening of their sounding (like in the Sp. for Spanish canon); when there is a necessity to write "h" as readable char then 'hh' is to be used (if in the given lang. for language may arise confusion). As you have seen, the double quotes are used for direct quotation of chars, and the single ones for this new transliteration, and in this manner it also shows how the chars are to be pronounced.
Then is introduced one new basic V., in addition to the usual "a", "e", "i", "o", and "u", which is coded with "y" and sounds like in Eng. (for English) "girl". In addition to the basic Vs we may have also Md (for modified) what means that one begins to tell one sound but ends with saying another one; examples for this are: the Lat. "ae" (like in "back") and "oe" (used mainly in the Fr. for French), but also many others, like: 'ya' as in "but", "yi" (this is Rus. for Russian eri, as in myi-we etc.), Fr. 'uo', 'io', Fr. and Rus. etc. 'ie', and whatever you want; mark though that here can't be used "j" bc. it isn't V. Then there can be also diphs, mainly with "j", like 'jo', 'ja', aj', uj', etc. (the examples are obvious and in other langs they are usually written using "i"), but also how one wishes, like in: 'iy' (as in 'niy'-near), 'aey' (as in 'paey'-pear), 'ou', 'au', etc.; there can be triphthongs, too, like 'auy' (as in 'tauy'-tower), 'aiy', etc., but they are better to be thought as two syllables (like in Ger. for German 'bau|y'-Bauer). As the basic, so also the Md Vs, as well as the diphs, can be prolonged adding "h" after them (like in 'gyhl'-girl, 'fah'-far, 'suhn'-soon, 'mjuhzik'-music', etc.). If one wants to make the way of combining the Vs indisputable one has to use subscripts for the Md Vs (like in 'byat'-but, 'blaek'-black, 'myi'-Rus.-we, 'paey'-pear, etc.), and /or superscripts for the diphs (like in 'boj'-boy, Ger. name 'Johanes', 'grou'-grow, 'taun'-town, 'tauy'-tower, etc.), and /or put between the Cs "|" or "-" to signify that they are not to be joined (say, like in Lat. pi|ano), but usually this is rarely necessary because every lang. permits, either simple combining of Vs read separately, or modifying or making of diphs.
As to the Cs, there are used all usual ones, with the following remarks: 'c' is like in Caesar, or Ger. Zahn-toot), "h" is written like 'hh' when read (with exception of beginning but still somehow read "h" like in Ger. 'haben'-haben-have), "k" is 'k', hence "ck" is 'kk', "q" is written with 'k', "r" may be sometimes given as 'rh' or even 'rj' (but if it is equally read in the given lang. only 'r' suffices), "v" is 'v' (so Ger. "w" is changed to 'v'), the Eng. "w" is written as 'vh', "x" is 'ks', 'z' is like in "zero", then 'sh' is like in "shop", 'ch' is like in "church, 'zh' is like in "measure" or Fr. jour-day, 'th' and 'dh' are the same like in the Eng., "ph" is not used in new langs and changed to 'f', in some langs may be met also 'bh', 'gh', etc., the Eng. "j" is 'dzh', and is added usage of "j" as softening sign after the Cs (like in Sp. 'kanj|on').
So that is it. Don't forget that this is method for writing of the words how they are read, so that if there are several ways for writing of one phoneme then confusions may happen, the responsibility for which take the very lang. It is lang. specific, but except of this it is still universal for every lang., and the Lat. alphabet is well known. Well, use it better, that is what I propose here.
—
1. What tell us the genders?
Now let us change the leitmotiv and give a thought to the genders, because they are necessary, one should not take the Eng. example as right, when it isn't. The Eng. lang., I am sorry to tell this to people having spoken it from the very cradle, an uneducated mixture of Ger. and Fr., by which the Ger. was simplified somehow (and because of this the Ger-ns speak pretty decent Eng., they have nearly no problems with it, only the C. "w" is for them a bit difficult to master), but from the Fr. they have taken the worst, and have even worsened it (and because of this the Fr. people can't speak good Eng., like also vice versa). The genders are necessary because in this way can be used pronouns, what quite often simplifies the expressions, and the worst thing is when they, the genders, can't be guessed and are not obvious (not like, say, that Sl. 'papa'-father, or Roman pope, is masc., what everybody understands). And they have to be 3, not 2, how all Lat. people (i.e. Fr-ns, It-ns, etc.) now think, because there are a heap of neutral things; more than this, I would propose the existence of 4 (four) genders (what I have hinted in my FAr, in the paper "Down with the English (lang.)") namely: m. and f. (this shortening is even shorter, right?), n. (for unanimated neutrum), and, let us mark this new gender as l., for living things, but when the gender is not important or not known (say, of a moth).
Continuing in this mode I can propose you new definite articles, a bit a la Italian manner, but not entirely — because in a fantasy everything is possible —, namely: il (man), la (madam), lo (tree, land, food, etc., for which words is not necessary to have genders), le (bug, or dog if the sex is unknown, or person or baby or chick, but when the sex is not important), and then also li for plural in all cases. Such genders does not exist (because in It. lo is also for m., and in Ger. they have their der for m., die for f., and das for n.), then the Rus-ns have no articles at all (!), and in Bul. the situation is pretty simplified, and there can be other variants, but this proposition of mine may turn to be much useful here (and generally), especially the forms il, la, lo (and the letter "l" is more suitable to use than "t" or "d").
So the genders give some "colour" to the objects, they express the way we accept the world and the things around us; this can be obsolete now, but if the gender can be easily guessed this is a good thing. And the situation is such in the Bul., surely, where what noun ends on C. is m., what ends on –a (generally) is f., and on –o or –e is n., with very few exceptions. This is so also in the Rus. but up to some point, there is their soft sign, marked here in the ends of the words with "j", which sometimes — I would rather shorten this too, to smm. — is m., but smm. is f. (when meant as smt. soft); for this reason there exist one quite extraordinary exception in Bul. with the word 'vecher'-evening (I have unexpectedly come to this), which is usually f. (when we say, e.g., that this is a nice evening), but when we wish somebody to have a nice evening it turns out to be m.! And I am telling you this not because you have to know Bul. lang. (though it is worth a try, I'll tell you — if you find time you better cast a look at this folder about the Arabs, FAr), but because it is not clear of what gender it has to be, i.e. there are reasons for m. and for f., where the right way must have been n., yet it isn't. The evening is when the Sun comes down, it as if lies to sleep, and we also lie (not only to sleep but to do some things that are done in the nights, though there's nothing bad if you do it also in the morning, providing you have with whom to do it), and it is somehow subordinate to the day, and it is so in It. (la sera), but in Ger. it is m. (der Abend), no matter that the night is she (die Nacht), also in It. (la notte — what is so, if you ask me, because it is smt. no, negation of the day).
The ideas hidden behind the words as nouns are almost irradicable and often interesting. And there are, roughly speaking, two ways to treating the genders, either to guess them from the end of the noun — what is so, as a rule, also in It, there masc. nouns end usually on –o (il cielo-sky, il ragazzo-boy, etc), and in pl. the end is changed to –i, and the fem. words end on –a (la palla-ball, la tavola-table, etc.), and in pl. the end becomes –e —, or to keep in your head some picture for every noun, which smm. turns to be pretty twisted. Here I usually give as example Ger. il-der Loffel-spoon (and "o" has to be read modified as 'oe', i.e. 'loeffel', though you can as well read it as diphthong, 'ljoffel') and la-die Gabel-fork (f.), but the ending is simply one and the same. In Bul. (here similarly also in Rus.) they are 'lyzhica' & 'vilica' and are both fem. Now, this is interesting, because I would have thought that the spoon has to be she because it is a kind of hole, orifice, and the fork has spikes, this is masc. attribute, but the Ger-ns think otherwise. And it turns out that the same approach have the It-ns, for whom the spoon is il cucchiaio 'kukkiajo', while the fork is la forca (rather forchetta, 'forketta'), so that what can be the idea, here, ah?
You see, with this parallel also in It., it has to be clear that the fork is smt. nice, elegant (their word is even diminutive derivative, on -etta), while the spoon is smt. curved, wrong, some cuca or coca, yet this is pretty complicated for everybody, I think. But it has to be so, and the general rule for the Ger-ns is: if you find (and you have to find this so, if are well-bred) the thing in question nice and beautiful, then it has to be fem., else it is masc., and in some cases neutrum! Because of this the … Sun is she for them, but there are many many variants, this is not really so simple and I will not indulge in more explanations, yet can add that in some cases it is interesting to use m. and f. for one and the same thing, expressing some additional ideas, like the It-ns, for whom the day is il giorno (read 'dzhorno', what is because the sun shines too strong, it 'zhuri' /'prezhurja' in Bul., if you ask me), but they don't object to call it smm. la giornata (when they like it, I suppose, but maybe also when are angry at it and want to curse it, I can't vouch here). And such nuances are entirely impossible in the notorious Eng.
OK, but I can change the example, I can "bite" in another idea, in imagining … the power or strength to be a femme, as if a goddess! I have come to digging around this idea again starting from one Bul. peculiarity, where our word for power is 'sila' but also 'mosht' ('moshchj' in Rus., and this 'shch' is 1 letter there), and the 1st is obviously f., but the 2nd has to be m. according to all rules only that it isn't, it is f., too. And the disappointing moment for me (as a guy, who is rich with ideas) is that here the only solution is as if simply to abandon this word, together with our 'moshtnost' meaning the same and also f., and to use only 'sila', because it just does not sound good to say la 'moshta' or 'moshtnosta' (although the situation is the same with our 'nosht'-night, which also ends on C. but is, still, fem.).
( The bad things are exacerbated also because — this is an interesting moment and unique, there has to be no other contemporary language with such things in it, so that you pay a bit of attention to this —, so because we put the definite articles at the end of the words and glued with the word! By these rules instead of il 'stol'-chair-or-stool we say 'stola' or 'stolyt', and adding article to the f. 'masa'-table we say 'masata'; what means that now we say 'moshtta' and 'noshtta', what sounds good, but if we want to make them with f. endings we would have said 'm`oshta – m`oshtata', resp. 'n`oshta – n`oshtata', what sounds pretty funny for me. Even using il 'mosht' – 'moshtyt' and 'nosht' – 'noshtyt', to say nothing about il 'moshtnost' – 'moshtnostyt', does not solve the problem. ) Yeah, but the It-ns have their la mano-hand, which seams to be m. but is f., as well also il sistema-system, where everything is reversed, and they could have easily used il mano & la sistema, or then on the contrary, changing the endings and building la mana & il sistemo (because they can never never have a noun ending on C., they would have preferred to die but not to spoil their melodious lang. with such monstrosity), in which way they would have not at all ruined their appetite. Yet they don't do this, what is one of the proofs that the Bul. lang. is better than the It.!
But let me continue with the fem. power, where in Ger. we have la Macht or la Kraft, also la Mut as courage (which word I can't avoid to correlate with their Mutter-mother, with some questionable ideas); then in It. we have la forza and il potere meaning the same force or power, so that this is not a mere coincidence. And there are also the goddesses, and let me tell you that the old Skr. word deva means not the same like Lat. diva-beauty but god (like Vishnu deva), yet the relation between the god and the beauty, hence the woman, is unmistakable. So that what are the ideas here? Ah, it has to be, in two words, that we, the men, like to deify the women, that if they are not really strong we are glad to take them for such, to defend them, to believe in their (at least moral) strength, and this is exactly because the women are not like the men, they are different, if they were equal with us we would have not honoured them, we would have fought and competed with them, that's it! Or that is how it was before the emancipation, so that I will advise my female readers to give a thought about what they have already lost with their unquestionably silly behaviour.
I can add to this also that for the Ger. Frau-woman is said that this word comes from some Scan. (Icelandic) Goddess Freyia, which as a deity is also frei-free (to wish or to command etc.)! In short, there is a deep sense in fem. nature of the power, at least smm., or as wished thing, and there is also the old Greek goddess Sofia (like my town) which is wise and, still, soft, mark this (because there are not much words on sof-, or here is It. soffiare-to-blow, like a wind or whiff). Also, if you have not though about this, let me turn your attention to the fem gender of the … other one, of the very word "person", which in Ger. is la Person and in It. is la persona (and you have to have heard the Lat. phrase persona non grata as unwished person), what means that we honour him or her not like god but like goddess!
And what else can the Slavs tell us about the power, in addition to la 'sila' and la 'moshchj' being fem.? Well, I have though about this long ago, and the 'sila' I relate with some old root 'sil-' like in the syllable (which is Gr.), Fr. sillage-speed-or-velocity, with It. /Lat. silva-wood, the silicates etc. Then the 'moshchj' /'mosht' surely is from the old cluster of might /Ger. mogen /old Moguls-Mongols /the magic /etc, but here comes in play …, ha, ha, the piss, which is 'moch`a' in Rus, and 'mochitj' is to moisten! This is a funny thing and I suppose that here is meant something of the kind of this fairy tale (at least we have it) where some brave guy squeezed as if some stone but factually a piece of … white cheese, and it left drops of water. Or if not this, then that smt. flows like a stream of water, meant as pissing; or then you propose some other explanation. Yet have in mind that I have heard the sentence of Chehov that, if in the first act of a play on a wall is hanging a gun, then it has to shoot till the end of the piece, so that I will come in the end to this special masc. part called dick, if one wants to be decent. Id est, the power can as well be hidden in this organ, and be fem. because this is, still, some water.
2. Pronouns, diminutives and words for women
OK, but, as I mentioned it, there are the pronouns to substitute for some nouns, and they also carry some ideas in them, in various langs, and there are also the diminutives, which are missing only in the poor Eng. lang., but otherwise exist and also can tell us smt., if we can read this, and there are the ways for building of fem. starting from masc. noun or profession, so that I will dwell a bit (what here means a pair of paragraphs) on this. Let us take first the pronouns in focus, which are partly similar (if one can grasp the common ideas). The 1st person sing. is some cry as sign of exhibition, like: Rus. 'ja', Bul. 'az', Ger. ich ('ihh'), It. io, your (Eng.) 'aj', and others. The 2nd person sing. is some hitting on the breast of the companion, like: your "you", Ger, du, It. tu, Rus. 'tyi'. etc., although there is the same syl. used for other persons (say, Gr. 'ton' is his, and Bul. 'toj' is he /'tja' is she), and so on. More interesting for us are the 3rd persons with some sexual ideas, like Ger. er-he and It. egli-he (read 'elji'), where one has to account also for the near equality of the letters 'r' and 'l', so that these are people with smt. … errected (or, then, elected, what surely are words-twins).
Then for "she" we have Ger. sie ('zih') and It. essa, and here are mixed 2 ideas, that of the snake — the Gr. letter sigma is obviously a picture of curled snake —, and also of some hole, orifice, like the … sea (Ger. la See, read 'zee', as sea, or il See as lake), that can be seen (sehen in Ger.), where is also, I suppose, Ger. Seele-soul (because it usually comes out of the body after some deep wound, or then comes out through the mouth, these are obvious beliefs). Then there is also the strange Eng. "her", which has nothing in common with "she", neither with Ger. ihr-her, and sounds as suspicious doubting, 'hym' or hmm; but the Ger-ns are polite people, there is excuse for them, because there sie means also "they" (Sie, because the woman gives birth to the children, she makes the Sie), and Ihr is also "your", and this is similar to their Ehre-honour (and the Ehe-marriage!), while there is no excuse for these Eng. implications (like also for the Miss & Missis and the verb to miss, right?). So that I am convinced that the pronouns also say smt. about the women; and if in Ger. or It., etc. there are 3 to 4 ways for expressing of politeness, in the Eng. there is not accepted even to write You with capital letter, and one addresses the King or President or the dear God in the same way as he or she addresses some urchin or whore, but this goes a bit aside from the sexual theme, so that I will cease with this digression aside.
Mark, though, that in the Sl. langs is nothing funny or indecent with the personal pronouns. Yet there is smt. with the diminutives. For example, the Rus-ns make from their il 'stul'-chair the word 'stuljchik' as little stool, and in Bul, this will be 'stolche' (also 'kolche'-small-stick, 'virche'-small-pond, 'uroche'-snall-lesson, etc.); where for fem. words the suffix in Rus. is –ka (say 'luzhajka'-small-lawn, 'dochka'-little-daughter, etc.), what in Bul. is usually –'chka' (like 'rychichka'-small-hand, 'trevichka'-little-grass, but also 'poljanka'-small-lawn). Now, the people speaking the lang. don't think about these things, but I am, hmm, enlightened person, and I have thought, and the old predecessors, when the words were built or taken from other langs, have also thought about this. So the point is that this 'chi' /'chik' /'ichka' is old East. root for some … chip or chunk (and from this you can see that the Eng. have somehow preserved some old, probably Hindu, words and sounds; even the very … letter "w" does not exist in Ger. or Lat. etc., but has existed some millenniums back). And I mean here the Tur. (which has to be also Ar. or Per.) 'chuk', which exists in Bul. as a hammer, but in the Tur. it means also … ha, ha (or ho, ho, but not 'hi, hi'), the penis; more then this we have in Bul-a the as if usual word 'zelenchuk' meaning a vegetable, which is not Sl. (for in Rus. it is 'ovoshch'), but 'zelen' is green, so that this is some green "chunk" or "lump" (where the mentioned "dick" is usually red, but if it is green, then nearly everybody can put it in his mouth, right?).
Then –'ichka' rhymes perfectly with our 'pichka' what is fem. from Ar. 'pich' (where stays also Lat. picem-tar, and Eng. pitch, and our 'pich', to which I suppose to return later), what is, with my excuses, the fem. sexual organ, and, resp., a slut. Or then –'ica' rhymes with 'cica', what is Ger. Zitze or your tit, and this is the way to build fem from masc. in Rus. — e.g.: la 'rabotnica'-she-worker, la 'uchenica'-school-girl, which words in Bul. are built with –'ichka' (here 'rabotnichka' and 'uchenichka'), so that we move in a circle, we can't exit out of some sexual associations. But if you think that such moments happen only with the Slavs, then you are, surely, wrong (and don't forget also that I am citing world-wide spread roots). Now let us move to the Ger-ns, where they use –chen ('hhen') and –lein ('lajn') and don't make big fuss about the initial gender (say, lo Hauschen, read 'hojsh|hen' means small house, from their lo Haus, Waldchen is from il Wald-wood, but may be said also Waldlein, Uwelchen or rather Juwelchen is from lo Juwel-jewel, etc.). Yeah, but if you try to read this –chen as 'chen' (and I use one, more or less, obvious transliteration) then this is the same East. 'chuk'-chip; and in addition 'chlen' in Sl. (Rus., Bul., etc.) is this time the masc. sexual organ. Then their -lein can be smt. nice and shining, and there is the spread Scan. suffix –leinen, but for a Bul-n I can not miss to mention here our Gypsy 'lajno' what is ... faeces, yet not of the kind of the dung or Ger. Schei?e-sh#t (what is some … shooting), but as smt. sleecky or slimy (like Rus. 'sljakotj'-mud, and I hope I am explaining precisely enough).
Ah, and let us go now to the It-ns, who use as diminutives –ino (like il bambino-small-boy), -etto (like il pezzetto-little-piece, or la casetta-small-house) –ello (like il uccello-little bird), -uccio /-ucci, where as if is nothing indecent, but the professions end on -ore for masc. (toreadore, auttore-author, etc., what is so because of some raised part or the er-being, no matter that er is in Ger., like also their Herr-master), and for fem. on –essa (like poetessa, commessa-saleswoman, etc.) and on -ice ('iche', like cucitrice-sewing-girl, lavoratrice-she-worker, autrice-she-author, or take the name Beatrice, what is from beato meaning blessed), where in –essa we have this snakish letter, and in -ice this means (for a Bul-n at least) that she has some 'piche' what is variation of the mentioned 'pichka', or then, 'ptichka'-chick, what is an usual simile.
And that this clicking sound often means making of small particles, I can cite Bul. word 'chovek' or Rus. 'chelovek' as human being, where I have met etymologies trying to use the syl. 'vek' (which means a century), but this is over-imaginative, according to me here the roots are also old and East., because the old Sl. word was 'chlovek' and we still use the words 'cheljad' as children, posterity, and there is a Tur. 'choluk' /'chokuk' exactly as child! If you have some remaining doubts, I can add that there is Bul (also Rus.) 'chesyn' as garlic and it consists of many cloves or fingers, which can be divided, what is 'chesna' as verb. This beautiful 'ch' has become on the West as plain 'c', yet it may be read smm. as 'ch' like in It. la citta ('chitt`a'), what is your city, and on top of all this there is Bul. 'ch`eta' as a band, troop, squad, as well also 'chet`a'-to-read (i.e. to pick, pluck, the letters) so that small chips build big things, and the diminutives are related with some sexual parts that hang like some chicks, and the women are liken with snakes, or with gulfs & chasms, and that all these unnecessary pictures make the "romantic" of life.
Ah, but there is even smt. more to this, there is Ger –in, yet not as world-wide spread preposition meaning inside, entering in smt., but as suffix, and exactly for building of fem. words from masc., like: la Professorin, la Arbeiterin-she-worker, la Architektin, and on and on, what surely means that somebody (if as er is equipped with some sticking out organ) can enter in sie-her! Well, the Ger-ns will never confess this if asked, but I am more than convinced in it. And, ha, ha, relatively soon (before about a decade) I have come to a similar "entering" idea in the Rus., where there is one obviously incorrect but widely spread expression for "it can't be", which is not denying (with 'ne') the possibility ('mozhno'-can), but saying 'neljzja'. Yeah, but before a pair of centuries 'ne mozhno' was used, what is the right way to put it, yet nowadays they will never-never say so (like the Eng-men will never say "it's I"), hence there have to be some reasons for this, which they will never confess. ( Like there also are reasons for the Eng. incorrect usage of the pronoun "I" — they, or you, don't like words with one char., they don't count them for words, and because of this they write "I" with capital letter, what is an unheard boldness — in no other lang. "I" is written with capital, this would have been utterly uneducated, and the It-ns, for example, write freely i, e, o, a, and would have written also u as whole word, if this has meant smt. for them. ) And what means then the Rus. 'ljzja'? Well, there is not exactly such word, but there is 'lezet', from the infinitive 'leztj', meaning: enters, pushes ahead, crawls in a hole, what unquestionably confirms my ideas about the "er" entering into the "sie", or into the being with "-in" at the end.
3. The sexual organs as words
Ah, I am bored of this matter because have explained it in my Urrh and where not else, but this is necessary here, this is the "salt" of the things. Yet before to begin I want to pose a question to you to think while reading; I am sure that you will never guess this, but, who knows, you can, still, make a try, and I will give you some hint. So the question is: what is the relation between the word sex and the … number six?! There is necessary some mathematical background, but also some philosophical sight at the things. And now let me begin with the masc. organ, what is not much polite to the dames, but the matters are not really decent, so that this reversing might be for the good, and the look at these things is initiated usually from the standpoint of a man, not of a woman. So the word penis is obviously related with Lat. pinus-pine, the pin, pen, etc., even with the … peninsula, which is some isolated "pen" or beak. But the idea for this has to have come from the Gr. … god Pan, who is present everywhere (the pandemias etc.), and in old times men have spoken about the small Pan, which every man has, and the big Pan, the god; from here is said to have come the expression about the … panic fear (imaging some "Pan"-man running after you, swishing his little "Pan", which is not really little — I hope I am explaining well the things, don't I?).
Then the phallus is more than obvious of Gr. origin (meaning the letter phi), and my guess is that the very letter phi looks like some phallus, or rather like a flower button, because this is what it is, this organ, some special "button", that when opens erupts some liquid, with which (I suppose) the people centuries back have though that is filled the … perm or sperm whale. Here I mean that when the knowledge was limited the imagination of people was unlimited, like also imagining that the woman breasts were filled with some fat or tallow, because Gr.-Lat. mazos or mastos are the breasts, and 'maslo' in Bul. is butter or oil, and 'mas' is grease or ungent ('mazj' in Rus.). There is also the word phial as some small flask, which is from the phallic root, and also (as I have thought in the last moment) the phallic ideas has to be this, which relates the … physics with the physique! This has to be so because the science is logically to have been built around 'fis' and 'fut' roots, or in Eng. fission & fusion, as the two opposing processes of analysis & synthesis (let me not go in more details here), but this is not related with our body; yet if the phallus-button comes in play, then the body can be imagined as some injection of it, that all beings are result of its eruption, what in a way is so, and then the 'fis' of the science is coincidence because of this syl. and the body growing further, too, from small as if flower button.
Yeah, but I personally can never go away from the thought that the phallus is also smt. … fallen! This has to be so, because I, as mathematician, have easily calculated that if it stands about 15 min daily, on the average (say, from 15 to 65 years), and if there are about 1500 min in the day (60 * 24 = 1440) then this means that in 99 min from 100 it is fallen, am I right? And it has to be so, because the unexpectedness of its raising is what makes it unique, otherwise it usually looks to the ground. At most I can agree that it is meant that it falls girls down, hence it is the "faller", but the falling is hidden in the root (and even in Bul. we use to say that somebody 'svalja'-falls a girl when courts her).
Then for the Ger-ns it is usually il Schwanz, what is a tail; for the It-ns it is il uccello-bird, when is not il cazzo, where la cazza means a trowel, so that here some "plastering" is meant. The member, lo Glied in Ger, 'chlen' (as mentioned) in Sl., is different root, and not so interesting, so that let us move to the Russians. Their "official" word is 'huj', what I derive from the … exclamation 'oj' /'aj' /'uj' as smt. like your "ouch", i.e. "ah, how big", or smt. of the kind. This may seem not much serious as etymology but it is possible — compare with your whore, what is just a 'ho' —; on the other hand this can be related with Ar. 'ud' what is some piece of wood, or wooden musical instrument, and it is used smm. in Rus. books in order to mask the proper word, so that it is somehow known (together with "peaches" used for fem. breasts). Also 'uditj' in Rus. is to catch fishes, 'udochka' is a fishing hook, and if you compare with your … "up", the sounding 'ud' is understandable as when pushing smt. deep into smt. else until this is possible. For such small words can be a heap of meanings and explanations, so that nothing can be absolutely sure. Ah, they use smm. also 'hher' as phallus, and because this is exactly Ger. Herr-master they call the latter 'ger', but are these words really related I can't vouch.
More interesting is Bul. word (which is also Serbian) 'kur', from here also 'kurec', and as diminutive 'kurche', which is not related with some 'kura' /'kurochka' as hen, what is also Czech and Polish, but with Lat. cura-care, and is of old Greek origin. Well, maybe Bul. 'kur'-penis is not exactly Lat. cura (there is used in Rus. also the word 'kurator' as mentor or manager, which is Lat.), but it is nice to think so because this organ really "heals" many women; the real Gr. origin is the kyrios meaning lord, master, i.e. this is the master of the man! How this word has taken its cynical meaning I don't know, but this must have been before centuries, and from here is Ger. la Kirche-church. ( You see, the church has to come from the circle, because this figure is the king's figure, there is the ruler in the center, and around him are all the others, and the churches are usually built spherical, and although 'c' can become 'ch' and then 'k', I think that the direct Gr. origin here is in its right place. ) But there can be other ides mixed, there is this rubbing of 'curs'-corso-course, there is also the … cursing, surely, with the very cur, where some curling has to be meant, forming of some cuca-hooked things, then the dogs usually lie curled in circles and it is said that this explains the Sl. name of the dog as 'kuche' in Bul., where 'kucha' in Rus. is a heap, or maybe there comes in play smt. else East., because in Bul-a is known the dialect 'kurdisvam' of Tur. origin as to put smt. in some narrow snuggy place, to stick it there, and others, but I think that this is enough. And that in Tur. this word is 'chjuk' (cuk) I have already mentioned, from where is the known also in Bul-a 'chukundur' (in Tur. 'chukundur') as some ugly piece of smt. (so to say, a cazzo-like thing), what in Rus. would have been translated as 'hujovina'.
But the penis goes with some hanging balls, which are called testicles, because with them a man testifies that is a man! One can probably object that the test comes from the ability to do smt. with one's hands, because il testo in It. is a text, also a pot, the same 'testo' in Sl. means a dough, but la testa in It. is already a head (surely meant as some mug, as you say, some pottery), then there is the testature /tastature what in Eng is given as dashboard, but la Taste in Ger. is a key (say, of piano), and so on, but, still, il teste in It. is a witness. OK, this might be so, the testicles might be meant as made by the fingers of the … very God, or that the girls like to touch or squeeze them, be it so if you so much want this, but the idea of testifying with them is very strong, and in various Sl. langs even the name of the man is 'myzh' or 'muzh' or 'mazh' what (when I offer this to you in this context) has to be from our 'mozhe' /'mozhno' as "may be", i.e. he can do it, can make some girl pregnant. In It., on the other hand, is often used the word il coglione (read 'koljone') for the same eggs, and as verb cogliere means to pluck or pick, so that maybe the It. girls like to touch (or pull) them, who knows? And this 'mozhno'-can is old cluster and related also with your "much", what in Sp. is mucho, and there is their man macho as real man, so that I an not inventing ideas, they exist. And because the main secondary masc. sexual characteristics are the muscles, let me squeeze here that they are meant from old times as jumping or playing … mice, because mus in Lat. means a mouse (but it is clear that these sound imitations are far away from exact, because a mouse gives rather peeping sounds, not 'muh', le is not a cow), and an armpit in Rus. is 'podmyishka' (where 'pod' is under and 'myishka' is a mouse).
Yeah, but more interesting are these pieces in Bul., where they are called 'tashaci' ('tashak' as sing.), where I make the obvious relation with Ger. la Tasche ('tashe') as bag, satchel, pocket; at the same time, though, the same 'tashak' means smt. funny, a joke — and, really, to show your balls (if you have ones, 'hi, hi') is funny, isn't it? I mean that the same has to be idea of old sycophants who sold some fic(k)s /figs /figues-fruits, which could have been also olives, or grapes, or smt. alike. You see, here everything is mixed and twisted because the very form of the leaves plays some role, these might have been the wine plants and leaves, with which one hides or masks his sexual organs, and they are pretty figuratively (hence the word figure!) curved, and then there is Ger. la Feige-fig, but there is also the obvious derivative il Feigling as … coward (maybe because he is afraid to show his "figs", ah?). Then here we enter in the f#cking cluster where is Lat. futuo-to-fertilize, your fitting, Ger. fick-ing as f#cking, etc. etc.; the Rus-ns for their part use quite often 'figovina' as synonim with 'hujovina', and you surely know the sign of the fig /figue with 2 fingers and the thumb put between them. In short, the man's balls are pretty interesting object for investigations, and I will return at the end of this "fantasy" again to them in some other, or in similar, aspect.
And now it is maybe time to look at the women and their sexual organs (but I hope you have not yet forgotten to think about the relation sex – six, have you?). Here some things are obvious (at least for me) and some are not. The obvious thing is that the well known Fr. putain ('pjuten'), and Bul. — sorry or not but I have to write this —'putka', or Lat. pudendum, also Ger. la Putte (as figure of an Amour-boy), and other words, have to be related with one Hindu demoness, Putana ('puhtanah'), who was killed by god Krishna, and I suppose for amoral behaviour. You see, the starting point here is the spitting sound (similarly to the whore), but it is accepted and there is also the medical Lat. term praeputium as foreskin (Forhaut in Ger.) meaning exactly this skinny thing that stays before the putta-vagina when some er enters in it (what is interesting observation of the ancient physicians, because this part is not of the putta but of the penis). Here are really many many words to which I will not come here but want to mention that, imitation or not, this cyl. signifies nearly whatever putting or pushing of one thing into another, i.e., say, your boot, Fr. boutique, the pot, and others, and I have quite recently heard that in some Sardinian dialect, the puttana was buttana. In this sense I can tell you also that, hmm, the well known Lat. potencia-potency (resp. impotence and omnipotence) has to mean the ability to fill (to the brim) some "pot", which in many cases is exactly this of some puttana! And there is also a meaning of this root as smt. trampled, stepped on, like the ancient path, and usually all kinds of paths or streets are smt. on which many people have stepped (and due to the massive usage of 'putj'-road in Rus., they don't use the cynical meaning of this root but other word).
This special fem. orifice in Bul. is called in the same Lat. way (as just said), but in Rus. it is 'pizda', and my guess (because I have not found official etymologies) is that this is mutilated from … physique, i.e. the naked fem body. From here are also many derivatives (like: 'pizdetj'-behave-like-woman, 'pizdjulja' as diminutive, 'pizdervanec'-good-f#cker, etc.). And then comes time for your cunt, which word puzzled me enough in the beginning until I got it that this has to be distorted from our Jypsy 'shunda' what means the same, some orifice, slit, where is Ger. il Schlund as throat, abyss, chasm. There, surely are used many other words but I choose the most interesting, so that maybe this is enough as to the direct meaning of this organ. But in transferred one is probably necessary to mention Bul. and not only 'kurva' as easy girl (not exactly prostitute), in the sense of deviated from the right way (where, it depends, but if you ask me this way is quite good, the bad one is to sell herself). The very prostitute, for its part, is related with the prostrating down and the prostate gland what is old Gr. word. And there is one Rus. word used very often, namely 'bljadj', which usually means a slut, whore, yet in a chat between men it is just an exclamation (like buddy or pal, mate, etc.), what are different ideas, but such things happen with some fascinating words, like Eng. bloody, which has to mean very bad yet quite often means the opposite. Here I have come to Ger. blode as silly, what is smt. of the kind of blah-blah, one talks to much ('byrborja' in Bul.), but also to the blood /bloody (Ger. Blut), your blotch-spot, and there is also an old Sl. 'blud'-incest, what, I think, explains the Rus. word as person with dirty blood who is also silly, but that is often exactly what a man searches.
OK, and what can be said about the fem. breasts and, sorry, tits? Ah, this is interesting, because the official and decent word bosom (which is Lat.) is perfectly clear for me, due to the fact that in Bul. exists the Tur. and East. word 'boza' as quite nutritious drink made out of corn (wheat, barley) and recommended for breast-feeding women, and also the very sucking is 'bozaja', so that you can safely leave aside all doubts. Yet I can add that this plant called elder (where it is so called because it is the older, meant as tree, not grass, of two similar plants, but the smaller one is too bitter) is called in Rus. 'busina' and in Bul. 'bysi', for the same reasons, i.e. it is recommended for breast-feeders as purifying the blood. The very breast is Ger. la Brust and is smt. sticking out and defending; and in Rus. it is 'grudj' (and in Cz. hrud) as smt. similar (compare with hard and guard). More interesting, however, is the tit /teat, or Zitze in Ger., where I have come to the old … titans, because in old Gr. titthe (in Lat. in order not to use Gr. letters because on some sites they are not allowed) was to feed with breast, so that they have become so strong because have sucked the breasts of their mothers for very long time (usually in the fairy tales is spoken about 7 years). On the other hand the tit must be related with the … tooth /teeth, as well also with the … stalactites and –mites (as some dropping or sticking out tits). And in It. one tit or nipple is called il capezzolo, as some tiny head (or eye somewhere in old Gr.).
So, but all words used for fem. sexual organs and related with copulation have negative meaning while if applied to men everything changes at once. I personally find this pretty unjust and, maybe, it is the only thing that can excuse the emancipation, because there can be a man-f#ckers (although this word as if is not used in Eng. yet it is unmistakable) or play-boy, but it is not good to have play- or call- girls. On the other hand everything depends, and what can be allowed nowadays is not the same as what has existed for millenniums, because before 1800 the Earth population has still not exceeded the milliard level, and if a girl begins to practice sex for the fun of it, she may begin to like it and to forget about the procreation and in the end the human race could have been put in danger of extinction, but today it is not so. Because, see, there are kind of knowledge or experience which are not much useful to have, this is so in many cases also for the men, to say nothing about the women, who are much more sensitive and need some delusions, obviously, at least for me and now. This is the reason why Bul. il 'pich' is as if some sign for dignity, where la 'pichka' is rather cursing word. Well, now, after the emancipation, for which the women have "fought", they have won the right to feel glad when somebody calls them, or takes them for, sluts, right? I congratulate them from all my heart.
But let us continue and ask us, what is the very copulation, as word? Hmm, this is pretty obvious thing for me, and I have forgotten when have come to my conclusion, probably before 20-25 years, and it is that this root, 'ko', comes from the … cry of the hens, after they have laid an egg and hurry to announce to the whole world (or, maybe, only to their beloved cock) the result of the copulation! There are literally thousands of words here all around the world, like, say: cooperation, corporation, … constipation, correlation, company, combat, the very preposition con in It. (cum in Lat.), et cetera. If not this one has to start from the circle, but the point is that this is not of the root of number two, neither of bi-smt. (like bicycle, where the root is of the old Heb. bina), and the hen is a good relation because the birds often copulate, and they are present in each court, even in the poorest, where might not been pigs or cows, but hens surely.
Then, avoiding to discuss more precisely the "fick-ing" (how the Ger-ns call it) it remains nothing else for me as to come to the Sl. copulation, which is 'ebatj', 'eblja', 'ebane', 'jober', et cetera. Well, if I tell you that this is a kind of eating you will not believe me much, yet it is so. And if I tell you that this is a kind of … hedonism you will believe me even less, I suppose, but it is also so. As well as that this is some bam-boom, to what you as if may give some credence. But there are all these things and more, only that if one begins to judge starting from some root eb- one will come to nothing valuable. Still, I am very convinced in my conclusions because I compared Bul. 'ebane' with old Gr. edone meaning pleasure, and with edoo (this time with omega) as to eat, or also edoode as food, meal, and invoked also the knowledge about some paradise Eden, which in Rus. is 'Edem', and took into account that the leading 'h' is dropped in many langs, so that here has to be also the 'hedon'-smt.! Have you got the idea? Ah, the eating is pleasure, the copulation is pleasure, in the paradise are only pleasures one upon the other, then the eating is really 'eda'-food, 'estj'-eat, this is Lat "is", i.e. exists, then the Arabs also make some relation with the "other" eating, then the sexual organs are "eaten" smm., then the hedonism is a kind of Eden-ism, living like in the paradise, so that the picture fits, especially if I add that Gr. letter delta, looks exactly like Cyr. "b" when written by hand (so that 'ebane' looks like 'edone'). Remains only the booming, to what I have come quite occasionally, having read that in some Buddhist's monasteries was spread one ritual by which all, men and women (supposedly young), left down their clothes, the men sat in lotus-pose and the women posed themselves onto the lap of the men and began to ... meditate about the life etc., and then, after some "meditation" (probably after half an hour or so), began some crazy 'jabuhm' (or yabyum in Eng, how I have met it).
And now about the sex –six relation, because it is so, really, in Lat. the sex is sexus, and the number 6 is sexis, in old Gr. the number was exi, what sounds (does it not?) very sexy (yet the exact word "sex" has not existed in the old lang., it is Lat. invention, and appeared then in the new Gr. lang.), in Ger. the number is sechs ('zeks'), so that it has to be how I am telling you; and take in account also that exi is the prefix ex- as smt. taken out, it is 'iz-' in Sl., so that the sex has to appear just at once! Then the necessary mathematical knowledge is that the 6 was the so called perfect number, where the sum and the product of its prime factors are equal (also to the number, i.e.: 1 + 2 + 3 = 1*2*3 = 6) what by this definition is true only for 6! ( Yet it depends on the definition and according to Euclid a perfect number is such one for which the sum of all factors is equal to the number, what for 6 is again true, but also 28 turns out to be perfect number because: 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 = 28. ) And then it remains only to guess what can be so perfect in the sex, right? But I think this is an easy question, more or less for nursery children, yes? Surely this must be the very penis, I think you have to agree, if not with me, then with the ancient folks! Id est the number 6 is picture of the masc. sexual organ, looked in profile (or, then, when a naked man looks in some river at his reflection).
Ah, and for this reason the old Heb-s value so much their 6-rayed star of David, or take the dice, that has 6 sides, or the number of extremities by the insects, or the Hindu gods, and so on. This is a great number, which is worthy to symbolize the really perfect God's Creation, the phallus, which (as I said) is usually fallen down, but when it jumps above and becomes 3 times bigger, then… ! And smt. more, interesting is also the Sl. name of the 6, which is similar but different, it is 'shest' in Bul. and 'shestj' in Rus. (szesc in Pol., etc.), with the addition that exactly 'shest' in Rus. means a … stick, cudgel, pole, what has nothing to do with the number but has with the phallus. Even more to this, in the Skr. the number 6 was sat or sastis (and in the backgammon game it is called 'shesh'), where in Bul. is known the word 'sashtisvam' (or 'shashtisvam') meaning to amaze, surprise, which is of Tur. origin (sasmak), and 'shashma' in Bul. means a fakery. Now, tell me that I am inventing fables, ah? ( And for more details about the numbers you better read my "Reflexions about the numbers". )
4. Why two sexes are necessary?
The things in this "movement" are new for me, they are written especially for this material, and, as I hinted in the beginning, they are obvious, but philosophical and important. Because sexes exist also by the plants, and by the animals above the worms, and no matter who has created our world, some divine creature or the evolution of the matter (or both, I shall say), the important question is, why. But first let us look a bit more precisely at the genders, and say with what they are important, in what they differ, as behaviour, habits, way of living? And is there a topmost gender, that is above the other, what is the subordination between them? And how they impose themselves upon the environment, what about the activity and passivity? And what about some heterarchy, where one is responsible for one thing and the other for smt. else? Are there various kinds of bosses? Does only one sex conquer and the other allows to be conquered? Such questions.
Well, let me begin with the statement, that both sexes, as individuals, try to conquer somehow the surrounding world, to survive and win, yet they do this in two different ways, the one penetrates, the other … engulfs, that's it! Where the penetration (with some "pen" or sword) destroys the other subject but does not use it, this is a silly thing, come to think about it, unless it is in an act of fight or defense and this is simply the easier way for conquering, but in a long run it is nevertheless silly (and because of this there are always slumps and falls after big won wars, due to the fact that the conquered enemy is not really assimilated, mark this). While the fem. individual just engulfs the other sex, or tries to do this, imagines it, thinks that she has done this, and in a long run really models the masc. exemplar, it begins to listen to her; I can't vouch how this is by the animals, but by the humans this is obvious, the weak gender quite often has the commanding hand. Even from here you see that the question about the ruling sex is put to doubt, and that the things stay not so how they look.
Then the next important moment is to begin to make difference between ruling and real ruling, what is also an obvious thing but I have alone come to my (obvious) conclusions. They are the following: there are two kinds of rulers, strategists and tacticians! Both these words are old Gr., and the strategy as sound imitation means some grinding, but this is not interesting here, the important thing is that the strategy means what to do, establishing of the general line of action, not the concrete details, while the latter are object of activity of the tacticians, who know how to make the situation say tick-tack like a well oiled clockwork. And then, judging by everything, it has to be clear that the born strategist in the family or group of together living individuals of both sexes is the woman, even if she is not officially recognized as such and is not asked what she wants, because the man knows what the woman may want (usually that her lower orifice was as often as possible visited by the masc. magical wand, isn't it?), but he, as a rule takes her wishes into account, does what he does in the name of the woman. While the obvious tactician in the family is the man, because he all his life does exactly this, tries to conquer the situation, the world, to win, to invent moves, he is the born player, for him everything is game. This is obvious also for the reason that the main goal of whole living matter is the proliferation of the species, hence the individual who "calls the tune" is the woman, as the chief preserver and continuator of life.
OK, but, my dear women, don't begin to jubilate early, because this does not mean that the woman /women have to be asked, because this is perilous with danger! This is so not due to some inferiority of the women but due to their partiality and emotional liability, as a rule, of course. So that the things are messed, the strategist must not be asked about her wishes, and the tactician must rule accounting to the wishes of the strategist. Yet it is often so, look at the democracy, there everything is botched, people with no special knowledge, the politicians, are performing tactical ruling, and the real strategists, the people, are bamboozled as if in their own interest. And more confused are the things in the families now, when there are practically no families, and when the the main goal must not more be the survival of the humans but the diminishing of their number. Still, the difficulties does not mean that the problems have to be solved in the wrong way, like, say, to chose the women as heads of the families, or to have no families at all, or for each nation to try to outnumber every other one, or to cry to heaven that the sexes are equal, and so on.
This, what we all have to do, is to take into account the differences of the sexes, and to try to perceive the deep meaning of this, so that to allow the development of necessary features, not to hinder them. You just look at the children, what are the young boys doing? They are always playing games, they want to win, they want risky life, they are naughty and disobedient, yet not because are bad, but because they want to check to what extent they can go unpunished, this is learning, people, the boys are learning by their mischiefs, and why, ah? Well, because they want to change the life, to find smt. new, not to continue to live in the same way, they, and thence the men, are not glad with the existing life, they are innovators, the usual peaceful life is too dull for them. While what are the little girls doing, and why? Ah, they are not playing, this occupation with dolls is not a play, their learning is only imitation (of what their mothers do), they do not look to risks and dangers, they don't want real changes, they want to repeat the life, hence they like it, they are preservers. Don't be mislead, please, by some external signs, don't think that when they are always displeased this means that they don't like the life, no, as a rule, they are scolding — sorry girls — because they want to make the man or men run around them and serve them, because they always want smt. more, but usually quantitative, not qualitative. Or then look at some masc. home animals, who become to live more quietly and to raise their weight only after they were … castrated. But the women usually gain weight easily, their organisms are used to live more economically, they live definitely longer, with about 15 %, these are not jokes.
But let me not fall in long philosophizing, let me go to my general conclusions about the fem. and masc. nature. The masc. individuals are generally … silly players, who spend much efforts for some uncertain risky life, they spend themselves for nothing, and they are one and the same during their whole life, and with the ceasing of their sexual functions are not more able to lead reasonable life, they simply die early. Yet, from the standpoint of God or Nature, this is quite justified because one masc. exemplar suffices to about 100 fem. ones, if need be. While the fem. individual is smt. quite different, there are several souls in each one of them, which being fight between themselves for superiority of ruling, though they change somehow naturally with the age of the woman or dame! Now look, these are my pretty recent thoughts to which I have come also under another pen-name, and have developed in addition in poetical form in Bul., but they seem very probable and explain the well known instability of woman's character, and in order to be more precise in the modeling of fem. nature I have come to the number of three such, let me say, deities. Which could they be, ah?
Well, on the first place this is the seducer, this Putana, which has to cheat with smt. some silly man in order to engulf, as already said, his body and sole. Then, usually after some years, on the scene appears the mother, which is far away from the seducer in her spirit, she is the real preserver of the genes, she is utterly egoistic in defense of her offsprings, in recompense of the unfriendly Nature or God. Yet I insist that there is also a third being in every woman and this is the … wise Sofia, who may step on the scene as last, but who is wiser that the man because her wisdom is that of God, i.e. of the Nature! Could you follow me? Ah, but I have told you already the main ideas, the man is the destroyer, and the woman is the preserver; the man changes the world in search of some better one (because the situations change, this has to be done in each generation), and the woman sticks to the wisdom of God (according to the Eastern religions) that everything is justified (because there are contradictory participants in this "game"). And in order not to be able to say that I have forgotten in this section to call etymology to my aid I will tell you that the sex in Rus. (Sl.) is 'pol', which word sounds the same as their 'pol'-floor, where are other ideas in play (probably from 'pole'-field, else it has to be 'pod' meaning below, as in Bul.), but at the same time 'polovina' is half, so that 'pol' has to be just shortening of the latter, i.e. this is one half of the genders or people.
So let me sum up that the answer to the question set in the heading of this part is that one sex could have done only the one thing, the preserving, because this is the most important, but there would have been not enough changes and our dear God, or the ever-present matter, have seen this somewhere at the stage of vegetation and by the animals after the worms. As much as the one thing is necessary, in such extent is also the other, here is no hierarchy, here we have some heterarchy of both sexes; were they equal, we would have been like the worms, I am fiery sexist — even if I have now, ha, ha, by … half erections monthly. Yet, on the other hand, if this could have been somehow managed, and if I were asked, I would have wanted by my next rebirth to be born as she-being, be it even as — this time 'hi, hi' — a … cockroach. What does not impede me until I am on this world to think that the masc. sex is more interesting, and I will uncover some more hidden in the words secrets in the next "movement". Nonetheless I am convinced that the fem. sex is the most important, and because of this deserves to be honoured, especially, to tell you the truth, in view of the massive invasion of women in all spheres of social life, business, and industry, because with the diminishing necessity of physical strength nowadays more and more professions turn to be better occupied by women, men become bored pretty fast, while women are very strict and diligent, alas, my men-colleagues.
5. The hand of the man and his wisdom
Here seems to be nothing very interesting, only that the West. Europe is divided by the meaning of the root man- as if by a watershed in two "valleys", where by the Teutons (including the Eng-men) they think that this is the man /human (Ger. Mann), while in the Lat. part this means a hand (It. la mano, etc., and then the man is il uomo, or homme in Fr., etc.), but what of it? This little confusion is explainable because the most important part of the man (if we leave the sex aside, or for the both sexes) is his (her) hand, with its 20 degrees of freedom only for the wrist (the directions of possible movements summed for all joints), and the Teutons think that when there is a hand there is a Mensch-human, while all Lat. people use the man- root for his hand and relate the whole human with the others around (because this is homo in old Gr., the same, like homogeneous). Yeah, but this is one (or rather 2) of the sacred Skr. syls, mani, and for this reason there are pretty many similar words, like: manipulate, maneuver, manual, maintain, etc., but also the East. mandarin-ruler (who holds the people like lobes or fingers of an orange), the similarly sounding Tibetan mandala-circle, and others.
And then, together with this words, even in the good old Lat. lang. can be found the word mango, meaning there a dishonest trader, but this is what every Gypsy is, as a rule, and I have heard several times the same 'mango' in conversation between these people; the modification 'mangasar' has insulting meaning, but only 'mango' for them is like your buddy, pal. This Gyp. word in principle confirms the Teu. meaning of man- root, yet there exists also one fruit with the same name, mango, and the Eng. mangrove as mango forest (what can be man+grove, or even mango+grove), so that this implies the conclusion that smt. in these trees is like a man (or maybe even as swarthy Gyp. or Hin. one). But what exactly is this I was unable to guess till this very year, and /or have not thought about, or have taken that this is smt. like with the ginseng, and if not exactly the roots are meant then smt. else. But come to think about the mango fruits it is clear that they are smt. strange, they smell at least peculiar (of fir), their skin is hard and uneatable, the flesh can not be divided from the fruit-stone, and they look like enormous plums, this is as if some impossible fruit (like, say, the camel is an impossible or ugly animal).
And then one day in the dawn (probably scratching my, excuse me, eggs, I can't remember exactly) I got it that this has to be meant as … masc. "plums", so to say! Id est, the mangrove is a grove where from the trees are hanging smelly balls or testicles, which can be, though, eaten, but better after some cooking. This is funny idea, so that I allow you all to have a bit of refreshing laugh (maybe like ha, ha, is better), but this is highly probable, because, just for the fun, I can share with you my knowledge of one Malaysian word, pisang in Eng., which meant … a banana (where the explanations I leave to you). And here I could have put the final point of this fantasy, yet there is a bit more in it, there is the Sl. (Rus., Bul., etc.) word for these balls, which is 'mudyi' ('mudo' in sing., in Rus.) or 'mydi' (in addition to the mentioned 'tashaci'), which words I relate, quite naturally, I suppose, with Ger. mude-tired. These are not occasional relations because there is Rus. (also Bul.) 'mudnyij' as slowly moving, also 'medlitj' (with old 'muditj', 'zamuditj', 'myditi' as the same slowliness), and so on, and there is also the Eng. mud /muddy as smt. dirty. And I suppose that you will not begin to deny now that these masc. balls make the girls dirty, will you?
Hmm, the etymologists derive Ger. mude from Lat. modus, what generally is right, the slowness is a kind of modus vivendi, a way of living, which is in many cases a wiser way, what I have mentioned before but will dwell a bit more on it now. For example is said that moody meant as pensive was used by Shakespeare, that in Lat. madeo was to make wet or flowing (and to recall you the Rus. 'moshchj'-power and 'mocha'-strength), and in Skr. madati /madate was drunken; I have met even that there was some old Gr. medea (used by the very Homer), what was, this time, a vagina. So that, see, the point is not only in the tiredness or changing of the modes, the point is in the … moderation, in the middle condition of the things, and if there is smt., what the old Greeks have taught us, then this is to be moderate in everything, what means also in the moderation itself, I'll tell you. And here I come to one of my beloved themes, about the moderation of the man, how he usually learns this.
Now, the thing is that the woman always can, be it even 20 … coituses a day, what would have given her some troubles, but she would have endured this and been glad in addition, while the man smm. can, but smm. not, and as far as this begins to happen with him from an early age, about the puberty, he learns to be moderate in whatever, in order to succeed always. So that, you see, the sex defines nearly everything, and the masc. wisdom is, in a way, hidden in his balls, yeah! ( There is even one humorous sentence in Bul-a, that the bad, sorry, f#cker, is hindered by the balls, because if they have not hanged on his prick he would have penetrated even deeper. ) Funny or not, but it is so, the strength, as well the wisdom, of a man depends on his coglioni. And if you still have some remaining doubts on that point I will tell you that the very wisdom in Rus. /Sl. is 'mudryij' (in Bul. 'mydyr', in Cz. mondry, etc.), what can be traced to some Skr. medha as a thought or reason, or Avestan mazdra-wise-or-thoughtful, and to the meditation and the East. mantra and other similar words. Put in uneducated words this means that the man thinks with his balls, how many malcontent women would have said, but to prove this in sophisticated manner, calling in my aid the old Skr., is much better and laudable for me.
And in an even more recent time than about the testicles of the mango-man I have come to another interesting guess, because I have asked myself some simple question, namely: why the balls in question hang outside and are not inside the body, how the fem. ovaries are? And my conclusion was that our God almighty has either not known exactly how big they must be, or have allowed the possibility for them to grow as much as possible! Because what is outside of the body it really can grow nearly unlimited — horns, hooves, claws, noses, hands, legs, breasts, etc., what leads us, men, to one very important conclusion, namely that this must be possible somehow to be done on purpose! I mean that there should exist some … gymnastics, or vitamins, or hanging little weights, or even operational intervention, whatever, what can make them begin to grow! Or there must firstly be created two new Olympic disciplines, lifting of weights hanged on the phallus, and measuring of the testicles (nowadays they can simply be scanned somehow and the volume given at ones).
So that, buddies, guys, even gays, I personally have missed the "train", but the life continues, you are bound to try this. Surely if your eggs could have weighted by about 250 grammes the girls would have been much more satisfied, they might even decide to go alone to work and leave you to stay the whole day long at home only if you can succeed to increase your sexual activity, say, twice! This open entirely new horizons in the social life, this is a new revolution! Instead of to lead wars the guys of all nations and races, in quite near future, could use every possible moment to gather together, to compare their "instruments", to lift some small weights with their "cocks", to hit for half an hour some tiny boxing pear with their eggs, to exchange jokes, to have some refreshments or lunches, and to make every day new friends. Yet, my advice: moderation in everything, if you don't want to become sportsman in the new disciplines. What means: prick not longer than half a meter, and "mangos" not heavier than half a kilo each, because enough is enough.
And with this I trumpet my final accord in this etymological fantasy, that is:
ding – dong, di-ding – dong, di-di-ding – dang – doong.
Oct 2018
IDEA ABOUT NEW CALENDAR
I think it is clear that our calendar has so many flaws, that it is high time to be changed, and for that reason I have heard that there were a big number of ideas (maybe hundreds, I don't know) for a new one. Well, I make my own idea, which I have given in one or two places, but here will evolve it in more details.
This new calendar is solar, i.e. it is tied to the Sun not to the Moon, what I think is long ago recognized to be the right approach. In addition to the year (the time for circling of the Earth around the Sun) it sets also on the day (the time for rotating of the Earth around its axis), and everything else (months, weeks, as well as hours, minutes and seconds) is different. Moreover, it is decimal, i.e. wherever possible is used base 10 (not 12 or 60), what also is obvious for me, so that it is not excluded that I "reinvent the wheel", with some minimal modifications, but let me, still, explain the idea, because it might be that my additions are not so obvious for everyone, and however many propositions there are there is not yet a new calendar, so that, I suppose, the forum is open, so to say.
1. Long intervals (longer than a day)
These, surely, are the months and the weeks. But firstly, where should we start, because our current calendar has somehow confused the things, for it sticks to some allegedly God, not to the Sun, and begins the year not from the right place, but somewhere around the point of the winter solstice. Well, in principle, when we have a cyclical process (how I have mentioned also in other places) there is not especially significant where we shall begin, but if we have suitable good reason for this, because the cycles of the seasons, i.e. the duration of shining of the Sun, and from there also of the temperature (for a given place and in the North hemisphere) is something like sinusoid, and it begins from the moment of transition through the zero (i.e., in our case, from the equality of the day with the night, on 22 of March); while our old calendar begins at nearly lower dead point (because till then was deadness, but now, after the new old God has been born, i.e. the Son, everything will blossom and flourish, yet it turns that only for half an year, for after this the things again worsen; in the South hemisphere, though, it happens that exactly in the beginning of the year the things start to worsen, it begins to cool). But if we begin from the point of spring or autumn equinox, then everywhere around the Earth this will be beginning, where the difference will be only in this whether it begins bettering or worsening of the weather (but, anyway, one can't please everybody, and in the northern hemisphere live more people, there is the biggest Eurasian continent).
In any case, there is no need for many discussions on the question, it is quite clear that we must begin from 22 of March, if only because such is the tradition, so begin all Zodiacs, and they come from ancient times. But if you ponder a bit about the months (which are Latin), and if we jump over the major part of them, where are put other ideas (I discuss this somewhere but let us not diverge here from the main topic), we will come to four consecutive months where in the beginning is one digit in Latin, and after this there is some trembling (because of the cold) "brr", i.e. I mean from September to December, where the September, quite obviously, must be seventh month (then the eighth is October, etc.), but it is with the number nine according to the present-day calendar. How you think, why the ancient people have made this mistake? Yeah, but they have made no mistakes, because if March is the first month, then you just count and will see that on seven you will come exactly to September, so that everything is clear (only that our Christ has messed the things).
Now we come to the months, which, when we must have decimal calendar, have to be ten, there is no other way! Then 360 : 10 = 36, so that the number of days in every month must be such, with small exceptions (because the days in the year are not exactly 360, they are even not 365 or 366, but come to so many) These 5 (or, resp., 6) days, because I don't think that we must change the additions for the leap years, they are good enough and we could hardly contrive something better (the number, anyway, isn't integer), we can disperse by one day to each even, or then odd, month, but I personally propose they to stay in one week (but what we shall see after a while) in the end of the year! And now, before to criticize the non-symmetry of both halves, remind yourself that in the old calendar they are not as possible symmetric, for it is not at all necessary for the February to have only 28 days — and why in February, ah? Because there (as if) the year ended, for this is the last month before March, so that this is one more reason for the actual beginning of the year.
When all these additional days are put in one place they can be somehow ... not counted! Id est, they are something additional, what that, really, are, and can simply be taken for official holidays, for something given to us (by God, if you like it better so). It even becomes very good this, that they will never exceed the number six. This will turn to be important because now we come to the weeks, which will not have by 7 days. Why? There is very simple reason for this, because 36 is not divisible by seven, and it would have been nice if it were divisible. But it is divisible (and even twice) by 6, so that the new weeks (which in Bulgarian, by the way, are called "sevens", only the stressing is on another syllable), will be "sextets"! In this situation the additional days in the end of the year (Christmas holidays, if there will be Christmas, or just yearly holidays) will give one nearly full week, and in leap years — i.e. in such that are jumped higher than the others (and in Slavonic languages their name is translated as with higher bones) — this week will be exactly full. This is very good, because in this way each day of each month will correspond in the same way with one number of the "sextet" (the remainder of division of the number of days in month by modulus 6, said in mathematical language)! For example, 17.4 (in European standard, first the day and then the month) could have been written also as 5.3.4 (or v.v.), i.e. the 5th day, of the 3rd "sextet" of the 4th month.
And now let us say something about their names. Well, if in some country people don't intend to rename them in their own way, I propose some universal English-French-Latin names, namely: onmon, dumon, tremon, fourmon, fifmon, sixmon, sevmon, achmon, ninemon, and tenmon, where they can be signified with digits, and even instead of from 1 to 10 we can mark them with 1 to 9 and then 0 (for the 10th month), in order to use one decimal position. Each month will have six groups or sextets, which will be called: ongroup, dugroup, tregroup, fourgroup, fifgroup, and sixgroup, with the exception of the last, tenmon, where will be also an exgroup, which prolongs it; in each group will be respectively six days, called: onday, duday, treday, fourday, fifday, and sixday.
But in addition to the non-symmetry because of the exgroup, which concerns the half-year, is imposed one more asymmetry for the quarter-year, which can not consist now of three new months. Some may again hurry to object, but I think that it is not significant that there are not four equal seasons, for the simple reason that they, in fact, are not equal! Id est, the major and longer seasons are the summer and the winter, which can freely be counted by 3 new months, and the demi-seasons spring and autumn will be by 2 new months. Let us look what we have got, having in mind that 1 new month is 1 old month + 6 days. The year begins with the spring, which continues from 22.3 (onday, ongroup, onmonth) till (22.4 no, 22.5 no, but 12 days more, or, if we count all old months for 30 days, then to) 4.6. "old style" (what is onday, ongroup, tremon), I want to say that the latter is now the first day of the summer (and for the last day of the spring subtract one day); then follows the summer (till 36th fifmon, or the next season begins from the first sixmon, what means) till 22.9 "old style" (how it should have been expected); then is the autumn (in the northern hemi-sphere, of course) till 4.12; and then is the winter till 22.3 again "old "style".
As you see, this is even better dividing in seasons, because the spring, really, ends to the end of May, June is already full summer, and even from the very beginning, and so until 22 of September, and the autumn continues, again really, till the beginning of December (or the end of November). If there are some alterations of the beginning, depending on the geographical latitude of the place, then they are symmetrical also in the end of the season, which either prolongs itself or shortens. Because, see, the Sun begins to shine longer on 22 of March in the current calendar, but this does not yet reflect on the temperature and affects it with a month and something delay, due to the inertness of heat transfer (which is quite a slow process), so that happens one proportional shifting of all seasons, and if they are taken for equal but are not such, then this will give distortions in all seasons (like, for example, on 22 of June the sun is the most stronger but this is wide away from the hottest time, which falls in the august month August), and if we make the seasons unequal, according to what I have said about the major and transitional seasons, then by an equal shifting we may find quite a good correspondence in the temperature, as it also happens, because the middle of the sinusoid for shining of the sun (the spring equinox) turns to be still quite near to the low dead point in regard of the temperature. In short, there will not be the obligatory dividing in four equal seasons (in view of statistics and reports, i.e. formally), but one natural dividing will exist on the base: 2, 3, 2, 3.
Well, the lunar phases will not be marked, but they are missing also from the current calendar. And for those interesting in Zodiacs (because they, surely, will not disappear) will be provided small tables with the beginning days of each of them. ( By the way, let me remind you that the months as lunar ones, surely are not 12 in the year, they are with exactness of only one day 13, i.e. 28 * 13 = 364, so that here the things are also adjusted, in order to be possible to divide the year, and if it is 360 days, by as many numbers as possible, i.e. by 2, 3, and 4, or by 12 )
2. Short intervals (shorter than a day)
Here we will be more concise, where it is clear, that in order to have decimal subdivisions of the day, we must make the whole day to have 10 hours by 100 minutes, each one by 100 seconds. This makes 100,000 seconds instead of 24*60*60 = 86,400, so that the new second will be a bit shorter than the old, but in recompense of this the new minute will be about 1.5 times longer than the old (it will be 1/1000 of the day, while the old is 1/(24*60) = 1/1440 ), and the new hour will be 2.4 times longer. This, of course, is of no importance and is only a matter of habit, but it is simpler and more suitable to use everywhere the decimal system. Let us add also that here the counting begins again in the old manner, i.e. from 0 to 9 for the hours, or from 0 to 99 for the minutes and seconds. There will be possible to have one more division of 100 units (or then of 1000), as subdivision of the seconds, which parts ("tretunds", maybe?) will be given as fractional part of the seconds, because are so small that one will not be able to feel them and for that reason there is no need of special name for them, i.e. here is nothing new.
3. Other advantages of the idea
Look, here we will speak mainly about this how much time we are to work, because 6 is better to be divided, i.e. by 2 and by 3, while 7, in fact, is not divisible by whatever, it is prime number. A group of seven days was convenient only because this is part of the lunar month, but if you imagine that there were no Moon (and nowadays we don't pay much attention to it), or you live on another planet, or something of the kind, then there are no reasons for such divisions, where from a standpoint of dividing of our time 6 is in many aspects better — even before 5 (although we have not 6 fingers on our hands), because 5 is also prime number. So that, if we fly to another planet, then even there we may use sextet groups for dividing of the months, where the latter can be again 10, only that the sextets will not happen to fit integer times in the month, but even in this case we could again begin to count each month from onday-Monday, because so is quite suitable (and there will remain some part of the week as holidays, probably, but for the month).
Yet let us consider now the working days. How much time we work, but as part of the day, because only it has remained on its place from the smaller divisions (as part of the year it is very twisted)? If the working week is 42 hours, but by so much time nowadays work almost nowhere (the people have no jobs, so that they wonder how less to work), then this gives 6 hours per day (42:7), or 6/24 of the day, i.e. 0.25, but if they work 35 hours (what is nearer to the normal situation, or at least to the desirable quite soon), then this gives 5 hours per day, or 5/24 of the day, i.e. 0.208333, what is about 21%. Well, if in the new six-days group we work 4 days by 3 hours (new), or the same but reversed, i.e. 3 days by 4 new hours, i.e. 12 new hours, then this taken from 6*10 = 60 hours "sextetic" or "sixtetic", i.e. in the group, makes exactly 1/5 or 20%, what equals 34 hours today's working week. I personally think that this is just ideal perspective for quite near future (after 20 - 30 years).
So, and if 1 new hour is 2.4 old hours (2 h and 24 min), then 3 new hours will be 7.2 old hours (7 h and 12 min), where 4 new hours will be now 9.6 old hours (9 h and 36 min). Well, 9 hours and a half is quite a long working day, but this if we have worked like now, 5 days out of 7, but if we work 3 days and rest 3 days this won't be so bad as it seems, where 4 days by nearly 7 hours daily, and after this 2 weekends (not 5 and then 2) is very good, isn't it? I want to say that it will be considered according to the nature of the work and/or the wish of people, but nowadays more and more activities turn to a kind of watches without much special pressure, and under the condition that thereafter one will rest exactly so many days as one has worked, this will be pretty good in increasing number of cases, because now, too, exist places where are given rosters even by 12 hours (and in my proposition they are less than 10), and then is rested for as much, and then again these duties, until come some days of rest. Some similar fifty-fifty dividing of the working week has existed earlier in Germany (and/or Russia, I have read it in some books), where the peasants (during the serfdom) have worked 3 days for their master and then 3 days for themselves, and on the seventh day have rested; only that now thew will work only 3 days and rest again so many days.
What regards the schools then there, as also by more strenuous activities (in the healthcare, transportation, police, etc.), will be reduced working time of, say, 2.5 new (exactly 6 old) hours in 4 days out of 6. But there is another significant moment on which I would like to turn your attention: by one dividing in halves will be made possible for the people to ... sleep where they work! This is so elementary, that I don't know why nobody till now has pondered about these things, but there are no special problems, even just now, to make so that to every bigger enterprise (factory, big shop, or service) to be available some rooms for overnight stay, as well also a decent parking lot, where one can come with one's caravan and sleep in it. There are necessary also some service rooms, which, anyway, must be present in the big enterprises, and then it will turn out that if the people will work by 4 new hours, then they will have whole 6 hours more for rest, more than the half of the day. Everyone who has tried to work something at home, and now more and more activities become such that to be possible to perform them from the home by Internet, is convinced that there are no problems to work even by 12 current hours, the half of the time, a day, without much tiredness (because, for example, if he gets up at 7 he can begin to work at 8, rest a bit twice by half an hour, and 1 hour for lunch, or 2 hours altogether, to work pure 12 hours, and to finish at 10 in the evening, after what in 23 to lie down and sleep whole 8 hours; and here I speak only about 10 old hours, what is, as we say, "to work and to sing".
By this situation the school students can quite easily be mainly on board, for 3 days out of 6, as also their parents (or at least one of their parents, because two parents in one place are now hardly to be met), or else to go to school or college or university only one day in the group of six days, for classroom courses, and the other time to study before their computers. As you see, the dividing in half is quite fitting thing. And this not only for the work, no, this will economize also time for transport, and it is not at all little nowadays — by averagely 1 hour there and 1 back (and in many cases, in the big megapolises, it is at least with 50% more), four unnecessary times in the current week, this gives 2*4=8 hours, or 1/3 of a day (and even to 1/2 and more in some cases) just thrown to the wind. Add to this also the economy of fuel, which in not only money, it is also ... clean air, less need of energy, so that the effect, in my view, will be enormous (and in spite of this, as far as I know, only in some police departments exist rest rooms for the staff, and this with 5 to 10 times less beds than the people working in one shift).
4. When to begin?
Well, we have missed the beginning of millennium, and it was the best moment. We can wait till the next century, but it is quite away from now, where my idea can be applied literally starting from tomorrow — surely, after some years of considering and preparation. But, having pondered a bit about the things, I came to the conclusion that this moment of transition, ... hmm, it isn't important at all, we can do it starting at what only year we want, from 22 of March (best of all, but even this is not obligatory), only ... backdated, of course! In other words, when will be decided that we will go to this calendar, are just to be recalculated all important dates after 22.Mar.2000 (of birth, marriages, etc.) by one pretty simple procedure (calculating first the consecutive number of the day from the beginning of the old year, subtracting from it the days before 22 Mar, if this is possible, and then the received number is divided by modulus 36, where the fractional part gives the new day of the month, and the integer part + 1 gives the new month; if there goes about days before 22 Mar then is added the exact number of days from 22 Mar last year till its end, and is proceeded in the same way as above, only that the year will be with 1 less). In this situation I would propose, say, the year 2020 as the nearest and suitable for this purpose, but dated back from the year 2000, as I said.
And the last moment: where, i.e. in what country, or continent? Well, most properly would be to do this transition all over the world at once, but it can freely be done also in one bigger country or union, commonwealth (only in a small country like Bulgaria this will look funny). After all, different calendars exist, they are used in parallel (like the degrees of Celsius and Fahrenheit for the temperature), so that this should not make any difficulty. Besides, there are no problems for 5 or 10 years to use in parallel both, the new and the old dates. There are no problems, except the desire of people, what, as the social practice shows, is reduced to exceedingly high inertness of the big groups of people, where the problem is not in the inventing of a new and better solution, but in the rejecting of the old (and worse) one. I, personally, remember that the introduction of the unified system of weights and measures, SI, on its time, was not a small problem for many countries (like, say, England, where people and vehicles still move on the wrong side of the street), but under a good organization of the things and conviction in the appropriateness of the change, this proposition is wholly realizable, as I said, from tomorrow.
October 2012
WHAT WE WANT TO TELL THE WORLD?
(About Bulgarian symbols and the spirit of Bulgarians)
What we want to tell with
our coat of arms?
Because there were no lions on our lands for thousands of years, i.e. already before the establishing of Bulgaria, and in remote geological epochs there might have been also dinosaurs but this isn't important. Usually as national symbol on the West, though also on the East, i.e. in Russia, is chosen some eagle — with two heads, to make it more interesting, or as twice all-seeing (or, as the children say: for you to ask and me not to tell you) — but this is not only mighty (resp., cruel) animal, it is also a bird which flies high, hence, stays above all the others. Well, the lion is mighty animal, but it is ... hmm, you know that this is a Hebrew symbol! And even today in some temples in Baalbek can be found stone frescoes with images of lions, but they are from the times of early Christianity and in such case inherited from the Jewish religion. There, surely, in ancient times were deified what only not animals (the Chinese dragon, for example, or Arabian ibis, or the bull, becoming later golden calf, and others), and also all possible combination of parts of humans or animals (the six-armed gods of Buddhism, the Greek centaurs, the Greek-Arabian harpies, and many other Arabian, Indian, and different divine beings), so that why not to choose for oneself also a lion, which is proud and strong animal before which one must simply bow down? Yeah, it is so, but this, that the lion is symbol of one not numerous eastern nation — the Hebrew one — is hardly accidentally, because he, the lion, is quite calm (if he is fed and nobody pulls him by the tail), and from the family of cats, right? One such charming little lion-cat can be symbol of weak people, but who extremely want to be strong — like a lion. And as far as we are not numerous nation — approximately one pеr mil of the population on Earth — so we eagerly want to wave our flag (or waggle with the tail, when someone stronger than us makes us angry), so that isn't it this, what we want to tell the world?
Because: proud animal, yes, but how much proud it is? What if it is unreasonably proud, ah? Because the unreasonable pride, for which the Russians have single word, "gordinya" (where the usual one is gordost), is one of the Christian sins, which is very subtle sin (if we use this now grown old variant of the error — "greshka" in Bulgarian, where the sin is greh /griah), exactly because the sin /error isn't explicitly antisocial at a first sight (even at a second one), isn't like to desire the bride of your neighbour, said as an example (what also can not be a sin but just a pleasure, if she wants the same, and her husband, respectively, lover, in addition to this does not disagree to change from time to time his sexual partner, so that at least on the background of diversity takes some rest from her). In relation with the unreasonable pride is good to remind the very fitting Russian proverb: "The narrower the forehead, the wider the self-esteem!". And there is simple explanation for this psychological phenomenon, namely, that one must motivate oneself somehow in the process of his activity, and this can be done in two ways: either through reasonable assessment of the situation, or via ... underestimating of all others and everything else. In other words: either realizing his insignificant position in the circulation of things in nature (what gives strength, not because his position is insignificant, but because knowledge and real estimation bring, by themselves, satisfaction and conviction), or refuting the right of others to live, as well as all reasonable arguments, except his personal (and unreasonable) desire.
In short: the smaller one nation is, the more prouder it feels, in which way, in accordance with the above-said, it only emphasizes its insignificance! And we emphasize it, so to say, in two ways, because it was not enough for us to have one lion (which sufficed to our revolutionaries Vasil Levski and Christo Botev in the time of our Renaissance, yet not to out present-day rulers), but we have heaped up whole three lions in our coat of arms — something like Christian Holy Trinity: lion-father (on the left, supposedly), lion-son (on the right), and a lion-spirit (in the middle), fenced in something like a shield, but it must be rather some bubble or pail, because a spirit cannot just stay free and by itself, he will dissipate and dissolve himself in everything, and in our case will not be seen on the emblem. Well, and on the top, of course, stays the crown, not necessarily royal, because our tsar-king was at that time in Madrid, but, still, some heavy state's crown. So that, it was clear that we (being small state, etc.) were bound to be very proud and plant a lion on our state emblem, that one lion is too little for us now, but two things (flowers, for example) are put only for the dead, so that we come to the number three, and four and more lions would have caused international precedent, and in that case would have been wrongly. Well, that is how the great Bulgarian (read also Balkan) decisions are born.
By the way, about the Bulgarians,
where this name, obviously, splits in bulg-, + -ari, only that -ar was popular suffix for building of plural in ... Tartar language (for example: aga — agalar, what means master, boss; this word exists in Turkish, and, hence, is known in Bulgaria, and in Greek agape means beloved). But traces from that -ar exist in other languages, like German, for example, where -er is often used exactly for making of plural (Kind — Kinder, Wort — Wörter, etc.), and in Netherlandish, where the word "hill" is holm (how exactly it is in Bulgarian and Russian), and its plural was holmar (and you must not doubt about the meaning of the holm because they have there one very central "holm", which has grown to a town — Stockholm). And the mentioning here of Tartar language is nor occasional because the thesis about out Tartar origin is more and more making its way in scientific circles. Well, this has not to be understood in the sense that we are heirs (of the precursors) of Genghis Khan, but we (i.e. the old or proto- Bulgarians) have proceeded somewhere from the Pamir and Altai region, around the Himalayas and Hindu Kush, have picked up something by the Kirghizs, Bolhars, Tartars, Mongols, Afghans, and others, and even — what sounds unbelievable — the phrase "I love you", which in Bulgarian is "obicham te" (and is not Slavonic for in Russia it is entirely different) in Mongolian was "bich-ham-te"!
And now let us return to the "bulg"-root, what must be pronounced not exactly so but with that vowel like in the English "bird" (let us mark it here as "å"), and this vowel is liked much by us (though not by Russians, or Ukrainians, etc., note this), but also on the East (Turkish, Arabic, etc.), and on the West (like in English, though also in German endings like Lehrer, what is read as 'lehrå'), and there it transforms to Latin "u" (what in Slavonic alphabet is written with the same letter like your "y"), and it, for its part, has come from Greek upsilon (υ), which sound is very "mysterious" and often is used there to modify the preceding letter, where they even don't have our (and Western) "u" but write it with omicron + upsilon (ου), calling us now "vulgaros" (and in the old Greek "bulgaros", but if we were at those times). This, as we call it "big er", which, though existing in Russian alphabet, is not at all read in this way (it is used as you use the apostrophe in the words; although they have their "mysterious" sound "eri" which is modification of this "å" to "i"), but in Turkish, using the Latin alphabet, it is usually written with "i". So that what means then this bålg- /bulg- (i.e. what is hidden behind it)?
Well, probably the etymologists also do not have single view on the question, but looking as imitation this is some banging on a drum, rattling, or swelling /inflating, where we can cite some similarly sounding Bulgarian words, like: bulgur (groats, peeled wheat), and bulamach (trash, tasteless concoction), which are or Turkish origin, then Russian balagur (clown, fair screamer), or balagan (fair, noise), then German der or die Buhle (what now is given as beloved, but in olden times was used for imitation of copulation, hitting of a kind; to hit in Bulgarian, what is Eastern, is chukam, and this in jargon use is exactly your f#cking), and others. But here is also the ... ball, where bol- is a world root because the Russians say bolshoy (big), the Turks bol (much), the ball is German der Ball, but this is also the ball as dancing (where people rotate like balls), also our Balkan mountains (in the middle of Bulgaria, and from here giving the name of the whole peninsula, as something swollen or at least hard and straight like baton or baguette), then the French balcon-balcony, too, or German die Burg (castle), because at least for the West r-l often mutually mutate. On the other hand, the bag or inflated bubble does not disappear, because there is the Latin volva /vulva which has given all vulgar things, as something bred in abundance, what is exactly the Greek sounding of the name of Bulgarians. So that, like we this or not, but we are some fast breeding and vulgar tribe, or Balkan inhabitants, or ... ha, ha, empty bubbles or mere water (aqua nuda in Latin, by the way)! It is not that we don't know what we resemble, but we were speaking here about what we want to tell the world, right? Well, nothing good we are telling it, alas.
Or then let us take
our national flag.
This, that it is tricolour is clear, but what mean this colours, because we like, doesn't we, that everything ours has, an even deep, meaning. Well, the white colour is pure and good, the green one this is the fresh newly grown grass (or that maybe we are ... "meadows unmowed", ah?), and the red — well, that's the point, that this colour must symbolize the shed blood in our battles for freedom, but in no case must have something in common with the communism and the fight against fascism, because we have renounced the communism, have directly scratched it out of our history, have torn that defamatory page and thrown it away. This surely is so, but here we, in author's opinion, were not enough consecutive in the total negation, have not acted entirely in the spirit of our UDF (Union of Democratic Forces). We should have at all taken away this red band from our flag and basta! But then, see, we have not done this for in that case we would have had "ducolor", what is simplification of our symbols and a kind of decadence, but also, having taken away the white colour, too, because it has another meaning, we would have remained with only the colour of meadow; or else, if we take away the "meadow", will remain only the white colour of mute surrender, what, of course, is true — our people have already grasped this — but it, somehow, is not suitable to declare in the open. And if they have asked the author in advance then he would have told them that it was necessary first to take away the green colour, together with the red one, and then, seeing us before one entirely white flag, we would have guessed that some other colours must be added.
And what colours, would you ask? Well, certainly it is necessary to have at least one blue band, because this is the colour of the sky and the sea and the blue blood (and the UDF, of course, but let us not make difference between blue and gray — the colour of the "tsarist" party —, because from aesthetical, as also from political, point of view they stay in a good harmony), also the colour of the freedom, the democracy, united Europe, and so on, or, as it was sung earlier in one popular song: everything nice on this world is blue, even your precious eyes. And now, proceeding from the blue colour, it is more than obvious that the red one should not be present on our banner, for it may happen that we will again come near to the Russians, and this, God forbid, must never be done! Well, and what colours remain then? Of course green and yellow, there are no others. And exactly one light yellow, some such, a but like the colour of a young duck, but not to come close to the toilet colour khaki, for then the world may decide to think that we have pooped our pants — I beg your pardon. Besides, the yellow and green these are colours-twins, they are such also in phonetical aspect, because in Russian they say zholtiy for yellow, but this is the colour of the zoloto-gold (not "zholoto"), and the green one is zolotoy, and similar is the case in Polish, Bulgarian, and in other Slavonic languages. So that one good proposition for our national tricolour is: blue, green, yellow.
But we can approach the question in another way, so that not only to stress on the democratic-aristocratic blue colour, but also to exceed the limitations of the tricolour. The idea is simple (as everything told by genius) and it is the following: one blue band above (symbolizing the sky), another blue band below (this time for the sea), and in the middle on the same width, but this time in vertical direction, to place one tricolour in yellow tinge beginning from left to right with light yellow (to the stick of the banner), then orange, and at the end bright red, which this time will symbolize not the shed blood but the rising (democratic) Sun, which gradually will warm us all. This will be, on one hand, tricolour, on the other tetra-colour, and even penta-colour, and nobody will have such banner, where our tricolour is widely used in the world (with some permutations of the bands). And the sky-sea introduces another, more profound, nuance, because ... well, because the world is a sea, i.e. the world is behind the seas and oceans, what is not only geographically right (2/3 of Earth's surface is occupied by seas), and not only etymologically correct (in Russian the world "mir" means both, peace, as in other Slavonic languages, and also our world, and the connecting idea between these notions is hidden in our more-sea or in the murmuring Latin mare-sea, by reason of ... well, the cause here is the name Vladimir, which in Russian means "ruler of the world" but in Polish is Valdemar, where the mare is evident), and in addition to this the idea is entirely in the spirit of ..., ah, of NATO (what is abbreviation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but nato as verb in the Latin means swim, swim across, so that everything is clear)!
Anyway, when we have begun,
to make propositions
then let us return to our coat of arms, because the lions, as we have discussed this, are not our national element, and let us try to invent something unique and suitable for one, as we eagerly wish this, "Balkan Switzerland", i.e. for a peaceful Balkan country with nice nature. If this has to be some "beast" then why mandatory predator and not something humble and peaceful? The first proposition: ... St. Georgian lamb, which will be white on a green background (to remind us that this is early spring or the day of St. George) and with red boots and horns — bleats itself quietly but when grows can also poke with the horns, and in the same time it is a tasty "chow", because the lamb is positively related with the ... hmm, with the fire! But the fire (ogan in Slavonic, though for you in the Latin form of ignition) comes already from the Sanskrit, where Agni (=Wahni) was the god of fire (and lamb in Bulgarian is agne, or iagne in old Slavonic, or iagnionok in Russian), so that now the fire also enters in our symbolic, and then the red colour will be that of the fire, and as to the question that this colour is good (no matter what the UDF thinks about) there is no necessity to convince ourselves, for the reason that in Bulgarian nice, beautiful is krasiv, or krasiviy in Russian (in addition to the typically Bulgarian hubav, what might not be exactly Tartar word, but it existed also by the Germans — hübsch), and which, obviously (for the Russians), comes from the red colour which for them is krasniy; and then: does it exist in the world such woman who does not want to paint her lips red in order to become "krasnaja krasavitza" (nice beauty)? And the relation of the ogan-fire with the agne-lamb is very rich on ideas, because this, being Sanskrit root, exists also on the West, in view of the mentioned English ignition which is Latin ignis (a fire) or igneus (fiery); and the agne /iagnionok is agnus (a. dei) in Latin, and the point here is about the very process of giving birth of new lambs, of something new, i.e. this is the idea of the ... bird phoenix, which rebirths itself in the fire! In other words, this is the incessant renovation via burning of the old. This idea is good and suitable also for the known "anti"-political power (i.e. the same UDF, which has issued for some years the newspaper just "Anti").
Another proposition: a nice industrious ... ant, standing on its hind legs like a real centaur! Or, for those who like multiplicity of equal images — three ants with jointed forelegs and placed like in Mercedes emblem; or (for the communist-socialists): five ants connected in this way and forming only the rays of their star; or also (a new figure): six ants, placed along the sides of regular hexagon, plus one more in the center, raised "centaur-like" and looking to the right (surely in no case to the left!) with wings and crown (when this is necessary).
But who has said that on such emblems can be shown only animals? Some countries picture there trees, other leaves of them, third flowers, et cetera, or even just a circle in the middle — the important thing is to have something unique, right? Well, a red rose is a very nice and unique for us symbol, and in regard to the colours it ties good with our present tricolour, but by known political reasons it and the socialism, as well as the whole Bulgaria, have become a causa perduta (a lost cause). So that let us think out something else, and here is a draft for an unique coat of arms: two crossed like the letter "X" ... skewers, with threaded on them pieces of meat, mingled with pieces of pepper and onion — all this can be in one colour, or meat may be red (preferably also beef, because kravi, exactly like our kravi-caws, in Sanskrit meant meat), onion can be white, and the peppers (supposedly hot, though this can not be seen) can be green. But it might be simpler than this — just one fork with impaled on it kebapche (resp. sausage) lightly curved at both ends! Can be added also drops of fat, but can be combined the skewers with the fork with this kebapche in the middle. Then our message to the world will be ultimately clear — come to us to have a good eating (not forgetting to leave your money by us, for we are in a big need of good currency).
But we have, or at least have had, also other symbols. It goes now about
the five-rayed star.
By God, it is not clear what has made us to take it down from the turret of our former Party House, which could have quietly be again center of all parties (or at least of those included in the Parliament), and which is now part of our Peoples Assembly (our Parliament), at least as ownership. Well, the very building is part of the architectural center of Sofia and nobody has thought to destroy it (like the Mausoleum, e.g., but we have not denied ourselves the "pleasure" to burn it a little — maybe with the idea of the Reichstag in the heads, coming, by the way, at least from Ancient Greece, because: how better for somebody to become "famous" unless to put to fire some temple or symbol, or to defile it in some other way — say, using paint or indecent inscriptions?), but the five-rayed star we have simply disconnected and heaved with helicopter. Yeah, but why? If the red colour was what has worried us the simplest thing was to repaint it blue. Or yellow, for such is, usually, the colour of the stars, or also make it neon-brilliant. It might have been made also with different colours for the rays — for example, from bottom left and clockwise might have alternated: red, yellow, green (on the top), blue, violet; this, for one thing, would have been analogue of the rainbow, and, for another thing, the red colours would have been below, and it would have been also more motley. If we were bothered that this was symbol of another state, then there was not more such state, for the Russians have taken their own star earlier, and on their flag was the sickle and hammer, not the five-rayed star.
Well, probably we were not glad because of its five rays, but then why have we not first looked around to see how the things are in the world, in order to convince ourselves of what kind are the stars there? The Americans have not one but whole fifty stars on their banner, yet they are not at all troubled by this and even are very proud with their flag. There are also enough stars on the flag of United Europe, and they will become even more. And who does not believe that the stars have five rays then let him ask in the American Embassy, or let him (or her, surely) take one ten of "lions" (because our money unit is also called "lion", lev) and let him go to change them to five euro, and then sit and quietly look at them with magnifying glass. There is also the Pentagon, and it is, in fact, five-rayed star with cut out rays, i.e. exactly pentagonal figure or pentagram, and this symbol, used for keeping of evil powers away, comes from deep antiquity, goes via Ancient Greece and Rome, and is known on the whole West.. If you, occasionally, have not pondered why this is so, then can be reminded to you how many fingers and toes have people on their extremities, what is true for a big amount of animals (if some of them have not become rudimentary), and also about the petals of most of the flowers. It even our system of counting would have been with base five (and not ten), if this would have not increased too much the number of digits, and if people have not had two hands-stars. And this is symbol of power because the human hand (eventually fist, ah?) is symbol of human strength and might, but these are truisms. And also how many rays is thinkable for a star to have? One, two, and three is impossible, four (square or rhomb) is much rough and has another semantic content, then comes five, the six is Hebrew number (meant as star), and so we come to seven, what is much more difficult to picture than with five rays, and about a bigger number there is no sense to speak, these can be only childish scrawls. So that the five-rayed star is such good symbol that there is just nowhere better! A-ah, if we have not liked that there was only one such star with five rays, then we could have placed on the notorious House a heap of stars more along the border of the roof, or at least two more smaller stars on the sides, but we have taken everything away. But then, we have taken it away exactly for that reason — that it was silly to do so!?
If only we, having taken it away, have thought a bit how to finish the turret of the building — either with some horse-tail from the times of our Khan Asparuch, or some weathercock to show us whereto the wind blows (because that is, isn't it, what we are doing all the time, turn ourselves according to where from and where to the wind blows), or some helix or other composition symbolizing democracy — two like the letter "V" splayed fingers, for example, would have been quite suitable to the corner position of the building (they, hmm, two bent fingers, with another one stuck between them, would have also been very suitable — this time stressing on our thorny path to prosperity, but exactly in the center of Sofia such sign, thinks the author, wouldn't have been much fitting). But even a dozen of years after this euphoric inebriation of freedom (of ... pornography, criminality, corruption, possibility to turn off your stream heating in winter, or even to buy bread and cheese, or not to buy, for there is not with what to buy, or to pay for you teeth and medical treatment, or spend hard earned money for the education of your children, and so on), so even after the coming of witty called by the people freedomvolity (I am trying to make new word as variation of freedom to unneeded frivolity, because in Bulgarian this is called slobodiya, where the freedom is svoboda), or anti-people's democracy (because if it has not existed earlier, and does also now not happen somewhere in the world, the communists would not have coined the term "people's democracy", what isn't at all Russian invention, as long as even in English is written "People's Republic", and China, for example, does not bow either to the Russians, nor to the Americans), so, well, even now on the top of this turret flutters only one banner and can be seen extremely clear that in the architectural composition something is missing. Well, maybe this is exactly what we want to tell the world — that we also have something missing (in our heads) and just like crippled things?
Or let us take also our
Mausoleum.
Well, we have taken away the "mummy" — the desecration of deceased in every possible way is even nowadays favorite people's "divertissement", especially in the Near East, so that, in what are we as population better than the people on those places? — but more than five years the Mausoleum stayed scratched and covered with graffiti and used for nothing. And it could have been made there some discotheque, for example (say, "By Bai Gosho"), or then one good (and expensive) ... WC, which could have very well paid back the money spent for it, and each UDF supporter would have "died" with pleasure to take out there his "special device" and heave it; and even UDF supporteresses would have been delighted to take down their slips and other undergarment, am I right? In general, if the best way to avoid temptation is to yield to it (for what reason the media throw up a heap of obviously indecent, but lucrative, things) then this would have been good decision, at least from an aesthetic standpoint (and this, that there are many people who find pleasure to sneer at the fallen — well, that's their own problem, if they realize it, of course). But nothing of the kind have been done, and only when our "King" has emerged, only then we have cleaned up a bit before his windows (but he, the "poor guy", does not sleep there because ... well, the parquet creaked much to him and in this way distracted him of thoughts about national prosperity).
Similarly look out the things also in regard of
the communists and their greetings,
for it is true that the communists have annoyed us, mainly, with their extreme views at various questions, but is true also that we have done everything else, though not have rejected the extremities as such! We, it may be said so, would have transferred the movement on the streets from the right side to the left one, if around almost the entire world would have not been accepted this, what was accepted also by the socialism called communism. We have abolished the death penalty, too, and the taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and other excise goods, and the unpaid (in the moment of need) medical care, and whatnot, and now, little by little, return to the good old and proven) no matter that communist) view on many questions. But what is to be done, the people have always oscillated (and will oscillate) from the one extremity to the other, for the simple reason that the "golden" middle point is a notion which is very hard to be reached, and how one is to search for the middle when the only way to make career, or simply manifest oneself and show one's identity, is to find some (preferably new, or at least well forgotten) extremity?
But well, will say someone, where have been our political and other leaders, that they have not told us where is this middle point, and have left us instead to stray away like blind and knock with a stick, till we knock on some wall, sidewalk, or a tree (or do not hit hard our "mugs")? Ah, well, it is true that our politicians also oscillated, but it can't be said that we have not have some left-wing fractions (beginning with ASO, Alternative Socialist Alliance), or social-democrats, but in condition of democracy, i.e. when in general the citizens must choose their "herdsmen" (or "pastors"), we have simply not chosen whoever of the moderate in the Parliament (or the "Talking shop", if we translate this Italian word in Tartar, sorry, in Bulgarian — and here in English). So that, not that our politicians are very good, but — how one has asked so was answered to him, or else: according with the demos goes the -cracy!
The communists, definitely, have gone to extremities, and for that reason people on the West don't like them, but ... well, a la guerre, comme a la guerre, and they have come to power exactly in conditions of war, so that a bit of rudeness, mildly said, was a kind of necessity. While our democracy has come in absolutely peaceful and quiet conditions and by us, thanks God, were no civil disturbances, but there were such in "Serboslavia", Russia, and in other places. Well, many ethnical Turks have first gone to Turkey and then returned in Bulgaria, but this were mainly because they (as also we) know their people and know how in Turkey usually proceed with different minorities, including Bulgarians, Greeks, Armenians, and other Christians, and have decided that we will behave like them (especially on the background of our five centuries Ottoman rule). Yeah, but we have not done like them and then they have returned, in broad lines, to us (at the expense of what later occurred selective emigration on intellectual and elitist principle, but this, as is said, is "from another opera").
Anyway, the author does not sing dithyrambs to the communists, but for them has existed extenuating the guilt idea of social justice, what idea now we don't have (but in the broad world, say in: Germany, France, England, and also in the wealthy United States, it exists, though they do not call it socialism). At the same time by our democracy, hmm, but it is a reality since 1991 (well, we have needed some time to abandon the habit to ... poke out the eyes of candidates on the posters, or to paint something to their mouths — sorry, sorry —, but we were fast bored by this and have unlearned it), and if so, then by it can't be spoken about ideas /ideals, because in the capitalism (or the postindustrial society, if that's how you like it better) there is not at all any idea of justice, it is rude and brutal like ... well, like the very life!
Our democracy skids NOT because it is bad democracy — there, surely, can always be wished something better and if this is not so to say that this is not democracy, but the truth is that this IS democracy, and if we don't like it then we behave so naive like when one little child, being spanked on the ... (well, you know where), begins to weep and cry: "Ah, you are not my mother!", but she is, still, his or her mother, no matter that she is bad in this case. So that our democracy is bad not because it isn't such, but exactly because it is such, as also for some other, mainly economic, reasons, but here we again switched to another opera. The bitter truth is that, however bad the communist not were (i.e. used only to swing the "whip"), they, still, if we have left them to continue to pull the carriage (well, after their dethronement and pulling down from the top in 1991-2, for the reason that, if you really like somebody and are worried about him or her or it — be it a girl, or party, or football team, etc. —, then you have to turn your back to him etc. for some time, and if he etc. is a positive phenomenon then all this will be only for his etc. good, but if he etc. isn't such — well, then it serves him etc. right), so that if we have left them to continue to reform themselves internally and again take the ruling, then they, surely, wouldn't have put "the cart before the horse" (as UDF has done, and later on we were forced to call the King, who isn't exactly our King, to pull us out of the mud, but he, too, meets with many difficulties, as you see).
But the communism wasn't isolated phenomenon only for our country, it has concerned (and still concerns) many countries, and some of them have coped easily with it (i.e. not more difficult than with the next economic crisis of the next period in development of capitalist state), where we still can not cope with it, and will master the situation only (well, not exactly as our folks say, when "our pattens give blossoms", but only) after one-two generations (of 25 years or so) after the changing of our "Bai Tosho". This is so, because one generation — it can now be seen that it will happen so — is necessary for to reach the average living standard of 1988 (for to be sure that this year has not fallen under the influence of the chaos of transition to democracy but only under the crisis of socialism — because it also has shown that can undergo crises), and one more generation we will need to reach the level, to which we would have come after two generations, if we have continued to go on the path of social-communism (or communal-socialism — who knows what is better?), but this would not have been the same socialism /communism, which was in the 90ies, in the same way as it was not the same like, say, in the 70ies, or the 50ies years, because, however centralized clumsy it was, it, still, evolved (and to the better).
Only that the curious thing now is that from all former socialist countries we have won more than the others from the communism, and from the Socialist Bloc (and we liked to use the strange word "camp" for this union of countries), for the simple reason that ... well, just because we were (and still are such, and who knows when we will cease to be) poor and left-behind Balkan (well, not Asian, like Russia, but it is not poor) country, and, in the same way as in a team of horses wins more the weaker horse (for the carriage pull the stronger horses), in the same way we also have felt better than all! Now, there were other poor countries, but they were not Slavs — Romania, for example, who are Romans, although this is the same as Gypsy, but when we turn to be Tartars ("Tatari" in Bulgarian, and the same "tatari" in Romanian means ... ha, ha, this means to curse, i.e. to behave like Tartar, and similar meaning has also the Russian word "AraP", or also erepenitsya what is to persist strongly, but maybe like an Arab), so there is no need to take offense on national themes. There were other Slavs (Czech Republic, Poland), but they were not so weak as us (for they are not on the Balkans). So that we have gained more than all the others from the "Camp" and from the "brothers" and exactly for this reason we were the first who categorically rejected the communism. If one asks us, why, than we will meet with big difficulties to answer this.
And there is something more, purely terminological or etymological — the standard communist greeting. If you have not given a thought to this moment then it is interesting to make one worldwide parallel. The Russian "tovarishch" means, in fact ... ah, that's the point! Because it must mean a stevedore, heaver, for the reason that it is derivative from the word "tovar" which means load, burden. And surely to say to somebody: "Hello, porter (or heaver, factotum), what are you doing? They load you and you heave, ah? And how is the lady porter? And the tiny porters? They load them, too, ah? Well, nothing to do, that's how they were born." — well, this is not only funny, but also a bit perverse, don't you find so? But do not think that the Russians are inimitably perverse people because (let us remind you that) the communism has not originated in Russia but in the "navel" of Europe, and the literal translation of Western camerad (in Spanish, resp. camerade in French, and Kamerad in German) is prisoner, convict, or person with whom you are together, but not in an usual room, in some small camera like the prison one, i.e. these are all "labour slaves".
At the same time ... well, that's the point, that Bulgarian "drugar", or Serbian "druzhe", are just synonyms of the friend (not in this English variant) or the another one — this is German ander (another), which is also old Greek "anthropos" (this animal who "tropaet"-trots on the "dromos"-path), and to have friends and buddies (where this word in its turn must come from the body) is the best thing in the world (if they only are real friends). The root of the drugar comes from wide away in the time, because in the Sanskrit, according to the Buddhist mythology, has existed some Durga, who (she) was the wife of god Shiva (and she was known with this, that she has had many faces, which she alternatively changed), and if a wife is not the best friend (i.e. she must be such), be of a man, be of a god, then who else will be? This is also the idea that stays behind Russian "dorogoy", what is the same as your English "dear". Something similar to this relation of our communist greeting with some dear and nice thing can be found only by the Germans, where, together with their "comcamerist", existed also the word Genosse with this meaning, where the root of the latter is hidden in the ... gene, i.e. this is a man with good genes (dieser Genosse nesiot-carries good genes!), one with whom you can feel only delighted (geniessen, genoss, genossen), to talk etc. (this idea is similar with the Latin casta — a good present from the gods, what has to be clear in the English because of the meaning of your "casting" of roles). So that it again turns out that we, the Bulgarians, have proven to be the most, sorry, stupid (or, maybe, to say "half-witted" will be less insulting?)!
And so on, where can be continued with analysis of our failures on the democratic arena (where we have tried hard to discredit this form of social government, which as an idea, but also from a psychological standpoint, is well-thought and works in many countries, though not by us), but here we have spoken about what we want to suggest to the world about us. Well, maybe the known in totalitarian times jocular slogan: "silly, but ours"! To succeed so admirably to discredit good ideas, so to entangle all the fibers, that even the very God, as is said, not to be in position to help us, to catch us on such, entirely naked, hook (that, for example, when the democracy comes to us we will at once begin to live like in the United States, yeah, but in the US the standard of life is high not because of the democracy but in spite of it, for they have been also slave-owning country, and this at least several centuries after the slavery was abolished all around the left world; well, now we, really, live like in the United States, but like in those States of before a whole century, or at least half of it, and this in, say, Chicago), and on and on — well, for this, certainly, big efforts are necessary (although not in the right direction).
Whether for this our Tartar vein is to be blamed, or this is common Balkan syndrome, we will not go in details here, but the facts are well to be seen and the world knows us already. As there goes one Christian saying that: when God wants to punish somebody He first takes away his reason — so has happened also with us. Well, surely, this "birdy" which has "sucked our brains" was obviously with bright blue feathering (i.e. UFD), but then why have we yielded to it and have not said: "Disappear, foul thing!" remains again an open question. And in general, we are good people, but if somebody leaves us in small portions in the civilized world, in order to look around there a bit, and having seen what's what (or, as we say, "where the crabs are wintering"), i.e. what is the official propaganda of those in power, as also what the common people think, then we will cope easy with the things; but just staying in Bulgaria, no matter how many specialist from the West will come to teach us, we will never behave properly, for the simple reason that we are ... well, like concentrated sulfuric acid: it can be diluted, but slowly dripping same acid into the water, not vice versa! And it is clear that the young ones have oriented themselves there and are "diluting" themselves with the West as much as they want. But well, we will put up with the situation, because in this way we at least better the Western people with fresh genetic material (for, if it was not so, nobody would have occupied himself with us), so that we will again make some contribution to the world civilization (and population).
Written by Chris Myrski in anno domini (and in the middle of it) 2003th
ABOUT BULGARIAN BARBARITY
(minuses, yet also pluses) — from "Social Essays"
| |
Abstract:
This is a thorough, methodical, etymological, philosophical, yet also popular and funny essay or study about especially Bulgarian barbarity, with many examples and comparisons between us and the other countries. It is long, I warn you, but it is so untraditional, that I think that is worth the efforts to read it; this is very sharp critique of barbarity, but at the same time also tribute to it, because who can predict the intentions of God, even I can't, so that when the Bulgarians exist they have to be created with some purpose. It is not forgotten also the funny traditional poetical Appendix after the end.
| |
CONTENTS (Of This Essay)
0. Introduction and definition
1. Historical proofs and climatic excuses
2. Democratic propagation of barbarity
3. Comparisons with other countries
4. Civilized inhumanity
5. Civilized barbarity
6. Conclusive explanations
APPENDIX: Tribute To … Barbarity
0. Introduction and definition
To tell you the truth, I have thought about writing of this essay for about 5 years or so, but have never managed to come to it because there were all the time some more important things to do first, and this idea was shifted to the back of the stack. I have done this because for me, as also, I suppose, for every intelligent Bulgarian — not that there are many such persons, but probably a pair of thousands could have been gathered together by some thorough search — is, or must be, obvious that we are, unquestionably, barbarians, yet, not only that, if you could excuse me now, the own ... excrements do not smell, but there are also some unbelievable pluses of this situation, and some barbarians, i.e. we, the Bulgarians at least, are in several aspects preferable before some of the most civilized countries! Yeah, really, neither the Devil (for He is Deo evil, after all, He must be capitalized) is so black as He is pictured, nor (I'll tell you, but I suppose that everyone in his heart suspects this) the very God is so good like we would have wished Him to be.
So that the things are, for one thing, obvious, but, for another thing, misunderstood, and, for one more thing, must not be kept hidden in the heads of some gone ahead of their time thinkers, they must be made known to the people (all around the world). Because of this I am doing this now, yet I must confess that I have long ago forgotten my initial ideas, or some of them have turned to be difficult to be done, but it is better to produce one version of my ideas than no one at all. Still, these are only excuses, and if you all take for granted that with the years I continue to become more and more intelligent — though this is hardly possible, ha, ha, so that look at these my words like at a figure of speech —, then this current version will be in no case worse than the initially considered by me; having in mind also that there are no previous versions preserved you can as well take this my work (too) as second to none, right?
Now let me continue with my unique thoughts, let me define what I will understand here under barbarity, because there are different views at the matters. For one thing, chiefly etymological, one can say that the barbarians are people who do not speak our language, or can say just blah-blah or 'byra-byra", where the latter is in Bulgarian and the letter "y" here (when in single quotes) has to be read like in English "girl" (hence written here as 'gyl' or rather 'gyhl', or then 'gyrl' if we were in the times of Shakespeare). ( Yet do not get distracted by this special i-bulgaro letter, which I use already in many materials; the basic paper about writhing of all words is my "Myrski's English Transliteration", and I introduce a morsel of it here because it is often necessary. ) With what I want to say that this is some sign of uttering of incomprehensible words, what can be confirmed by the relation of barbarian with the ... barber in many Western languages (I have explained nearly everything from etymological standpoint in my enormous "Urrh, cum commentis"), meaning that the words of a barbarian are muffled by his beard (probably because he has not yet learned to shave himself). The same is the idea or Slavonic (Russian /Bulgarian) 'jazyichnik /ezichnik' as barbarian, where 'jazyik /ezik' is a tongue; similar in a way to this is German idea that the barbarians live in deserted places, in the fields, not yet in towns, because for them the necessary word is Heide ('hajde', and "j" here is like in "May"), what means also some wild grass, and from where comes your heathen as the same wild man. Yeah, but this is not what I have in mind here; I am telling you this because I want to show you that I have given thoughts to this long time ago, for the reason that, especially with the coming of our democracy, the first thing that we showed to the world was exactly our barbarity.
And what I mean then under barbarian, ah? Well, in order to show you that I am really very clever, enlightened (and, hence, ready to leave this world, right?), I will say that I understand, roughly, this what ... all people on the West (i.e. in Western Europe, and my uniqueness consist in this that I take the commonly accepted beliefs as right, don't invent some unreal things) understand, that we are unbelievers, or heathens, or ghiaurs according to the Turks (they write it now as gavur, where this 'gjau', come to think of old roots, has to be some cry with which one ... drives animals, surely), believing in nothing, in what people living in civilized countries believe! Only that this is too fuzzy definition, one can not go to all people of Western Europe and ask them what they think about this or that, neither ask someone arbitrarily chosen each time, and this will always be questionable. And because the religions are, after all, different, and the point is not exactly in this but in the behaviour of such people, and there can be also atheists who are not at all barbarians (at least I insist on this), I have long ago, before about a quarter of a century (nearly in the first pair of years of my appearing as writer), come to one working definition of any religion, and from here the barbarians can be defined as people who are not like the other believers (in this sense)!
So what is this working definition of religion (which for me proved to be so simple and universal, that I now can't think of any other better than it)? Ah, it is that the religion is a system of beliefs invented with the purpose to unite the people in the space and in the time! Because that is how it is, the religions have to make all people to act as one single, where each one can lean on the others, in order to find some prop or support in case of need — what the very word religion tells us, for it surely comes from the verb to rely (on)! And about the uniting: in the space means with the people around us, our near or not really neighbours, and in the time is between the generations, honouring our forefathers (and foremothers, too). If you scratch a bit your head you will see that this is what each religion teaches us, to unite, because this world is quite severe to people with unique minds (like me) or unique behaviour (like my brethren Bulgarians), and then there can be two ways for uniting: with people near to you (in territorial, or linguistical, or national, etc. aspects), or with foreign (in whatever aspect) people. But at the uniting with foreign people has never been looked at with understanding because this usually supposed some master - slave relations, so that it remains the near to the common sense uniting with the neighbours and the generations. Looked in this way it turns out that the religions teach us something quite useful and logical in the general case, yet in different ways for each of them; as well it can be seen that this my definition of religion is pretty universal and may include also the atheists and various other systems of beliefs (and I myself have begun my literary activity with one atheistic religion, and later have added a pair of others, also under another pen-name).
OK, the uniting and the religions are very nice things, yet ... at least not always and not for everybody or in everything, because there is also the selection, the wish to differ with something, so that there are not only contras against the barbarity but also some pros, to what I will come to the end of the material, but let me squeeze here one funny example of "barbarity", the ... family of one world-known opera singer, Nicolai (in fact 'Nikolaj') Ghiaurov! This surely is not a traditional example, but is shows that some "ghiaurs" can be really great, and it must be unquestionable that his forefathers were named so for some reason, it can't be otherwise, and this is not usual family, neither is considered as something flattering, so that you better be quiet and read till the end what I will produce here for you (and me). And if I, in order to clear the faces of my compatriots, will first cover them with mud — well, this is not a new method of healing, all women usually first smear their faces, and then they look better, don't they? Or at least I will hope to do exactly this.
Now about the plan of the essay. First I will give some (well known) examples that we, the Bulgarians, are really barbarians, according to my definition of disunity and maintaining of bad relations exactly with our neighbours, adding also some excuses and explaining why and where the barbarity arises. Then I will come to our newest history, the democratic period after 1990 where we practically trumpeted to the world that we are the best and only barbarians at least in Europe, showing bunch of unnecessary examples of anti-people's behaviour on the lowest and highest level in the state. Then I will make several comparisons with some other ex-communist or not countries, in order to accentuate our unique barbarity in the most civilizes part of the world. After this I will change the leitmotif and show you that many civilized and well organized countries can nevertheless give examples of inhumanity and not civil behaviour, which can be much more harmful to the others than our "simple" barbarity. Thereafter I will stress on Bulgarian quite civilized barbarity, which harms nobody but us. After what will come some conclusive explanations. And as addition to the essay will be included the traditional poetical Appendix, worth by itself alone to be read, I suppose. So this is how it will be, and if you are inclined to some profound and philosophical and funny, and original etc. look at the given topic you can continue to read further, or else exit from the material. The choice is yours.
1. Historical proofs and climatic excuses
As I said, we are barbarians because, according to the widely spread beliefs of many European nations, we are disorganized tribe where each one cares only for him- or her- self, does not honour the predecessors, neither the other people of the own nation, what with less words can be said that we are unbelievers. And here are some historical examples about this in the relatively new history. There was one Leipzig trial in the winter of 1933 against one Georgi Dimitrov who was chosen as suitable victim for putting of their Reichstag (Government building, Parliament) to fire, a fabricated law trial like many similar (say, like a bunch of trials in Russia during the Stalinism, or like some trials in USA for espionage). Such things happened and happen also today, but the point is that he looked a suitable contemptuous figure in the eyes of the populace, the people there believed that when it goes about some Bulgarian then everything is clear, everything can be taken for possible, because we are just monsters — like the communists, or fascists, etc., or like the witches, who were hunted despite that there was not a proper definition of what is this a witch and is this or not possible at all.
Then there was one later case with some Antonov who must this time have intended to shoot the very Pope, because he is from enough barbaric country; there were no reasons at all, neither real proofs, but he was kept for some years in prison and nobody, neither the common people, nor the high ranking figures, said, hey, people, you must be crazy, you try to think first! Or then somewhere in 1998 in Libya happened (still not known how exactly) that several hundred Libyan children were infected with HIV virus in one hospital, and now, see, there were Bulgarian nurses working there, let us say that they have done this on purpose. It is unimaginable why they should have done this deliberately, probably for some pocket money, but when it goes about Bulgarians then this is possible, and in this was convinced the entire Libyan population (they have performed some voting), the Government, the law Court, they were prosecuted according to the laws (well, there was some little torture applied to them, but for such monsters this is nothing, of course). That is it, people believe that we are barbarians, and we give them reasons, from time to time about this; they believe without proofs, but we are barbarians nevertheless, what we prove in other ways (I will dig here for some time more)! Peculiar moments, really.
Now see, we show signs of barbarity in many cases, and because of this people begin a priori to think that we are always barbarians, according to their understanding of monstrosity, what we are not, we are just nice unhappy barbarians, what is a different thing, and because of this I am writing this material. Yet we are barbarians, no mistake, because are disunited, unbelievers, don't value our own people, and some of us, who have happen to have lived for some time abroad, are ashamed that are, nor exactly barbarians, but merely Bulgarians, and constantly are trying to escape in foreign countries for centuries. There are historically preserved proofs that we were ashamed of this at least from 1762, when one Paisius of Hilendar monastery has written his "History Slavonic-Bulgarian", in which he exclaimed "Why, oh foolish people, you are ashamed to call yourself Bulgarians?", yeah, what first of all proves that we were (and are, I should add) ashamed! And further he explained that we have had once quite strong state, and have had access to three seas, and such things, but this means not that we are not barbarians, and even if we were not really barbarians in the 7-th or 12-th century — but let us not return so many centuries back because these were simply barbarian times — then we are such an least in the last pair of centuries.
Then there are mixed several ideas here, our image suffers not only because of us, but also because of the class of Slavonic people to which we belong, inasmuch as the Western people are inclined to believe that all the Slavs are ... slaves, of course! This relation is hidden in many languages (starting with the Latin), and is due to the bad (if you ask me) understanding that if you are not ready to fight for — in fact, for nothing —, just for the case of fighting, then you are coward, have slavish (and now you tell me: comes this latter word from Slav or from slave) mentality. I am not inventing fables, I am telling you things hidden in the languages, because there is, for example, one Latin bellum, what obviously is a belle-nice thing, but is given equal to their duellum, what again obviously is the duel (but there is used also in English the word bellicose = belligerent as military or warlike). I have mentioned this in my Urrh, and also that the Slavs have built their ... pride, which is 'slava', from their very name, but the root of the evil (if you ask me) lies in the Ancient Greeks, who have not so much passed to the West the wisdom of ancient Arabic and Persian etc. civilization, but have rather stopped old Eastern influence to the West. This fighting for nothing can be seen also in the French cock as their emblem.
So that we are not fighting nation, what is generally true for the Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, probably Poles, Ukrainians, etc., but not for the Serbs, for example, who are people whose hands often ... itch (exactly 'syrbi me' in Bulgarian) to fight with somebody, what is figurative expression meaning that they want eagerly to do something, here to fight, to kill other nations — or else (if you think that I am inventing things) their name comes from some Sanskrit 'krpanas' as a sword, saber, Malayan cris (a knife curved like a sickle), where is also Slavonic 'syrp' meaning a sickle — , what they have obviously proved one more time (in addition to being a formal cause for the World War One) around 1991 - 93, when they fought with the Croats (whose name in turn is from some dying wheeze — they are 'hyrvati' in Bulgarian and 'hyrkam' is to snore, or 'hriptja' is to wheeze). So that there are many peculiar moment hidden is some words, but the people are inclined to believe in whatever, so that it is good to know these things. Also that our neighbours, the Greeks, call us 'vulgaros' and you know that nobody likes to be called vulgar; the Serbs, for their part, call us 'bugari' playing around the word "bug", I suppose, in the meaning of sodomites (to do it like the bugs)! Well, these last things are pure inventions, but such were the three above-mentioned cases (beginning with the Leipzig trial), too, and we have to laugh at them sometimes, but have also to take care to better our image (which we have directly worsened with the coming of democracy, but about this I will dwell in the next point).
Now some words about our name, Bulgarians ('bylgarin' in sing.), what has to mean something, but is not officially clear what; not that this is really important (because, say, the Russians are 'rus'-red meaning the colour of the heads, the 'nemtsi'-Germans are 'nemi'-dumb for us, etc.), but you saw that some of our neighbours have frivolous fantasy, so that let us be clear as much as this is possible. Here I can't see more that 2 possibilities for the root, namely: either 'bul', or 'vul', which can be, after all, united because the difference has arisen due to the Greek letter beta, which now is read 'vita', but there can be some different ideas. The one, 'bul', may be meant either as some loud cry, where are the words: Russian 'balagan' as a fair-market, hullabaloo, their 'balagur' as a clown, German Balg as a water-skin, belly, or noisy child, and probably others, or as something big (what is a bit puzzling for me because we are small nation, about 1/1000-th of the world population, but maybe exactly for this reason, that we mean us for big thing), where are, say: Russian 'boljshoj'-big (where the first "j" is for softening of the previous consonant), Turkish bulluk as many things, some mixture, German Buhle as a dear one, beloved (but mainly meant as sexual partner), Turkish 'bulamach' as something without any taste, badly cooked, also their bulgur (= bulgul) as cracked rough wheat (something done with hard hitting and smiting), the very Balkan mountain (as big), the ball (as swelled, not only big), and others.
Yeah, but there appears also French bougre as a barbarian or sodomite, where is your bug, what has come here probably with the idea of some coupling, agglomerating, or making of some hunch, and here appears at once Russian 'bugor' as a hillock, hump. In this way it turns that we alone have given this bugging idea with our name but here nothing can be done, this is just something funny and not serious. And as to the 'vul' this might be the same phonetically, but the idea is of some ... popping of eggs, of populating, and Latin volva = vulva was an envelope, membrane, vagina, so that the vulgar things (vulgata) are meant as widely spread between the populace. Anyway, the name is just a name, it may mean something but this must not be taken seriously. More important is why we are barbarians, and what other nations can be our brethren? And here I think (what isn't my personal opinion, I have heard this once) that the cause is chiefly ... geographic! Yeah, we live in hot (yet not exceedingly such) places, where much unity or solidarity is not necessary, people can survive somehow.
And it as if is really so, the southern countries (looking somewhere from the middle of Europe, say, from Vienna) are generally more disunited, not like in the north (in the Scandinavian countries), and if they are not religious, like us, then the barbarity is as if unavoidable. Officially we are not unbelievers, we name ourselves Christians, even orthodox such (what means traditional, mainstream, not of some peculiar revisions — like of the 99-th or whatever Day), yet we are not great churchgoers, maybe, methinks, the water in which we were baptized was too dirty, or we were smeared with barbarian mud up the ears, but we don't stick much to the Christian dogmas. And mark that I am not saying this because I am a churchgoer, nop, I am an convinced atheist, but, well, I am an exception (with 2,5 University educations, know 3,5 foreign languages, etc.), and mean myself intelligent enough to stick to the common rules of peaceful coexistence and moral behaviour — because this is the purpose of religions, of all religions, the concrete fables are for the uneducated populace —, but my poor countrymen are unbelievers and this grieves me much. Because, let me repeat it again, maintaining of good relations with the people around us and before (resp. after) the current time is an indispensable prerequisite for big achievements of our own people, this is necessary somewhere from the times of Babylon and much more so after our Christ was crossed.
But let me continue with the southern barbarians, the countries of which must have been many and many, but it turns that I am hindered to list at least one more such nation. Because, let us cast a look around: the Turks are religious, the Arabs ditto, the Spaniards and Italians even more religious, also the other countries around us, and if we do not look to the East there remain only the Gypsies. Year, but there are Gypsies and Gypsies, as is said, and they live for such long time everywhere, that they (although they do not mix, as a rule, in marriages with other nations) must be counted as part of each country where they live; i.e. I think one can bet that, say, the Italian Gypsies are fervent Catholics, where ours are the same unbelievers like the common Bulgarians. The communists have tried to implant brotherhood between all layers of society (at least between the factory workers and the farmers) but with the coming of our democracy everything was washed away like last-year's snow in the spring. Probably our barbarity is simply genetic!
So that the Gypsies have to be excluded as separate nation, and then, if we move to the East, there are a bunch of nations from the South of the former USSR, like: Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc. (probably the Ukrainians, too), then Mongols, Bangladeshis, Burkina-Fasoans, Zulus, and you-name-them. But why should I condemn innocent people about whom I know nothing? What I know is that not only in EU, but in the whole Europe (probably including also Asia Minor) we are not only the top barbarians but the single such nation, sorry guys and girls compatriots. And now I will move to the next point for many concrete examples of our barbarian behaviour.
2. Democratic propagation of barbarity
Dear readers, you may like or hate the communists (where I personally have, if not exactly hated, then at least convicted, the communist rulers for many contradictions to the common sense, but when the democracy came in Bulgaria I became more and more convinced that they were right, after all, the common people must have been deluded in many cases for their own good), so that no matter what you think about the communists but they deliberately stopped or repressed our barbarity to swell and to blossom, so to say, because the totalitarian ruling was, in a way, selected, educative, righteous ruling, it was not: you, people, will have what you only want, no, it was: listen, people, there are things that you can have, and such that you can not have. Because, what is the democracy, ah?
Well, I have written probably about 1,000 (surely more than 500) pages about it, I have understood something. The most succinct answer will be, I suppose, that it is just another name of ... vulgarocracy! Because, etymologically looked, this is the proper Latin word, vulgar, and in order not to show the naked truth to the people (who like to look at naked bodies, yet not to hear really true things) was used this old Greek root demo-, which can be met as if only in demography (because, say, in demolition, or demobilization, or demonstration, etc. de- is prefix, it is not to the root). In this way the democracy was the chief reason for us to begin to cry to the world, hi people, we are barbarians, and there was nobody (inside Bulgaria) to tell us that there are things that is not good to do in civilized and /or religious countries. This is one between many reasons why I think that the democracy is bad social order, at least for barbarous like us nations.
I will recall to you (or, then, inform you about) some of our crazy barbarous exhibitions, with which we began our democratic march. Our first steps were: legalization of prostitution (the bad inhuman communists who prohibited such nice thing), shocking prices for basic goods (food, communal expenses, etc.) which appear every pair of years anew (even now, in the end of 2018), paid medical care and education and surely before finding of ways for helping of those in need, free market for our Lev (currency unit) what led to 1,800 times devaluation of it, and to emptying of the pension fund (which even after a quarter of a century is still not like in the normal Western countries), unnecessary returning of agricultural land in the hands of its owners, but without requiring (financially at least) to work it, demolishing (I can't find better word for this) of our nearly whole (well, 2/3 to 3/4, but sometimes 9/10 or so) industrial and scientific institutions and workers, and so on, leading as consequence to brightly expressed and unmistakable anti-people's democracy (because we, the silly common folk, did not like the people's one). I will speak about these (and other) moments a bit more detailed, but let me stress that the things that contradict to the usual practice, to whatever religious moral, to the interests of the whole nation, to the common sense, etc. can nearly always be qualified as barbarous, so that I am not just giving air of my outmoded and communist views, because I have never been communist, and can promise you that will also never become one.
Now, let me skip the purely moral questions, like spreading of prostitution and porno, parading with homosexuality, disappearing of the families, and probably something else, because here we can't stick out with anything, neither good, nor bad, before the other nations in the world (on the background of current decaying society); and if we take for granted that the capitalism is a society of ... free or total prostitution (where everybody sells something: hands, legs, brain, voice, smile, etc.) then this is normal to expect. But the constant shocking prices are not so ordinary thing met everywhere, they are met only in countries where bad or even no social policy exists. And let us return back to the devaluation of our currency 1,800 times, what was pretty much, surely, but such things happen now and then, yet they are compensated somehow, with the interest rates, with using of some hard currency for calculations, with bans for changing of big sums in national currency, yeah, this is not really new situation.
I wanted here to make some comparison with some other countries (say, Poland, Russia), but this is difficult to do using only the Internet, and is also unnecessary waste of time when nothing can be repaired and done anew; yet I have done my scrupulous checking (I am mathematician, don't forget this) putting some sum of money in one account and then trying to invest it in the best possible way, and all the time comparing everything with hard currency equivalent of the sum. This was not so easy, because when we have had once 300 % interest rate this was for yearly investments and just for a couple of months, so that if one has tried to brake his old account and make this new one he would have lost more than if has left the old situation, I am not such gullible person, I have checked this in practice and thoughtfully (or sometimes using government securities, what was better). And do you know what turned in the end? Ah, it turned that our Lev has devalued roughly 1,800 times, while the compensation which all previous governments have succeeded to propose via the bank interest are reduced to approximately 30 times, what means that the common people have remained with about 1/60 part of their savings, i.e. with pure loss 60 times! Do you think that this isn't barbarity?
But there surely were obvious ways out of the difficulties, like banning the changing of big sums in Levs, yet as far as I remember there were times when everyone could have changed up to 2,000 US$ yearly, where one minimal salary was about 20 to 30 dollars, the average being somewhere about 60 dollars, what are obviously wrong ways for salvation; allowing to change for some period everything more than 1 minimal salary is not a right step, and here we have surpassed the reasonable limit about 6-7 times. And /or we could have done alone some money board because even 1/3 of the salary or pension in hard currency would have satiated the hunger for such money, and providing that the salaries in an average company amount usually to about 10 % this means that only a pair of percents of the turnover (in the state) would have been necessary. And /or we could have calculated the salaries and pensions in hard currency but paid them in national currency according to the last month's rate; this surely could have been done, yet we preferred to declare explicitly in our Commercial Law (Article 4, if I don't err) that all calculations in whatever company have to be held in national currency (what, if is not barbarity, is then insanity).
And there can be added also that however severe the shocking prices of the free market were the latter has, still, some negative feedback (put in technical language), what is a very positive thing, the market can adapt, it is stable system, there always can be found better alternative ways (like, say, soya beans in the sausages, or gluten in the bread, or glue-like dextrin in the bouillons, or the newest "hit", emulsion of pork skins put in the cheapest salami), but there are worse things than the market. Worse is the situation with the communal goods, like petrol, electricity, water, central heating, healthcare payments, education taxes, city transport, and the like, which are regulated by the state and government, and in barbarian countries like Bulgaria they are badly, sometimes even extremely badly, regulated. Because of this in my country arises some apartheid for education, for healthcare, and so on, meaning that some people can afford these things, but many others can not, and remain only with their wishes (and /or curses). For example, in order not to say that I am just leaving bubbles, and say nothing concrete, I will cite that in the moment 1 (one) bus (or whatever) ticket in the capital Sofia costs 0.8 Euro, and I personally spent a bit less than this (say, 0.7 E.) daily for eating and drinking (properly measured for a month, or rather averaged for an year)! Yeah, this is our democratic way, where I can add that I am forced to do this because my pension reaches to 80-something Euro monthly what gives daily about 3 such tickets for all expenses (I have begun with about 2.85 tickets daily pension and now it is about 3.65). Nice living, ah, but it serves me right, nobody has driven me to finish 2 and a bit more tertiary educations, the other people have it better, some pensioners have by 5 and even 6 bus tickets daily.
Ah, and do you know why this is so — if not the chief reason then one of the core ones? Hmm, one of the principal causes for existing of miserably living people in Bulgaria is our flat income tax, what means that if one receives, say, 300 E. monthly he pays 10 % income tax, and if he receives 3,000 E. he pays the same tax. And now, look, this is the utmost right-wing tax, and from here financial policy of the state (and maintained for decades, by all however left- or right- or middle - wing Governments), because more right-wing would have been, say, from those with 300 E. to require 20 % (and probably from people with income less than the minimal salary to require 30 %), while such with 3,000 E. must pay only 10 % (and probably those with higher than 5,000 E. income to be exempt from this tax at all)! In short: in the most miserable of all countries in EU exist not the most left-wing or socialist policy, but the opposite most right-wing income tax and social policy.
And about the pension fund, which was nearly emptied with this crazy fiscal state policy (and of all colours of governments, because I am not accusing one political party, I an accusing our democratic system as the most barbaric European financial system), it has to be obvious that this happened because of our uncontrolled devaluation process (because, if you can't guess alone, these money were collected in national currency); just for information I can add that there were times when our pension deductions were about 31 - 33 %, while now they are relatively normal, about 17 %; but have also in mind that the men live on the average about only 5 - 6 years after their retirement (we have record low life span, for men about 70).
Then the returning of the arable land in private hands was not a care for the people. No, this was washing of the hands (like one Pontius Pilatus before 2 millenniums), because people who have lived in towns all their life will never become farmers, surely. As a result of this our agriculture was hit and from here the whole population began to suffer; and I am personally witness that we have begun to sow anew some pieces of arable land after nearly 20 years of no use at all. You see, I have hinted, but let me repeat that only the market is not enough to satisfy all layers of population, there are necessary other measures, and in Bulgaria we have just ceased to work, you go in the shop and will see: beans (what is our traditional food) from Poland, Ethiopia, Uzbekistan, and I think also Zanzibar, eggs from Estonia and Poland, many culinary products from Poland, sunflower oil from Romania, Poland, Hungary, even apples and tomatoes from somewhere abroad but not our own. This means that the people are poor, but in spite of this they do not want to work more than the minimum, because there are no stimuli, and the latter has to be provided by the state, they will not fall from the sky. In the same way we have ruinated nearly the whole industry; not that we were really well developed — for example, we have never managed to produce our own cars, but all ex-communist countries have made their own —, yet we had at least metallurgy, machine building, and military industry, not only food industry, and under the democracy we have not even good enough food industry for ourselves, what means generally no cares, no perspective planning, no unity.
About the bad ability to unite under some common platform (what is exactly the opposite of barbarity) is clear from our political life, where we have had for a whole decade incessant changing of extremely left- and right- wing parties and then again and again (and not like, say, in USA, where exist republicans and democrats, but one can bet that the first are not against the democracy, neither the second are against the republic). One can say that we are really unique nation, what we are, I don't deny this and will dig more about this further, but out chief uniqueness is basically the barbarity. And our intellectuals we have also neglected, and this has to be one of the major causes for our last place in EU because this layer of people works not so much for money as for the honouring of the others, yet not without money at all; these people have simply changed their work, or have gone abroad; the former have survived somehow, but the country has lost them as qualified workers or scientific cadres, and the latter will do something good for other countries, not for ours.
And let us also not forget some necessary services, which were neglected because are required too much money, but earlier was not so, these things existed, because our people's democracy was not really democracy, yet it was for the people. While now we have not, for example, cheaper eating places, laundromats, public baths, and similar things, or, if we have some, then they are luxurious and not for the common people. Say, in Sofia existed one old bath with mineral water, placed in historical building, in the centre of Sofia, known from Roman times (about 5-th century), and after its privatising it ... ceased to function! So that's it, the market mechanism, the bath is not rentable, and if it will begin sometime to function it will be only for "Western guests", I suppose, because the old totalitarian price for a common bathing was about 1 or 2 ... eggs (because the egg is the simplest consumer basket, I have explained this somewhere), while I have heard that in some town existed one bath but the price for the same was about 20 eggs! The similar is the situation with our Vitosha mountain, placed just to the capital, where in the old times a heap of people, especially in the weekends, went in summer and in winter, but somewhere around the end of the past century all bus lines were closed.
But people, the city transport was introduced somewhere in old Roman times, there were horse carts there, but they were called omnibuses, meaning something for omni-all (there was Latin phrase, or rather slogan, "Omnia omnibus", meaning everything for everybody). And one bus fare in them surely has costed not a bit more than a former scientist spends daily for eating and drinking (including some self-made aqua vita, I have explained this, too), this was managed somehow by the town Municipality (or the old Roman equivalent of the latter). Yeah, but in barbarous countries like Bulgaria such things are not possible, they were possible under the totalitarianism, but when the people are free to express all their inner wishes, they say (indirectly) that they don't want this, that they don't care about the common people (and this now directly). So that here, in all appearances, as I mentioned this, it goes about genes, not just southern blood. In view of this I have one plea to the genetical scientists: dear well-fed colleagues (as brain-workers), please, try to find the gene of barbarity, it must exist, and a bit quicker, if possible!
3. Comparisons with other countries
Ah, it turns out that this is not so easy as I have expected, especially outside EU, for example in Russia, because there the prices are different, they are converted to Euros but this is not the same, there exists the so called purchasing power parity (PPP), which makes the real picture different. What I have found about Russian standard of life can be reduced to about 160 E. (11,163 Roubles, 1 E. = 75 Rbl. in Nov. 2018) minimal monthly salary (MMS) in the middle of 2018, and average salary (AMS) about 550 E., what makes 1 AMS = 3.44 MMS, and this is hardly believable. This can't be right because, for one thing, in Russia people can't live worse than in Bulgaria — nowhere, at least in Europe, a nation can live worse than in Bulgaria, for if so they would have made revolutions, only we can do this because have endured 5 centuries Turkish yoke —, and for another thing because there, surely, exist differences in PPP. The latter is motivated by the differences of petrol prices, where is said that on some Aug. 2018 the average petrol price was 45.28 Rbl., while the average price for the world on this day was 106.13 Rbl, what gives 2.34 times cheaper in Russia. And I would have added one more reason for the improbability of such low MMS, namely that the normal quotient of AMS / MMS (call it Myrski's coefficient, if you like) is roughly 2.2, in broader limits between 2.0 and 2.5, but when it is outside these limits there is something wrong, either in the method of calculation of the average, or also in the real meaning of MMS, it is used chiefly for taxation purposes but nobody works for such little money (e.g. for taxi drivers, or waiters, etc.); we have had for some time this quotient reaching nearly 3 but never more.
Due to this I have met on another place that one-bedroom apartment (what, by the way, we call 2 rooms flat, like my own) needed about 20 E. per month for services payments and by us one will hardly have a bill for less than this sum only for electricity, but the sole heating in winter amounts to more than this (and there remained the hot water, cold water, mobi-phones, Internet, such things); also is said that the average transport expenses are about 10 E. monthly where by us this is twice more or a bit over this (a monthly card). And if one puts some amount of petrol in the consumer basket (providing it is watertight, right?) and makes the correct calculations, it may as well turn out that this will give about 30, if not more, percents decrease (because such big communal expenses, including the petrol, can make up to 60 percents of the income). Anyway, all prices nowadays are based on the prices of petrol (resp. electricity), and there remain a heap of other social payments like healthcare, education, and so on (say, in Bulgaria the dental care is excluded from healthcare insurance, one must pay for everything there).
Otherwise I looked at the prices in some supermarket chains in Russia and saw that they are like by us and everywhere in Europe, but these were proper natural products, they are about 3 (at leas 2.5) times more expensive than the things that an average Bulgarian can afford him- /her- self to buy (say, by us are sold sausages for 1.5 E. per kg., where the real ones have to be about 4 E.). And also there remains the free market, the private produced food and home-made spiritus (because a litre of whiskey or Campari is like everywhere), and other things, the Russians have experiences for centuries in living under tight financial conditions; also the prices on cigarettes have remained until 2017 including about 2 times cheaper. What gives me all reasons to believe that the Russians live at least 1.5 times better than the Bulgarians. And don't tell me, please, that the minimal living standard is not a measure for organized and /or civilized country, only in barbarous ones can exist such absolute disinterestedness of the rulers about the life of the low circles of population, especially when it turns that these miserably living persons are mostly ... good and moral people, they don't want to cheat the others, or are hindered in some way to be like the others, or are often cheated by the others, or are old and have not passed well the transitional period to democracy (which never ends, for nearly 30 years not), or were occasionally higher educated (like myself).
Then we can look at the prices of cigarettes, that also can tell us something. It is given that a 20-pack for EU was sold in 2017, in Euros, beginning from the top with England for 11.13, then France for 6.37, Germany for 5.46, Czechs republic, Slovenia, Hungary for 3.37, and so on, and in the end stays Bulgaria with 2.61, adding that in Russia in 2016 they were 1.1. This means only that we can't raise higher the prices because otherwise people will stop buying them officially and turn entirely to the black market (where now, if one fills alone the cigarettes and buys the tobacco illegally, this gives about 0.5 E. for 20 pieces, what some heavy smokers do, and are allowed somehow to do this by the state, because they will never be in position to pay 5 times more, and they will rather kill but not stop smoking).
Or let us take in focus also the transport tickets in the cities (in some capitals), where I will not use tables, because there are everywhere differences which have to be explained. In Bulgaria, in the capital Sofia, one such ticket (no matter for what kind of transport) costs 0.8 E., one day ticket for all kinds of vehicles is 2.0 E., and monthly card for everything is 25 E.; then in Berlin a single ticket, but for 2 hours to everywhere only not back, is 2.8 E., for 1 day is 7 E., and for 1 month is 81 E.; then in Vienna single ticket, only that this time for 1.5 hours to everywhere, is 2.4 E., but for over 62 is 1.5 E., and for 1 month is 51 E.; then in Paris a single ticket, again for 90 min is 1.9 E.; also in Rome single ticket for 100 min is 1.5 E., and for 1 day is 7 E.; and in London just single ticket is 1.68 E. (1.5 GBP), and for 1 day is whole 13.5 E. (12 GBP). There are other peculiarities everywhere, say in London are some peak hours, which are only in the morning from 4:30 to 9:30 a.m., and they count the day as if to 4:30 in the nigh of the next, but one can became used to these things; also the tickets are usually bought in advance but must be validated before entering the transport vehicle.
Looking at this one can say that in Bulgaria everything is cheaper and I am just spitting at our nice democracy, but the truth is that I am spitting with reasons, and by us the tickets are cheaper chiefly because of the ... population of the cities (and in Sofia live 1.236 mln.), because Berlin has 3.5 mln., so that it is natural for the transport to be about 3 times more expensive, what it also is, Vienna has 1.87 mln., and everything is 2.5 times more expensive (but this is Vienna, people, and even so the cards for a month are only 2 times higher), Paris has 2.2 mln., and the prices are correspondingly higher, Rome has 2.8 mln and the prices are 2 - 3 times higher, and London is mastodon city, it has 8.2 mln., more than our whole country (the last data is 7.1 mln.), while a single ticket is just about twice higher. And, after all, we are unquestionably the poorest, the prices have to be at least 2, but better 3 times cheaper, because this is communal transport, this is not for those who have their own cars and don't give a dam about the price of one thicket. What reduces again to no cares about the common people, what reduces in the same way to us being barbarians! And just for comparison, in Moscow, where live nearly 12 mnl. people (significantly more than in London, or also New York, where are given only 8.6 mln.), one single ticket is 0.47 E. (36 Rbl), and for 90 min. with transfers is 0.75 E. (56 Rbl), so that if we take into account my guess about the population dependency, and start with 1 mln. - 1 E. for a single ticket, the price of such ticket in Moscow must have been about 12 E., but it is 24 times cheaper (if you can imagine this)! And only for this reason (but there are others, surely) I say that we are barbarians but the Russians are not.
And the last look in this point, at the MMS. Here is what says one EuroStat: "The absolute outsider in EU is Bulgaria with ?261 as of January 2018. Followed by Lithuania (?400), Romania (408 euros), Latvia (430 euros), Hungary (445 euros), Croatia (462 euros), Czech Republic (478 Euro), Slovakia (480 euros), Estonia (500 euros) and Poland (EUR 503). In five other member States located in the South of Europe, the minimum wage ranged from 600 to 900 euros a month, namely: Portugal (677 EUR), Greece (684 Euro), Malta (748 euros), Slovenia (843 euros) and Spain (EUR 859). ... The best salaries are in the Northern and Western countries of the continent, where the minimum wage in the UK was 1401 Euro (but I say it also about 1,500 E.), Germany and France — 1498 euros, Belgium — 1563 Euro, the Netherlands — 1578 Euro, Ireland — Euro 1614, and the absolute leader is Luxembourg with 1999 Euro per month. ... And for comparison the minimum wage in the United States was 1048 euros per month in January 2018". No comments, ah? Yet I will add something, that a minimal wage for 1 hour in Germany is 8.5 E., what gives 68 E. for 1 working day, and my pension for a whole month 2 years back (when this German minimal wage should have been the same) was exactly 67 E. (and I will not mention once again that I have more than 2 University educations, got in 3 different countries, nothing related with the politics, simply in the exact sciences, and have been for a while Research assistant in our Academy of sciences, no, I will keep silent about this, right?).
4. Civilized inhumanity
Ah, but now I will begin to spit at the non-barbarian nations, to be sure! Because, as I said in the very beginning, it is not so that the barbarians are bad and the others good, no, there are many bad nations between the others, which still did not deserve the right to be called civilized, and the very barbarians are more civilized in some aspects. So that I will detach now a category which I will call inhuman nations, and I want not to be one of them (but don't know about you, it depends). Then I will define also one special category based on my own tastes, which I do not value high, and I will call them unworthy. Only then will remain some, not big, category of civilized nations, to which I am willing to add also the Bulgarians, but as according to my definition this is not possible, I will use the word "civilised" only as additional characteristic for us. Yet about this in the next point, here I will explain what means inhumanity (according to me), and also why I don't value much some other nations; those who will remain (if any, right?) will be those whom I like, but first of all let me explain what means civilization, because this is ancient view, but, I am afraid, not shared by many of the people (for one or another reason).
Now, the civil (from Latin civilis) people are such who are not military (like French gendarme, having come from their gens d'arme saying literally "from the gender of the armed" men), but the point is that we simply love the strength or power, and for this reason exists the word "military", who are just 'mili'-nice (in Slavonic) people! I can't explain everything everywhere so that who does not believe me can look in my mentioned Urrh, but this root is sound imitation of some 'mmy' or 'amm', and there is the Western milk, the mild weather, then the big numbers like million and milliard, and many others. While for the civ- root I can mention the ... septic (and antiseptic) things, that stick to something, like ... young chickens to their hens! This is so because in Russian 'tsyipljonok' is a chicken, and 'tsepljatjsja' is to stick or adhere to something, and the little chicken usually chirp (or peep etc.), or say 'chiv-chiv', what the Turks have remarked long ago, yet they only write it as civ-civ, but read as 'dzhiv-dzhiv', because the Latin alphabet is very restricted one (not like the Cyrillic, to what I must also come in the next point). And if some of you can say: "Au, how clever is this Myrski!", I will say: "No, my readers, I am not, I have just mastered a feeling as to what people (in the Hindu-European languages) can mean by this or that syllables, simply comparing various words in many languages". Not that this is really very easy, but if one can compare — what also many, so called, computer robots can do, so that this is rather silly activity, like the parrots do —, and if knows some possible changes of one letter with some other (like 'm' with 'n' and v.v., 'r' with 'l'', 's' with 't', and others), and is unprejudiced enough, can also make. But the point is that in this way one can learn the psychology of the people of various, or all, nations.
So that the people have to be civilized yet they are quite often not such, and the bigger and stronger one nation is the more it is inclined to acts of cruelty and inhumanity; exception of this can make either some genetical or traditional, deeply placed characteristics of the people, or their smallness, which does not allow them to be really cruel! While the best human reaction is to be fine, like, say, the fin of a fish, what is the idea of the ... finances, (no killing, just imposing of some fines)! For these reasons practically all Western European nations are guilty for some cruelty, say: Germans, Frenchmen, Englishmen, Spaniards, Italians cum Latins, even the Holandeses-Dutch, because they have either begun wars much outside of their borders, or have had colonies, what is in no case defense, it is offensive. And surely here have to be added also the world-gendarmes, the Americans, who have occupied what only they can occupy (look at the map of Northern America and you will see that all areas around both oceans were caught by the USA), and have first in the world begun to throw atom bombs as new year's firecrackers, and use bacteriological weapons, and so on. So that the Americans and the Germans hold the "palm of the championship", but some Napoleons, or Macedonians, or Cortesses, are also not to be excluded, such nations are between the leaders, too. Then add also some Muslim and Arab jihadists, who may be very peaceful people but up to some point; then there are the old Mongols - Moguls or Genghis Khan-ists (because of whom the peaceful Chinese have built the great Chinese wall), or some Egyptian or African tribes, or others, and there will almost not leave other decent nations, except, the barbarians, the unworthy people (to which I am coming), and some occasionally leading civilized life, but not much known tribes.
The unworthy nations (in my view) are such who does not act really inhuman but in a way ... silly, or cause often disturbances, or whom I not like because they as if try but can not become genuine barbarians, like in my Bari-Glari Land. In Europe such nations are: the Poles (they are peaceful as Slavs, but are always unhappy for one or another reason, and have also disfigured a bit the nice Slavonic languages in phonetical sense), the Croats (who are the cause for the Serbs to become inhuman), the Romanians (because, as far as I know, they were driven from Rome in the times of Karl the Great, and surely for something, and in the recent years they showed unnecessary cruelty to their former dictator Chaushesku), the Greeks (who have not only stopped the old Eastern influence to the West, but have shown bad influence over the ancient Latins in phonetical sense), and probably some others (like some tiny states-towns). Then I think that for one or another reason (let me try to be a little more succinct) here have to be included also: the Ukrainians, the Moldovans, the Georgians, the 3 Baltic nations, some middle African tribes, the Chinese, the Hebrews, and many others (but my knowledge about the Far East is practically missing).
The Chinese I don't like much because of their enormous multiplication, I mean: let them copulate but this does not mean to give birth so often, to me they are like, I beg to be excused, the plant-lice, they come in Bulgaria (or elsewhere) and the first thing they begin to do is to begin to make children, this is a kind of invasion, really, and I have a suspicion that they are even subsidized by their state (because nearly all of them exercise some business, this requires money); otherwise they have to be peaceful nation but this is not correct behaviour. And the same can be said about the Hebrews (if they were not prosecuted for millenniums they would have become multitudinous like the Chinese). This is generally a trait of all Southern nations, but there has to be some measure, I suppose. Here have to be included also the Hindus, because they are running after the Chinese in their number of people and must surpass them soon, but they don't emigrate, they want to check, probably, when they will suffocate of overpopulation; besides, I like, in a way, the Gypsies, which they are, in general sense, I feel them as brethren barbarians. And so on.
So that there are not much really civilized nations on the world. Say, beginning with Europe: the Swiss, the Czechs, the Finns, the Slovaks and Slovenians, then the Eskimos (because they are glad to live under very hard conditions but not to conquer other nations), then the Chileans (for the same reasons), the Russians (because they are wide away from inhuman, and nobody can call such a big empire unworthy), probably the Armenians, some Far Eastern nations, and this is all (would the Hindus stop to propagate so intensive, I will put them also here). So that I want strongly to add here the poor Bulgarians, at least with the qualification of civilized barbarians, because we have fought only with our neighbours, and such things happen in the best of "families", as they say, but about this in the next section. I beg all mentioned nations to excuse me, but my behaviour is quite natural, after all, from times immemorial people judge about the other nations and invent funny names (like I suppose that Russian Southern word 'ichak', used for the donkey, is invented because of the Hebrew ... name Isaac; like also that the Hebrew word goyim, used for non-Hebrews, is meant in old times like some fatty ... beast, because 'ugojavam' in Bulgarian, or 'goitj' in Russian means to fatten, say a pig).
5. Civilized barbarity
I want to begin this point with one unexpected question, namely: why exist the wild things, vegetation and animals, when already exist their cultured brothers, i.e. why we still like the wild things, and the dear God also preserves them, ah? Well, for one things, because they are interesting and different, and for another thing, because they are resistant and survive easier, right? This has to be roughly the reason why God allows existence of such barbarous nations like the Bulgarians, because we are just necessary, providing interesting varieties of the dull and disciplined nations, and in this way we serve as necessary genetical bank, did you get it? And if you think that I am joking, then I will tell you that, well, I am often joking, but there is quite often hidden truth in every joke (what is a Russian proverb). So that I will, in my usual manner, give you some etymological "proofs". There is French-Latin not very nice sounding word cretin (read 'kreten'), which is taken for synonym of idiot, and it is derived officially from Latin creare-create, i.e. this is just some nice beautiful ... creature; and if you think that this is something funny and accidental then I can mention also Slavonic 'tvar(j)' as the same creature, coming from our 'tvoritj' (or rather v.v.) meaning the same to create. So that when we call some, say, bug a God's creation, we may not like it much but God has created it with some reasons.
Because one (even God) never knows what conditions will come and what mutations will be necessary and those near to the wild nature are more adaptable than some cultivated plant or animal or nation. Let me give you another as if totally unrelated example. Before many years (probably 40) I have been for a pair of days in Eastern Germany and I saw once one guy (or maybe girl) walking a dog, but this was extraordinary disciplined dog (as you will see), more disciplined than whole Bulgaria, taken together, so to say, because it walked about 10 meters ahead, unleashed, and came to a crossing of the street, and stopped there by itself, because it was red light, and waited for the lights to change to green. But the street was some small one, about 6 meters or so, and there was no traffic at all, yet the dog was well bred and stopped, while I went ahead because there was no traffic, and I think that some 60 -70 % of Bulgarians would have done the same. From the standpoint of an average German (what for them must mean, I suppose, 95 %) my behaviour was just one more barbaric act of some barbarian, with what I am forced to agree, yet I judged that a pedestrian poses no danger to the cars moving on the street, especially when there are no cars moving there.
But on the other hand, when Bulgaria was for some time (after 1941) ally of Nazi Germany, we succeeded somehow, via mass protests (under fascist rule!) to stop the deportation of tens of thousands Bulgarian Hebrews to the concentration camps; I don't know more details, yet this proves eloquently that there can be some use of barbarous nations like us. And if you have still not got the quintessence of my narration I can add explicitly, that, for one thing, we think with our heads, and, for another thing, we commiserate with poor and deprived persons, so that our genes are, really, necessary for the world! This is more so, because we count now (in 2018) 7.1 mln., but before a decade we were 7.35, and somewhere about 1980 were nearly (without some 50 ths) 9.0 mln., i.e. we decrease and are now less than 1/1000-th of the world population, given as 7.7 billions! It might as well be that we just try to save ourselves outside of our borders (when here the living conditions are utmost poor — and this because of our right-wing democracy, of course), because I have heard once that only in Chicago lived about 100,000 Bulgarian, and because of this we decrease in number, but I think that is suitable to look at us as at ... endangered species! And till the end of this point I will give some examples about our uniqueness and originality in various aspects, and this not because of some centralized (hence supposedly more intelligent) ruling, but by ourselves, because we are barb..., sorry, here I meant Bulgarians.
Probably to begin here with the easiest, our folklore. Surely each folklore is unique with something, but our is unique between the most unique, because we have not only 7/8 time in music, but also 15/16, and even 31/32, this is very vivace-enlivening, like some Negro jazz; and I am telling you this not because I like our folk music much, no, for I get bored by one and the same, but were I not Bulgarian then I would have liked it much. Then we have preserved some old dances barefooted over glowing charcoals, called Nestinar dances, that go back to the Thracian people (in Strandzha mountain in the South of Bulgaria and in Northern Greece, which was earlier part of our lands), and no matter that it is explained that this is not more dangerous than some performances in the circus, one must just make tiny steps and run really fast, trying to be chiefly in the air than on the ground, but you try sometimes to make even one step on such fire, and the usual diameter of the fire is 5-6 meters, so that they make about 10 steps before coming to cold grass around, and then back and so on. And of course also the songs, which are something worth to listen to, even on the background of other nations on the Balkans (like Turks, Greeks, Serbians, Gypsies, Romanians, etc.), and the other dances too, the national costumes, everything.
Yet the folklore is not all, you look at some musical performers and /or opera singers, if are in the know in such matters and you will see that from about a pair of hundreds (surely not more than this) world-known musicians more that 10, or even 20, will be Bulgarians! We have not world-wide known composers, but singers and violinists or pianists we have not less than 10 known in the moment. And what this means? Ah, this means that if instead of 1 to 1000 people, how it must have been if on the average, here we have about 1 to 20 (if there are 10 out of 200), and then 1000 divided to 20 gives that we have 50 times more known musicians than is "proper"! Yeah, really, say, the Americans, like also the Russians, are by about 300 mln. people, and we have not less known such persons than each of them, but they are about 40 times more populated than us. This is just incredible, people, I would have been glad if this quotient was only 5 times, but it is far more than this!
Or you cast a glance at our faces and figures, I find them really nice and interesting. It is possible that I am somehow blinded by the usual surroundings, but I don't thing so, because I am normally unprejudiced in whatever only field, and our faces are not something extraordinary, yet they are different, each one of us with something own, we don't look like made by one matrix (how many pure nations look, let me not give concrete examples), we are one pretty interesting blend — in the deep antiquity of probably 15 % proto-Bulgarians, some small amount, say 5 %, of Thracians, and majority of Slavs, but nowadays we have roughly (because this can't be objectively measured) 30 % Turks, and 20 % Gypsies, and probably less than 5 % of any others, so that we have never pretended to be pure nation —, and the mixing is what is necessary for a nation, otherwise degeneration may occur. Similar blending happens in USA, Brasilia, I suppose in the South of Russia, and this is, now scientifically proved, bettering of the gene, I am not exaggerating.
Then I come to my beloved (for about 5-6 years) theme, the Bulgarian language. Here my thesis is simple: our language is the best one in the whole (at least civilized) world, hence, most suitable for world language! I will try to be succinct here, because have expressed these things in my "Bulgarian Lessons" and other 2 materials from the folder "For Arabs etc." (there was before this Russian version in the folder "For CIS-people"), and will only mention some of the aspects, which are: alphabet, phonetics, grammatical cases, genders, tenses, words, then why world language is necessary, why of a small nation is better, and even political aspects.
Let me begin with the alphabet. It is called Cyrillic because was created by Cyril and his brother Methodius in 9-th century, and even from here one can come to the conclusion that it has to be better than the others (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arab, etc.) because in many cases is better to be optimist and take for granted that what is near to our days is better (than, say, in the times of Roman empire, or the Pharaohs, or in Babylon). But there are reasons for this, because it was composed from various old, chiefly Latin and Greek, characters, and are included many widely used up to current days vowels and consonants, yet not explicitly present in Latin and Teutonic and other languages. These are, say: all "warm" letters, 'zh', 'sh', and 'ch' (and I think that my transliteration used here is obvious), but also this letter which I mark here with "y", and some other varieties of various "donkey" sounds (like old Greek upsilon, Russian "eri", which I have written here as "yi", one "dumb e", several special letters that sometimes can be read in one way but other time otherwise, some combinations of letters, and others). So that this alphabet is at least extended, richer than the Latin, yet it is extended not only with some peculiar combinations of sounds which the Slaves are keen to pronounce, but with quite necessary sounds, because the phonetical apparatus of all people is the same; it was revised several times and the last alphabet, and used exactly how the Bulgarians use it, is really perfect!
Now let me say with as little words as possible (else look in "Illiterate world", "For the Arabs", "Myrski's English transliteration", and some other places), that I divide the vowels in three main categories: basic, modified, and combined. Basic are not only the basic Latin vowels "a, e, i, o, u", but also this i-bulgaro (marked with the unnecessary in Latin alphabet "y"). Then the modified vowels are formed from 2 vowels when one wants to say one thing but in the end says some other vowel, like the just mentioned Russian "yi", or the classical Western "ae", or like in your "but" ('byat', because this sound is not exactly like in 'gyl'). The combined (usually diphthongs) vowels, for their part, are just inseparable combination of 2 consecutive vowels (like also classical 'aj' as in "may" or "boy", or your "pear" pronounced as 'pae|y'). And there can be just adjacent vowels (like in Italian pronunciation of "piano", or in German "bearbeiten"). Similarly for the consonants we may have simple, but where are added these 'zh', 'sh', 'ch', like in the Cyrillic, then modified are 'ph, th, dh, gh, bh', or 'vh' for "w", or 'nj, rj' like softened letters, combined is English 'dzh' as "j" (also Italian but written as "g" and sometimes read so), and simply consecutive can be like in "marmalade". The only additional effort to write the words from all (I suppose) world languages is to make distinction between modified and combined chars, what can be done properly with the use of special modifiers (in "Illiterate ..."), or not much properly but passable using indexes (in "Myrski's ...").
And why I am telling you this? Ah, because only the Bulgarians make the best use of our alphabet, even the Russians, say, write "e" but read 'ie' as modified, don't use this precious 'y' but their donkey 'yi', and so also for the Ukrainians, Serbs, and others. We have all 6 basic vowels, no modified vowels at all, and only the classical combinations (diphthongs) with 'i' (like "may"), and read always (i.e. if educated) how we write (or v.v.), and you simply can't imagine how nice this is! And mark, please, that this language, especially its phonetics, is something what was created by the very people, this is not what the grammaticians have said, the alphabet was introduced centralized but everything else is work of the common people, of the whole nation. And our phonetics is better than even that of the Italians (they also like to use 'ie', elongate the vowels in old ... Gypsy manner, lack not only 'y' but also the basic 'zh', etc.), and the Italian language is unanimously considered as the best sounding language, but if the Bulgarian is better, then it is the best world language! Understand me right, please, I don't deny the beautiful sounding of the English, or French, or Italian, or of some other language, but all this nice things are done on the price of introducing of many many difficulties, while in the Bulgarian everything is as simple as possible and forks perfectly!
Now let me move to some grammatical aspects. From all Slavonic languages (and they are about 10) only in Bulgarian we have no grammatical cases, where in the others they are usually 6 (even the Germans have less, 4), and all Latin ones have also no cases. Now, the existence of cases is an ancient business, they were introduces — this is my guess — chiefly to make it more difficult to speak the given language, and from here to distinguish the educated minority of rulers and priests from the uneducated populace, probably not exactly on purpose, but because using cases one has to apply more profound thinking, to tie all words properly, to show that he (she) is supreme in one more way. Yet the incessant democratization (probably from Renaissance times, I don't know precisely) has begun to impose easier languages, and all Latin nations have abandoned the cases at once, eradicated them totally, but not the Slavs, with the exception of Bulgarians (and you explain me why this is so, if not because we, in our barbarian way, do not like much to obey to some unnecessary rules — my street-crossing example; and if all Latin nations have also behaved like us this must not mean that my explanation is wrong — you have just to take that I am like the very God, I never err — but because in other nation also lie hidden barbarian seeds and they can give sprouts also under well organized central ruling). Because, surely, it is much more easy to use prepositions instead of to remember all endings in various cases and to think what action a given word performs in the sentence, or also whether something moves or stays on its /his place.
But there are more problems with the languages, there are also the genders, which exist in all languages with exception of the English, and they must exist (look also my latest funny "Fantasy in Ety Mol"), where the problem is to be able easily to guess the gender of each word (not to fill your brain with difficult frames-pictures about each noun), and in Bulgarian this, really, is so, with very few exceptions (due chiefly to the influence of Russian language). This influences also the endings of all adjectives, what poses enough problems in, say, Russian or German (when there exist cases). Then there are many other things that in Bulgarian are better, meaning easier, and as if the single thing that puzzles the foreigners is that we put the definite articles at the ... end of the words (nouns and adjectives) and even glued to the word! Say, from 'masa'-table we make 'masata' as "the table", from 'stol'-chair make 'stolyt' (this is a bit confusing, but we do not pay much attention to this form and use the next) or 'stola', and from 'pole'-field — 'poleto'. But do you see this as so difficult, ah? Because I think that in this way it is much better and more compact. Yet until some recent time I thought that this is only our invention, but it turned out that this was something old and preserved in some form in the contemporary Italian, where they use, for example, one single word, smettetela, to say "you stop (with) this" (where smette is "stop", the next te is you, and la means here "(with) this"). So that you have seen also another example why I think that our language is better than Italian, because what they do is much more difficult (and they also will never say "in the", where "in" is the same preposition, no, they will say nello, nella, negli — and I still can't get used to this).
Then there come the tenses and here we are also the best, because we have only 4-5 such (it is said that they are 9 but this is not really true, we can express some modalities about past or future times), and real tenses with tables of forms which one has to remember and think always which form to use, we have only 2 (two), namely for present and for past tenses. And all Latin languages, as much as they have eliminated resolutely the cases, have remained with pretty difficult grammar, and, for example, in Italian they have 14 tenses, where only the past ones are 5, and this without continuous tenses (they imitate them with the use of participle form of some verbs), with only some limited modality, and without passive tenses. Now, there are some problems here, there has to be not a single language with really simple tenses, but our is just the simplest, at least because there is no such thing like strong or irregular verbs by us, all verbs are simple.
The one peculiarity here is that we make some difference in the past tense between whether we have seen something (have been witnesses) or not (say, "was" for us is 'bjah', but when we can't vouch about this we say 'bil', and the forms for the other persons), but this is some modality or conditionality; respectively we can say that somebody 'bil bil'-as-if-was, or that I 'bih bil'-would-do or -would-have-done; still, this matters only in conversational speech, in official language this — what I mean by world language — should not be of big importance. Then the next grammatical peculiarity is that in the Slavonic languages (I suppose in all, but at least in Russian and Bulgarian) we have not continuous tenses but have continuous or not verbs, what is done with changing of the root, say: to fulfill is (to) 'ispylnja' if meant once and we call this finished type of verbs, and 'izpylnjavam' if meant repeatedly what we call unfinished type, in what I can now see some Latin influence (because in Italian leggere-read in present is leggo, leggi, legge, etc., but in imperfect is leggevo, leggevi, leggeva, etc.). Plus this we make also difference in the past tense (what is not so in Russian, they don't make this difference) between worked once ('pabotil') and worked many times ('pabotel'), what for some verbs can be done but others can not, there are several types of conjugations, yet these are nuances about which one never thinks, and I can't tell you the exact grammatical rules, this is done automatically, or then is not done at all, and if one cares about this he adds some additional word (like "once" or "used to" or the like).
So that I don't think that our grammar is difficult, and also the phonetics, and it can easily be mastered by foreigners, what some do good, and others not. For example the Russians always have problems with our phonetics (because their is more twisted) and with the articles (because they have no articles at all, if you can imagine this, they somehow substitute them with case-endings), while on the other hand the Arabs speak pretty good Bulgarian (a bit more hard, but not much); and the Chinese, surely, can't speak good Bulgarian, there one is directly awful (but they can't speak good whatever language). If we reverse the things it turns out that the Bulgarians can speak very well whatever language, even English (because of our pure phonetics), and as if the Hindus can speak good English (because there have to be old Sanskrit sounds somehow preserved in the English), the Japanese too (so maybe their basic vowels are also simple), but the Arabs and especially the Negroes (like the French, the Italians, and others) have practically awful pronunciation of this funny language (what the English is — uneducated mixture of German and French, I'll tell you).
And now let me come to the word pool of our unique language (for more details see my Lessons). It is chiefly Slavonic, to be sure, yet much better than, say, the Russian, because we have more Greek and also some Turkish words, which are chiefly old Arabic or Persian; besides the Slavonic words are for their part mostly Latin (this is not seen at first sight because of our endings, but it is so). In short, Bulgarian language is not like Hungarian, of Finnish, or Estonian, it is relatively well understandable for any European. Then, look, there is this thing that there is not good substitute for the (hateful, ah?) English, because, from European languages, the French was rejected before about a century or a bit more (due to their pretty peculiar pronunciation, I suppose), the German was rejected before about half a century (because of the decreasing influence of the Germans after the Word War Two, and the increasing one of the Americans), the Italian is not a bad choice but people somehow don't like much such mafioti), the Spanish is chiefly in America Latina, and these are the most spoken languages. To this has to be added that the English is not a good choice, this is ... botched language (I have mentioned this several times, and the people don't like the world gendarme USA), Spanish or Italian (or Portuguese) are not very good either (because of the difficult grammar, bad phonetics, etc.), Finnish is not much like the others, Russian nobody wants to speak, it sounds like Chinese, Arabic the Europeans and the world will never accept as something modern, the same about Hindu, Japanese, Chinese, and so on with the other countries.
Yeah, but foreign language is always necessary, this just raises the intellect, people! You look at some bilingual countries, or bilingual nations (like, say, the Hebrews), they are always more clever than the other "grey" majority in each country. And this language has to be as simple as possible, surely, yet not artificially created, there was Esperanto but at it is looked like at some curiosity, some Hebrew invention (what is right). Mark also that the nation whose language is taken as official (like, say, the Russian in their former USSR or today's CIS, or the German in the old Austro-Hungary, or the English in United Kingdom or in USA, or the Latin in the antiquity, and others) begins after some time to lose by the by the power, and other bilingual guys and girls begin to take the ruling hand! Think a little about this and you will see that it is so (and I can give as example the incessant increasing of native non-Americans in USA, or how you call them, what I see now in the field of classical, yet also pop, music, you begin almost not to see white people's faces, and this is not bad because they are pretty good). Probably here is true one of my (clever, naturally) observation that those, who push strongly ahead, are usually people with small ... defects, what makes them to compensate with something, to be more persistent and work harder in whatever field! For example: women with not much feminine physique (usually small or no breasts), left-handed persons, of low height, physically weak man, immigrants, and similar examples.
What has to say that if as official language is chosen that of some world power, then this nation will faster come down from the scene, than if it was the language of some other nation; also when it is native language of bigger nation then more people will turn to be loosing, that's it! So that I make quite motivated proposition (in About the Arabs), and probably our unique language is the core reason for our originality in other aspects, who knows, or rather who can disprove this? Because the perversities never come singly, they group like, hmm, like the arbitrary numbers, they are not proportional to the interval, they tend to build packs; or take also the homosexuals, they have stronger feelings what turns to be of big importance in some areas, like in the art; and our barbarity is, surely, a kind of perversity! So that I am leading you little by little to the conclusion that our barbarity can ... save the world, no less and no more! If the world will accept our unique language, only we will be the losers in linguistical aspect, but all other nations will be winners. Also our barbarity may simply be necessary in the abundance of normal, inhuman or not much, but well organized nations, as necessary as a ... clown or jester has turned to be necessary in each King's court from very old times. You can never have good and stable system if you reject entirely the other pole, here the heathen or unorganized or self thinking nature of some people! Because we may not be able to organize ourselves, but under foreign ruling we behave good, the point is only that there were not much barbarians, but about a pair of percents.
And let me return to the intentions of God, which we can never understand clearly. I state openly that our barbarity is one very mild form, little necessary defect, civilized or cultured thing, not dangerous to the other, but only to ourselves. What can be paraphrased that we simply sacrifice ourselves in the name of all people, of the humanity, we only look as bad but otherwise, in our hearts we are better than the organized countries, which can be very effective, not denying this, but can also often come to dead end, sticking to some outmoded principles, while some small amount of salubrious perverse barbarians may be all that you need sometimes! Yeah, I suppose that I have made myself clear, at least I have made desperate attempts to whiten our smudged face or image before the world.
6. Conclusive explanations
Now, one is right to ask: why was necessary this masquerade, why I have not said that we are nice peaceful people and were absolutely undeservedly accused of barbarity? But well, there is no need to return to the beginning, I have explained everything, taking even more time than have expected. What I can add is that I wanted us to become used to the bad words about us and to begin to better us, little by little, yet not entirely or radically, because there is a good grain in the barbarity, it is necessary sometimes and in some measure. In a way, I have used one very old approach, used before 2 millenniums by the very ... Christians! Yes, because what is this to select the most debasing symbol, the crossing of somebody for some very bad offences, to raise it high above, and to say that we are not only not ashamed of this, but are very proud with it, we take this as sacred symbol for us, because it turned out that if our Christ has not died at the cross He would have never succeed to resurrect, and so on, if not the same approach to pacify us for the reason that our defects are simply unavoidable, hence we must not feel debased by them?
Because, come to think of it, Christ was punished because such was the will of the populace in that time, this was first (and surely not last) proof that the democracy has many drawbacks and can be often used against the silly people. And the very name of Him was Jesus (or Issaa in Islam), this "Christ" has come from the cross, obviously. And He was punished, practically, for the sins of the common people, He died for the people, hoping to make them better, yet for 2 thousand years this has not happened, and there are all reasons to believe that this will also never happen in the future. The bad lies in us, we can never change radically our nature, but we are bound always to try to do this (because, in brief, when we are bad to the others then they in their turn are bad to us, and this means that we are bad, factually, to us alone). And here I simply state that barbarity is something natural, we must not be ashamed of this, because in many cases this may prove better than the opposite, but we are bound to try not to come to excesses, in whatever. Because the civilized and organized and religious people often do exactly this, they come to extremities, they become fanatics, but if one believes in nothing, so to say, oversimplified, one can never become fanatic, really, in what, in his unbelieving, ah? So that you also are free to be unbelievers in your own way, say the barbarians.
Then I have surely exaggerated the things in many places, nothing is so simple as I have put it often, there are not barbaric nations as such, everything is more dynamic, the truth is that each nation has bad moments when it behaves utterly uncivilized, sometimes barbaric, sometimes silly, in most cases out of good will yet producing bad results, and so on, but, on the other hand, the whole human history, the industry, commerce, art, sciences, religions, everything is just exaggeration until some limits are reached, and they can be felt or recognised or registered as such only when are exceeded, when everything is already overdone. But enough philosophising, and enough with everything, because this makes people tired. I want in the end only propose you one funny symbol of barbarity, used as sign, or greeting gesture, or the like.
Now, what is the barbarity, it is something twisted, perverse in a way, isn't it? And there is one twisted symbol used in the digits (see "Reflections About the Numbers"), this is the "8", what is so because this it is the first (except the trivial 1) and last between the 10 digits cube, and there everybody says 'au' or 'ou' seeing it (e.g. in Latin it is octo what is 'oho', "wow, how nice"), so that it is twisted but nice. My proposition is simply to twist it one more time making three leafs, or you take an elastic ring and choose 3 equidistant places and glue them together, which can be placed either with the one leaf up (and 2 down), or with one pointing down, what is more unstable (as if perverse) and because of this I propose the latter variant. And the point is that this can be easily done with fingers, closing them in a fist, and then opening the first 3 with the thumb below. That's it guys and girls, no matter of what age (including also the homosexuals), if you are keen with the barbarity you can greet some of your chosen friends in this way, opening the first 3 fingers to them, but if you are not very enthusiastic about this, then you can put the thumb ... between the two others, and I hope you see, what I mean.
Nov, 2018
Appendix
[ With the remark that the char "º" is used below for making of additional syllable, similarly to the apostrophe ("'") used for missing of one. ]
TRIBUTE TO ... BARBARITY
I say, do you want to be barbarian?
'Cause this isn't so hard, as it may seem.
You have to be born just as ... Bulgarian,
And be common, egoistic, mean!
Still, this may for you have some advantages,
Ofºten you'll be left to live alone.
And what better thing on this world can exist,
Than to have it your way, on and on?
You will meet with no compulsion of religion,
We are unbelievers like, say, dogs and cats,
We've no communist or atheistic visions;
Ouºr faith-'s the owºn guzzle, you may bet!
We've no families, the newborn are most bastards/*,
Neither honour we the old, or, then, the young,
Ouºr wishes are for us the only masters,
Life begins with us, and theºre's no beyond.
[ * According to the census for 2010 for Bulgaria 55 % of newborn children are extramarital. ]
Yet we have some precious genes, that make us unique,
Not with purity but like some coffee blend,
We show differences, nice piquantness, beauty,
And this the innate barbarity amends.
'Cause we harming one another have selected
Better beings filling various niches,
Other nations have not harmed or else affected,
But have done this what each nation wishes!
Id est we are not so bad as seems at first,
More than this, because we can't unite
To do harm to other peopºle, kill and burst,
We unconsciously do what is ... right!
Right from standpoint of some god or all the world,
Leaving th'others peacefully to live,
Each of us prefers to lie in his shell curled,
Doing just what pleases him, and if.
Wheºre nations organized, well, they feel strong,
And enforce the way of life on-th' others;
This variety diminishes, is wrong,
If succeeds to spread itself much farther.
Hence, we sacrify us, for the world to better,
And the other nations must protect us, yeah!
In the long run such as us are those who matter,
And I, having told this, am so glad, ole!
Sep, 2018
OPEN LETTER TO GOD ALMIGHTY
(philosophical essay) — from "Social Essays"
| |
Abstract:
This is both, philosophical and funny essay about such unprovable things like the existence of God, the Creation, the organized matter, the ad hoc method of creation of what can be created and without global sight at the things, and some other related questions, with the addition of traditional poetical Appendix. Yet I have to warn you, mine readers, that, if you have not yet read others of my works, you better leave this unread, or, then, begin from the beginning (say, with my "Communism as Religion"), because otherwise this may seem to you too messed, like, say, integral calculus in preschool age. Have you got it?
| |
CONTENTS (Of This Essay)
0. Why a letter to hardly existing God?
1. What God means, and why we need Him?
2. Why the living matter was created?
3. Why this bottom-up method?
4. To what purpose is everything?
5. Bye-bye, God, or a new miracle
APPENDIX: If I Were God
0. Why a letter to hardly existing God?
My dear God,
I may be an atheist and may not believe in existence of divine beings, but this is a matter of believing, this proves nothing! So that don't be put astray by such simple arguments for nearly imbeciles because I am an intelligent being, and the question of You existence must not change the rules of politeness; besides, I am not questioning Your reasonable, even super-reasonable behaviour, I am questioning only Your existence as some substance or entity, so to say. So that I must have some reasons for writing to You, surely, and even if You are bound to know everything about everything, hence also this trifle of reasons for writing of one more letter, I will explain my intentions, because, well, let's say because of Your subordinates, they may not bother to pass this letter to Your Supremacy (although there are other reasons to which I am coming).
One may say that I am writing to You because I pose some very important questions to You, which can be of interest for everybody, so that You may show a wish to write some New Testament or the like where to answer these and many other questions, what is probable, this letter of mine can be used in this way, yet You will quickly understand that this is not the real reason, because my questions are too philosophical, they are not such that a common worker or housewife or child will ask; these questions may be used as schedule for a meeting of some Executive Counsel of gods, if You have had such a thing, but I'm afraid that You haven't, You must be the sole master there. Or You can accept the letter as a kind of prayer or confession, or the like, what each believer can do sometimes, surely, yet I am not a believer, as I said; and even if I will some day become a believer in You (or some other god) I will never begin to pray, this is too debasing for me, and also utterly undemocratic. And also, as I hinted, I am uncommonly clever, so that the reason for this my letter has to be more twisted and original.
If so You may be inclined to think — if You have not known everything in advance, as I said, but, with Your permission, I will suppose here that this is not the case, that You are kind of my pal (and it may even happen that I will curse You sometimes, why not, it is so between pals), because otherwise I must just stay dumb as if hit by thunder and mumble something like "ah", "oh", "wow", etc., what has to be the reason for inventing of English word "worship" — so that You may come to the thought that I may just pretend that am writing a letter to You but, in fact, am speaking with myself, am trying to make some questions clear to me. In this case I may say that, well, You are a clever Guy, this is now near to the truth, because this is how it usually is, one begins to explain something to his collocutor in order to understand it alone better, this is why the professors give lectures, to check one more time some professional truths, this is something extraordinary as reason, yes, but not enough for me. There has to be another more peculiar reason to write a letter to some highly placed authority, who usually does not bother about the applicant.
Now, let me give You some more information (my clever Pal), let me tell You that in my nearly 70 years I have written several times letters to high authorities, and they were answered, say, fifty-fifty, when were closed, but as open they were never answered! I have published here one such example, and I have one more under another pen-name (invented exactly because of not answering my letters), so that I came to the conclusion that if one writes an open letter to somebody, the latter never bothers to read is, unless this becomes well-known and he was forced to keep informed about the problem. Yeah, but under democratic circumstances I can do nothing else than to try to use this occasion to inform other people, bigger auditory, about some improper acting. So that my conclusion is that: open letters are not read by those to whom they are sent, but they are read by other people, to whom they surely are not sent!
In the present case this means that You, my dear (and of dubious existence) God, may exist or not, but the real readers of this my letter will be enormous masses of people all around the world (or Universe); You may or not answer me, but the people will think about what I have written, and for me this is even better than if You have answered me (on some watermarked paper saying "Heavenly Office, His Majesty God Almighty, personally" or the like, and maybe perfumed with smell of young virgins, ah?). This phenomenon of reaching bigger auditory when writing open letters, but not from the part, to which the letter was sent, is explicable, because the concrete addressee is usually too busy to answer each letter, even those closed, and the people always like to poke their noses in other people's busyness, in order to find something scandalous or at least improper. Well, here I will not say scandalous things, but if people want to delude themselves (what they usually want) with something, let them expect this, though the tings that can be expected to be found here are rather philosophical, sometimes etymological, in all cases untraditional, requiring thoughts, sometimes cheeky, sometimes funny, and sometimes even in poetical form.
And here is what will be the plan of this essay. I will begin with some preliminary information about God, what this means in several languages, and why this is quite necessary notion even in the exact sciences, to say nothing about the life of common people. Then there will be posed a question to His Majesty God Almighty, why He has created the living matter, having in mind that it is so unpredictable and its behaviour is so chaotic. The next question to God will be about the used, so called, bottom-up method of creation, not like it is described in the Holy Scripture. Then comes the natural question, to what purpose is this, the whole life, the Creation. After what I will say bye-bye to my dear God in whom I don't believe (but use Him as unavoidable requirement for the existence of the matter), where I may turn to be not such real unbeliever as I have shown myself. After what, as Appendix, is added the traditional poetical piece, which is worth to be read as philosophical poetry, yet it was written specially for this essay. So that you just take your decision, dear readers, is it worth to continue to read me, or to quit (and go to have some refreshing sex for a while); have in mind, though, that this is not an entertainment reading, or if it is for some of you, then for profound thoughts, not to read and forget it.
1. What God means, and why we need Him?
Now, my dear God (together with the hidden behind Your back readers), let me tell You first why I don't believe in Your existence. In short, it is for logical reasons, because You are and provide to us exactly this, what we want — purpose in life, obedience, conviction to do good things to the others, reward and retribution if not in this life then in some other, as well also fables and delusions, escapism from this life, such things —, and the life is, surely, indifferent to us, the humans are not center of the Universe, they are part of it, and no part has the right to believe that it is the whole apparatus, especially if the latter is immensely complicated. That our religions are simply funny can be seen with the help of some ... substitutions, say, to substitute one god with another, or one organism with another (say, to suppose that instead of us are supposed the cockroaches, or amoebas, etc.), or simply by alternating them (say, on Mondays to visit catholic cathedrals, on Tuesdays mosques, on Wednesdays Buddhist's temples, etc.). What is obvious for me is that the religions are necessary for at least 90 % of people, but to believe really in such fables can only small children, before their teens, and when they begin to see that there is not really Santa Claus, in the same way they are bound gradually to see that there is not exactly such God, like they were told. But, well, when we are still so silly to grasp that the gods have died and we have to invent new ones then let it be so: I am enlightened, and the predominantly number of people are just "grey" mass.
More interesting are the names of God, where exactly this word is obviously related with the good (things), what is German invention (Gott and gut, resp.), and although it is not so in Latin languages I have found there something of the kind, namely Italian godere as to like, enjoy. I can understand the wish to believe that our boss or master is good, not some bad monster, but this is too perfumed to be believable. More interesting is Slavonic name 'bog', what is neither bog nor bug, but rather an ... upper arc, something that is ever-present and impending over us; this can be proven by German Bogen as this, or also a rainbow, and bottom arc (or simply earth, ground) is Boden there. This is more probable because of the similarity or rhyming between the opposite notions (what has to be so, because from old Sanskrit times the opposing ideas go hand in hand, this is dialectically motivated). Yet there is another ancient word here, there was some old Persian exactly 'baga' as 'bog'-god, and I find this mobilizing idea, to take care that somebody is watching from above, as more natural and ever-present (even today, in the era of mobile phones), than the unmotivated goodness (if You'll excuse me, my dear God-Pal).
Even better than this, because philosophically thought through, is the idea of god-the-two, which is something Pythagorean, and it is also never-aging, because everybody who has heard about binary digits has to know that with only 2 symbols everything can be marked! If You know this, my "Pal", let me add some explanations for the masses, let me say that this means splitting, dividing by two, multiplication, and if one puts something on the one branch one can split the other to infinity (these are called linked lists), and this is what some long organic molecules usually do (though not exactly for ever). If one wants there can be another look at this matter, I can remind some old scholastic (what etymologically means learned in some school) disputes about this: how many devils can stand on a needle point, where the core idea was not 2 or 2000 but finite or infinite, so that we come to the idea of infinity, but first let me add one more thing. Let me add the simple Pythagoras understanding that the two symbolizes exiting from the ego, from the single person and this way of thinking of both (usually) opposite points, or of two (and more) beings is prerogative only of some clever guys (like me, to be sure) or of some divine beings (like You, my Goody God).
So that it is a nice thing to be a deity — what is some double being, old Greek Theos, or Latin Deus /Dea as two-thinking being, so to say — and to know 2 and 200 (there is such Bulgarian proverb, that who knows the one thing, he knows also the other one), or to be impartial, in a way — year, God has to be at least impartial —, and also to know how to come to really big (resp. small) things, to the infinity (or infinitesimal, infinitely small, things)! Yeah, this idea of some god able to do the splitting, in various aspects, is much better than the silly, sorry, Christian idea of the Good Being who has done the Creation once and for all; and if I gave You some old Greek words, this does not mean that the Greeks were the inventors, no, because the numbers have come from old India, and in Sanskrit the 2 was dwan, near to what stays Slavonic 'dve /dva' (and there is even the peculiar relation with our door and the court, where the first in Russian is 'dverj' — and 'j' I use for softening here —, and the second is 'dvor', what has to be so because the door moves here and there, it makes some fork, and similarly the fence of a court divides the space in two parts), or then the English twig can be cited (as making trees).
And now let me come to the infinity, because, what is it? Well, repeating just forever, on and on, what we can't do, we can measure only the measurable, and the infinity is not such a thing. The infinity has different characteristics, like that infinity plus infinity gives again infinity, what is not so with the usual numbers, but when we try to subtract infinities we become stuck in the mud and can't find a way out of it. Yet the infinity exists, there is such simple way of building or integer numbers with only adding of one to whatever, beginning with the ego-one, that there are no reasons to deprive us of the infinity, but it just isn't a number. So that this is, if You ask me, where the mathematicians have seen for the first time You, my dear God! Because everything is clear but in many cases one has to add some exception which does not exist in the nature, is not material, so to say, but is necessary in order to describe better the real world, the matter, even such abstractions like the numbers. Even the zero is not a proper integer, and for this reason it was not present in the old Greek, it appears only in the new one (yet I will not indulge here in more profound explanations, because You, my dear God, know already everything, and my readers can as well look in my enormous "Urrh, cum commentis" or then in my "Reflexions about the numbers"). And in the case of infinitesimal it is important to do really infinite number of steps, if they can give as a result pretty nice finite number. So that the scientists just need the infinity, like people need some God, in order to fill some gaps in the existing things.
Similar to this is the recursion, and the recurrent formulas to which the mathematicians have also come. This means to do something really for ever, like the life exists really for ever (from our standpoint). And there is the philosophy, too, where is absolutely necessary to have some notion of the spirit of everything, of what is hidden and not seen but organizes everything; we may call these things: nuclear actions, or genes, or natural laws, or the only reasonable behaviour (taking everything into account) but there is no way to understanding of the matter without the idea for it. The reverse is also true, there can't exist the idea (about whatever) without the matter where it has to be coded, so that I, for myself, simply take for granted that there exist the matter and the idea and they have ever existed and will do so in the future; otherwise, to require supremacy of one of these two things, is as silly as to argue about what is first, the egg or the hen! Hence God, You, my dear "Pal", can be taken for the idea, and the God-idea can move freely in the time and the space; or then He could have made the time and the space, but out of what?
Ah, I can tell You about of what, namely to remind You about some old Sanskrit pre-god or Father of the gods called Tathagata, who has built the Universe out of his ... bowels, as emanation of them! Now, I will not explain in more details what this "emanation" can be, I hope that my readers are clever enough to guess this alone, but I will only stress on the probability of this, because this is not very different from the theory about the big bang, or the primary egg, the expanding Universe, et cetera. Because in order to build something one surely must have some resources and some ideas about this, which things have to come from outside, else we have to suppose existing of generations of gods, and even in this case the questions remain about the first god. ( Yet let me add in parentheses that the name of this ancient god can be split in two, where the tatha part correlates perfectly with Bulgarian 'tati' as father, and the gata part surely must mean German Gott. And the last means not only something good, it means also something that we have got or caught, that we have as defender; yeah, but maybe it is meant also that we have caught — and this time in English, hence the old English are guilty for this meaning — Him by the ... balls, ah? )
But, You see, my dear God, for some time I have come to the conclusion that this is not important for us, after all, the question about the priority or precedence of matter or idea has purely academic interest, some of us can ask themselves such question, but the answer to it is meaningless for us, and even if it has some meaning it can as well happen that we come to the right answer using wrong prerequisites, or to wrong answer using right prerequisites, ha, ha. So that let me not indulge in more judgments here, but to stress only that without some god there is no go. Yet not as such to whom one has to pray, burn candles, make sacrifices, and believe literally, because a God is a being from another dimension, we just can not understand Him properly, we can only use some similes, picture Him somehow, call Him somehow, yet this is for us, it must not correspond well to the truth. And because of this in the Islam, for example, the God is not pictured, only His artifacts or creations.
2. Why the living matter was created?
This is now a question to You, my dear God, so that You better awake, if have begun to dose a bit, reading my monotonous explanations. So the question is simple: why You needed to create this animated matter, when it is so unpredictable, unstable, chaotic, and so on? Because the nature-morte is understandable, when You make, say, a stone, it stays where You have put it, while if, well, maybe not You but I, lie naked on a meadow then either a stick will try to poke me in the ass, or an ant to clime on my arm, or some bug will want to see what is there in those holes named nose, and, thank God, as is said, that I have not some orifice in front between the legs, because there is always some probability that a grasshopper will try to hop also there. There can exist mutations or defects in the crystal lattice, but they are, so to say, dead, they exist once and for all, one can not expect that, say, the red veins in some piece of marble will become green, or that the stone will burst open and there will appear spoonful of orange juice, right? Neither water turns to wine, nor plumbum to gold, neither stones begin to jump to the sky, and if one hits a stone with some force, the stone hits him with the same force but in reverse direction. All planets are dead in the beginning and hardly one out of billion such things will allow the existence of some organic matter on it. And were these only some vegetations, this would have been not so bad, they don't move, but the animals do, they just can't stay on one and the same place.
Or let me give You another example: one paints a picture, finishes it and puts it in a frame, but nobody expects that the picture will change, say, on the faces will grow beards, children will grow up, cows will say moo, or the like, no, this would have been utterly improper behaviour on the part of the picture, am I right? Also here, proper things are somehow predictable, their actions are adequate to the stimuli, while the animated matter has some anima-soul in it, like the engine is supposed that has some jin-spirit in it that makes it move. And inadequate means more precisely that on weaker actions correspond stronger reactions, and vice versa. This is justified, I can't say that this is silly, no, this is right, because when the action is weak it only bothers the animal (or even the plant) and with the same reaction the action will probably continue or increase its power, while strong and significantly higher reaction will run away the cause for disturbance (be it animated or not), this is, in a way, anticipating and preventing the further increase of the action, yet, nonetheless, this is somehow improper in a dead environment. Similarly in the reversed clause, if the action is too strong, there is no need to spend the own power, the cause will not be driven away. But why this is necessary at all, is what I ask You, my dear God? Because this means inadequate reflection, this is not ... chivalrous, after all, this is what leads to the escalation of violence (or at least of forces). In this way some weaker object may succeed to conquer some stronger object (or subject, when it is conquered), what You mean with this?
And I have marked that this is not something occasionally, or unforeseen, no, this is deliberately, You, my dear Pal, want to distort the situation, the environment, the relations between the participants. Yeah, because You have made even the insects, say, the cockroaches, with their imperfect in many aspects organs of feeling, to react fast, so fast that, in fact, to avoid thinking, You have taught them to have some relatively safely schemes of reactions in case of danger (because they have neither good sight, no feeling for smell, no homeostasis, to say nothing about a brain, but they become in many cases winners in the fight with the humans, really!). The reflection of the living matter, in my view (but I don't thing that this is rejected by the scientists in some concrete fields), is conditional and distorted, where the first means that it depends on the memory of the animal, on some reflexes, on the environment, what might have been intellectual behaviour, but it is again not just, this allows to survive not the stronger, or the better (this exactly can't be measured at all, this is only an unattainable wish), but the meaner and /or villainous, while if one hits two stones together "survives" the stronger, this is obvious to be expected.
And distorted reflection means that by the perception nearly always is used logarithmic scale, which allows the diapason to be increased, but the signals are anyway distorted. Still, there is more to this, there is quite often used modal scale (also centered), what means — I explain this for the curious readers, who are not so immensely wise like You — something like the week, after the 7th day comes again the 1st, or then (in order also to center it), like a thermometer from -49 through 0 and to +50, where hotter than 50 is measured as minus 40-something! This also allows some measurement, but it is kilometers away from the true value, and as strange as this seems but it often happens so, like, say: very big cold we accept as big heat (and frostbitten flesh feels like burned), after very loud sound we feel deafened, the red colour seams for us similar to the violet one, but they are not at all related, and so on. I can add that this uniting of extremely left point on the scale with extremely right one often happens through the ... infinity (what means, so to say, with Your help, my Pal), i.e. next to minus infinity stays plus infinity! ( For example, the simplest fractional-rational function y = 1 / (x-1), for x=1 is undefined, but for some tiny ε>0, in the point 1-ε, y -> -∞ , and in the point 1+ε, y -> +∞. ) With what I want to say, that the opposite notions, even highly opposite notions, meet, what is nice dialectics from Your part, but these are different values, there is no necessity for the organic matter to have such highly distorted perception scale.
As if the only thing, for which I can congratulate You, is that You have perceived one very important rule about the complicated systems (to which I have come before about 20 years, and would have come probably earlier, had I not been occupied with studying in some exact sciences), namely that: the complicated systems must be built by simple rules (because else the complexity begins to grow terribly fast and the system simply cannot be built)! Well, I don't declare that no mortal being has come to this conclusion before me, yet I have come (I suppose) alone to it. And what You have done is to make frequent use of linked lists, binary or other trees, recursive methods of declaring of even unanimated objects, and especially the fractals (what are such structures, which are built by recursive usage of some simple objects, so that each part is self-similar, and one can zoom infinitely in it). Even the river or ocean ... borders are fractal, and many plants and organs are of that kind, where the infinity breaks only reaching the dimensions of some building elements, cells (or atoms, when speaking about river borders). So that there is for what to pet You on the back (or the muzzle) if I could succeed sometime to find Your back (or muzzle) and say: Good God, Good God.
OK, but the question remains, for what purpose is all this organic matter necessary? Because it is like some ... mould, it covers the nice and simple and predictable and obedient dead matter, whole planets (at least ours), and only causes disturbances and problems for the same living matter, surely, but also, I suppose for some divine being like You, my Pal. The only reasonable answer to which I have come is that this is simply ... interesting to watch, to see what will happen next! And this, surely, independently of Your existence, i.e. if You exist, then You have done this on purpose, because are born player, gamer, hunter, like to solve puzzles or find secrets; and if You do not exist, then such is the very matter, it wants to experiment, does not know its abilities, is like small child who plays with what can (ultimately in order to learn something, but be it only for the kick of the game). Yeah, but do You know with what little children, if they are badly or not at all brought up, happen sometimes to play?, Ha, ha, they are ready sometimes to play with their own ... faeces, stirring them with a stick (not necessary with a finger). So that, if we reject temporarily the possibility that You do not exist, tell me now: are You just playing with Your — or, then, of Tathagata — excrements, or this has happened somehow by itself, or there is some other possibility?
3. Why this bottom-up method?
Because it is so, really. You make the leaves of some tree, but the very tree is nowhere to be seen. There are relations between the organisms, but they appear after some new organism arises, not before this, not as if You have said to Yourself: let me make now a new branch of whatever (say, of animals with all possible kinds of horns, or noses, etc.). This is important, because when one can not see the branches on which the leaves are hanging one is inclined to think that everything happens just haphazardly, they can't see You behind the things! And I may not believe in You as a Being or Substance, but I believe in the system and organization, and the relations, and the reason; after all, You may not exist as people describe You but something exists! Because of this it is said somewhere in the Holy Scripture how You have built everything for six days — or months, or years, or millenniums, and so on, here it goes not about measuring of some time but about the ... number six, which is related with the very ... sex, I have explained this on several places, but You surely know this —, yet it is not so, the succession is not exact, and this process can not be finished, such things like the Creation cannot be done once and for all, they must continue always, must be open. Or if this is closed then the reason for this has to be clearly seen, and there can appear many new such realizations, like new pictures, or sculptures, or musical pieces. So that, in short, I am bothering about You and Your image, my Pal.
And, really, nobody begins to raise some building without whatever plan, not knowing neither the dimensions, nor the number of storeys, nor the purpose of it; or, then, nobody builds a company just so, to have registered a company, but with some relatively clear intentions what he will produce or sell; or, then, to begin to write a book not having decided about what to write. Allow me to understand here something, because I have written some number of books, I have to know this; and even if sometimes — what may happen often to be the case — one begins to write, say, a verse, and is left to be carried by the "current" of the words, by the rhyme, he must have some hidden idea in his brain; he may not be able to describe it (this is why it is spoken about some muses who whisper in the ear of the authors nice thing, or maybe even hold him, the author, it must be supposed that only men can create something really new, are endowed with imagination and creative power, so they hold him by the "cock" — if You see what I mean, ha, ha), but something (for what the words are not descriptive enough) exists. And here You have begun to do something and have left it, then something else, and again have left it, and nobody can guess Your plans. Yeah, but maybe this is because You have just no plans, ah?
You see, nowadays, when we have begun to read the genetic code, and not only to read it but to change it, i.e. to understand how the things function, it can't be longer hidden that there exists no planning in the genes, they happen to encode some ad hoc decisions, that have proven to be efficient, but in the moment, and later can be (and are) forgotten. Say, I have heard that the genes of some tiny fly are more complicated than those of the human, and that they look as if all made by patches (what we, in Bulgaria, like often to do literally when repairing the streets); and I have also some personal experiences, because have worked for about a decade as computer programmer, and know that in every field (say, in law-making, or in sciences, etc.) there comes some moment after which further patches don't give the desired results, no, the thing has to be redone or rebuild anew. So that maybe it is so also with Your Creation, ah, my dear God, it has to be demolished and done anew, and this probably before it will happen by itself, by the next ... shrinking of the Universe?
Yet some stages can be seen. For example, when the volcanic activity has ceased the stones have begun to crack little by little, in order to build some primitive soil, the continents have also begun to form, the oceans, too, and it has come time for the organic to appear. Then after some aeons of time the single-cellular have appeared and they looked funny, but they were necessary — I don't deny the necessity of some steps, I only stress on the chaotic way of Your Creation, and on the lack of planning, what could have avoided many ... victims, after all, unnecessary loss of organic matter. Then it turned out that one only cell is not well equipped in order to ... use better the lying around nutritious sh#t — if You'll pardon my French — and it became obvious (for You) that there must appear several specialized cells that will somehow learn to live collectively and to build some multi-cellular organism. And then You have stopped and pondered for another aeons, and have made the fishes (that are called in this way in German and English, because they are very fast and can make one swift ... 'fishh' and disappear).
Then came the insects, which are really perfect, I congratulate You here, for their dimensions they are faultless and highly effective ... killing machines, yeah. Then (if not before, I am not in my waters here) You have had a whim to check how big can be some animal and have come to the dinosaurs, but they have proven not much effective and have disappeared. Still, You could have preserved a pair of some little dinosaurs to be used like home pats, instead of dogs, I suppose, but have forgotten about this, believing that the making of birds will compensate for Your forgetfulness, what is also a nice move, I admit this, but some dinosses would have done nobody harm, I think. And the birds could have been again the top of Creation if You could have somehow found a way to make ... meat (I mean some high-calorie food) grow on trees. So that again something was not very good, yet this time You have left the birdies be, and then came the mammals and You have done what You have thought proper to do there, but why have not again stopped, before making the humans, is beyond my abilities to grasp! Surely, but about this next dead-end of You I will speak in the next point; what I want to add here is that there is a whole labyrinth of errors and blunders and patches and dead-ends, and unmotivated adhocracy instead of some thoughtful planning of everything in beforehand. So that for me the question now is whether You have done this on purpose, or have been forced somehow to do this!
And here comes one delicate moment, my Pal, because I don't believe — and this, alas, is a matter of believing, like Your existence —, that You are some nasty devilish demon, Who likes to do bad things on purpose, no, I am afraid that You, the God Almighty, have been made non operandi by some characteristics or the matter, or by the situation. I can only commiserate with You if it is so, but You know that there is a saying that the King's crown is heavy, so that in our interrelated world nobody can be really free and exempted of duties to the others, and this may happen to be true also for divine Creatures like You. If it is so I will be happy to absolve You of any guilt related with this bottom-up method, because I have given You the example with painting of some picture, but this is if one wants to do something and forget about it, yet if it goes about incessant "picturing" and by changing circumstances, which can influence the goal, and if the process is repetitive, it may turn that some method of arbitrary and thorough choice will be really the best one (like when a river finds its way through the valleys and to a sea). If it is not so, though, if my guess is not correct, then the set question remains.
There is one more thing that leaves a bit bitter taste in my mouth, and it is the unnecessary, from my standpoint, loss of organic matter by all these dead-ends of Your bottom-up Creation. But I may be wrong — I confess this, like before God, really —, for two reasons, the one is that I can't become used with the fact that the organic matter, equipped or not with a soul, can be of practically no-cost, and the time is also of nearly no importance, and the other reason is that in a so intermingled world, where even the excrements (I begin to like this word, ah, a kind of ... cream after all) of some beings can be used as food for some other beings, the seeds or kernels or entire bodies of some beings are welcomed and necessary for many other beings; we are all some phagi-eaters. So that it is not improbable that You, my dear God, are right, in the end, and You are not so glad with Your role and with Your everlasting life, to what I will come to the end of this philosophical essay, but let me go further.
4. To what purpose is everything?
Now, my dear Pal, this is again a question to You, but, I am afraid, it is more rhetorical than real, because I alone, and probably before 20 years or so, have come to the conclusion that there are only two ways of moving in one and the same direction, and they are, as follows (using mathematical functions to describe them): either by sinusoid or by exponent! Where the first means cycle, crashes, demolitions, returning back to the beginning, what is the usual case, because the exponent is an invented circle, it involves the infinity (infinitely smooth, if on base e then all derivatives of it are exactly the same) and I suppose that even a God will become bored in the end to maintain such moderately measured increase or decrease forever, but it is possible also some mixture of both of these functions. And if we are moving in cycles then there can be only local goals in some moments, because later everything will crash — like the supposed shrinking of the Universe. What means that there cannot exist some ultimate goal or purpose, and everything is dynamic, and the only purpose can be seen in the continuing of this purposeless tremor or pulsation!
Anyway, the question is the ever-existing one, to which everyone comes in his (her) early years, and again to the end of his life, because when he begins his reproductive life he is too busy copulating and finding means for existence, in order to be able to copulate et cetera. The question states: what is the purpose of this life, after all, why we have to be born in order to die, wouldn't it have been better if we were not born and, hence, not be forced to die, or other similar variants. I, for my part, can add also: why is this local order on the background of global disorder, why is the retribution not to the concrete guilty person (or beast, or bacterium, or tree, etc.), or why we have to be better when we get nothing out of our good behaviour to the others, we just become easy prey in the hands of vicious beings (or not beings, of the nature) — because I have heard some old Hebrew saying that: no good deed on this world has remained unpunished! Or also: why this world is so arbitrary and indifferent to us (be we humans, or bed-bugs, or worms, or grass stems, or whatever alive)? Or: why the humans were created after all, because the other animals can't think and ask themselves questions, but we can, yet can't find the necessary answers?
So let me answer for You this time, ah, my Pal? The core postulate here is that in some cyclical process the only reasonable goal can be for the cycles to continue, because else stagnation will come (but the planets are circling, the stars are also moving, the galaxies too, the Universe is changing, on the other end of the scale the electrons, and whatever sub-atomic structures exist, are also in incessant movement, nobody has the right to stop). And for the purpose of the same incessant movement there has to be big arbitrariness present, which makes the life, in fact, interesting, yeah, by one determinate reaction to each action we would have liked the things even less, this is so (we just like to complain — especially the feminine individuals — because this, in a way, helps in the changing of everything). So that I, really, can't see other way for organization of the things if the incessant changing of everything has to continue. The arbitrariness is, so to say, the core of life; I have even read that there is pretty interesting to find the laws by which the very big (with, say, thousand digits) prime numbers are distributed, because they are distributed for us practically randomly, at least until we have found some rules to which they have to stick. And the arbitrariness of our world is indispensable prerequisite for existing of dynamical life!
Then about the local organization and the global chaos, well, probably there is no other way for the same reasons, if something is top-down rightly regulated then this inhibits the change and the dynamics, but without whatever organization there is also no go. This is understood also in the society, in the free market system, which is a kind of chaos, so that the subtlety is in this to allow some freedom yet not entire chaos; or to have partly top-down and partly bottom-up method, this is often done. And do You know, my Pal, I have even thought about this enormous spaces between the solar systems, then between the galaxies (and probably there can be even many many Universes, who knows — except You, my God Almighty), so big that even flying with the speed of light one will come to other galaxy for thousands and more years. And I have come to the conclusion that — only don't laugh at me — that this is just necessary (if something exist then it has to exist, its existence is justified when it is a fact — I am learning from old Eastern philosophers)! This is necessary first of all to allow existence of differences, otherwise by some law of connected vessels everything will be averaged, and this will diminish the variety; probably because of this the Universe is expanding and we are living now in the, so to say, positive half-wave, it could have been much worse if or when the Universe shrinks, thanks God that this is not in our times, am I right?
You see, my dear Pal, I have begun my questions to You with the living, self-organized matter and its creation, because each organization is diminishing of the chaos, or of the entropy in concrete physical meaning, while usually in a closed system the entropy is always increasing, what means also that arise new differences of various kinds, and the differences make the life interesting, am I right? So that the organization, the living matter, especially such high-intelligent beings like the humans, contradict to the unanimated, dead matter, where the entropy constantly increases. Hence this is an obvious contradiction: if we want the dead matter (which has to be highly predominant part of all matter in the Universe) to continue to exist, and the entropy-chaos to increase, then we should avoid any unnecessary introduction or expressions of intellect, or some additional (except the introduced by the chaos, so to say, minimal) organization, and vice versa. And this is because I think that the creation of this ... monstrous human beings, because they are badly constructed, they are only universal, but good practically for nothing, is, if not an error, then questionable; the other animals don't ask questions and do what are told (via the genetic code) to do, they are more disciplined, but we try to come to the meaning of some things that have not a meaning, in the expected by us form (and I have met somewhere that the humans deem themselves for free because they understand their wishes, but not the hidden motifs for the wishes). Or that the animals just live but we are always trying to better the life, in which process we often do many mischiefs and harms even to ourselves.
But it depends on the viewpoint, or on the model that we apply, or on our scope (local or more global), and one, I suppose You, can state that exactly because the entropy tends to increase we have to decrease it somehow, or because there is global chaos then has to exist local order, or because the humans are good for nothing they may prove (and are proving, in fact) good for everything (because the intellect works slowly, but it can give results when the fast reactions are erroneous), or that the purpose of some defects is to avoid the crashing of the whole construction in some non-desirable place, or that nobody can predict exactly what will be necessary in the next moment, and so on. Or, then, we have not to lose from sight the inversions in the negative half-wave, because we (and probably also You, ah?) don't know what will happen in the end of expanding phase of the Universe, how exactly will begin this shrinking, what is the infinity in the time-space continuum and what are its features. Because it may happen some, as it is said, elastic transformation, which will transform one form into its dual (in some sense) one, like, for example, we may think that the circle has two "points" (in some extended meaning), the center and the (whole) periphery (which can be in the infinity, yeah), that are connected with many (infinite number) of radiuses, and then we begin to extend the center and to shrink the periphery using some new dimension, what will make a cone, then a cylinder (or, rather, truncated cone), and then a cone directed in the opposite direction, then to leave the new dimension and return to the old ones, and, voila, the center has changed places with the periphery (even in the infinity)! I don't understand the relativity theory and some similar subjects, but as far as there everything depends on the geometry of the space such transformations are not to be entirely excluded.
So that the disorder is as necessary as the order, and the organic "mould" may be really necessary as building points or grains of local organization in order to make the global chaos more "palatable" so to say. Till the moment the humans as if more disfigure our planet than the contrary, but maybe some tens of thousands of years are nothing, we have to wait much more? Or then the humans will disappear more or less like the dinosaurs, and will leave the scene to some intelligent ants or cockroaches, or — why not? — bacterias (if they could succeed to connect themselves somehow and build some bacterial, instead of neural, net). So that, all in all, I begin to come to the conclusion that there are we, the humans, who do not understand the Creation, respectively God (You, my Pal), but it is also not necessary for us to be very clever, because, with our egoistic natures, we will make the things only worse, had we understood more profound the Nature-Creation. After all, we have not to forget that the intellect has nothing to do with the procreation of the species, and if in life the latter mattered, then the first must be of no big importance. And now I an moving to the last point of this philosophical essay, which is one of my usual monologues, or talks with myself, but can be taken also for dialogue with one divine Being, with You, my dear Pal, Who I have modelled in my head, in order to be able to feel You better.
5. Bye-bye, God, or a new miracle
And now, feeling you better, I come to the conclusion that You must be not exceedingly happy, am I right? Because everything becomes boring, also the free movement not only in the space (and probably with 6-7 dimensions, what do I know) but also in the time. And I am sure that You understand me, because everything changes, only You can't change, yeah, You are infinitely wise, so that You can't become more wiser (while I can, and every time and again I become a bit wiser than was before). And one must add to this the immortality and the lonely life (because there can't be relatives of the gods, they don't multiply, they live alone, even I can converse with my readers on the sites, have tedious everyday things to do, that engage me somehow — You can't imagine how happy one may feel sometimes even ... emptying the bladder, yeah, believe me). And this for ever and ever, ah, this must be a nightmare for You. And You probably with all Your heart yearn to be able to die, but are immortal, alas! Yet maybe I can help You, I have come to one quite simple solution, which I will tell You now, if You don't mind.
I want to help You because I become more and more convinced that You are conscientious Being, and do Your duties and never tire, and were I at Your place I would have, after all, behaved myself in the same way, I am feeling You like my brother. And what if You have simply failed to see the obvious solution (or, then, have not had other mortal being to whom You may trust)? While the idea is the following, it is in the correct understanding of what a divine Being can be! For me it is clear that this is some kind (or, then, all kinds) of information, am I right? And the information can simply be transferred, can change places with other information, such things are done. So that if You swap Your information, Your being so to say, with my information, my being presented in my head, then when it comes time for me (i.e. for my older me) to die, then will die, in fact You, in my body, and I will live for ever in Your former, in fact, no-body (where Your vital info is written)! This is it in broad outlines, where, I suppose, You can leave some dormant (inactive) copy of Yourself but the real performer of Your eternal duties will become I. In other words, I can sacrify myself in the name of our friendship, right?
With me this swapping can be done also because I have decided when I will die, there may happen some little fluctuation of the date in only positive direction of the time, but this is not significant, and my body is pretty decently preserved, I am neither fat nor too slim, neither high nor of very low stature, and have practically no illnesses in my nearly 70 (at least no internal diseases). So that, if you wish, and have some unknown to me ways for longevity, and with my heavenly help (I promise You this) You can manage to live a pair of decades more, or probably centuries, if You manage to change Your body with someone's else's because to live more than, say, 120, will become suspicious. And I have decided to die exactly at the 3rd day of the 5th month of the 35th year of this century, between 3 and 5 o'clock in the night, after the second ... emptying of the bladder! This will make about 85 years, what I find decent age to die nowadays. So that You are welcome to jump in my body after the first pissing and send me (i.e. the content of my brain) back to where You have come from. And don't care about this, that publishing this paper people will know about this possibility, because they will simply not believe, they will think that I am joking, while I am deadly serious, my Pal.
I am serious while looking at life as at an everlasting and ever-changeable game, what is the only proper way of looking at such unstable thing. Only that I have a bit more humane look at the wasting of biological matter, but I can become used to its generous spending, when this is necessary in the name of the Creation. And I'll tell You one more thing, I not only think that on Your place I would behave in Your way, but that You, most probable exist, after all! Only that You must unquestionably be quite different from the ideas that each religion tries to implant in the heads of its believes (especially of Christian religion, which is unnecessary and unbelievably decorated) and I am sure that You know why this is so. Of course for the reason that people are in their masses like little children, they want to be lulled and deluded, while reasonably thinking people are, and have always been, a minority of 2-3, at most 5 percents. But everybody wants to have his fun, most of us in the delusions, and a tiny amount in finding of the truth. I can't say what is better, it depends on the nature of the person, but on the background of no global goal in the everlasting life this is also of no big importance.
And You are bound to exist, because I perceive You as some spirit of the Universe, as sum of all possible laws of existence and characteristics of the matter under the given circumstances, and each thing has its spirit, this can't be denied. If I were not of such high opinion about You, I would have said that it is possible that You have not yet recognized Your existence and are just doing Your duty in maintaining the equilibrium of the matter in each moment like a disciplined dog, for example (or like what I am doing after the coming of democracy in my poor country, I am educating the people in each possible way as independent and unemployed thinker), but You are bound to know that You are God (if You are, that's it). Only that You, as also I, are in the unwavering hands of the material necessity, You have free will, but in some limits, this is my conviction, because everything is interrelated, everything is dynamic and changeable, and everything is not perfect, but the only possible variant (one of the unlimited number of parallel Universities) under the circumstances. As also I guess that this proposed by me swapping is not something entirely new for You, this has to be the way in which You have influenced the ... ovum in the uterus of some Mary, virgin or not, if there is some truth in the Christian fable. And, ha, ha, even if You do not exist, why me not to take Your place, being already so enlightened, ah? From strictly logical point there is nothing that can disallow performing of an implication (i.e. conclusion, if - then clause), if the precondition is not satisfied, this can, or can not, happen.
Ah, but I have preserved one surprise for You at the end, I want to give You the possibility to show Your existence, if You want this, to make, so to say, a new miracle. This will not be scientifically sound proof, but in this case such proof is not at all possible, because You have to be not (or at least partly) material, and we can't measure non-material things, even rays or waves have material nature, they can be registered, but unless we register something non-material (what we cannot register) then Your existence is questionable. And I have met even one jocular sentence, that: if the existence of God can be proved, then He does ... not exist! This is incorrect logical conclusion (yet let me not indulge in more explanations) but the idea is clear, it is that if somebody has proved something of the kind, then he has obviously made somewhere some error. OK, but there remain the so called circumstantial evidences, that increase the conviction of people, and they are massively used in law suites, and will suffice also here. The idea is to make something nearly impossible happen, and then the masses will believe that there is the finger of God staying here.
Good, but this 3-5 date (let me shorten it so) of my death — natural, let me say this explicitly, no killing and no poisons or other suicidal methods —, prophesied more than 15 years in advance (rather 17), what makes more than 5,000 days (rather 6,000), is obviously something unbelievable, so that if this happens then all people will say: "Wow, how was this only possible? But the ways of God are unpredictable. And this guy Myrski, he is also Chris, this can't be occasional? And he has lived between us and we have marked nothing!", and such things. Because in this case it will be clear that You have either somehow visited also my mother, or have come into my brain some time later, have assisted me in all my creative activity, and so on; nobody will suppose that such exact guess is else possible; and, besides, to make a good prophesy is what the ... professors are able to do, the professionals, so that somebody, either me or You, and predominantly You, as just mentioned, will be taken for insurmountable prophet. And I'll tell You, dear God, that there can be some minuses or pluses in the date, only the pluses twice more than the minuses, because I have said that it may be later, but not before. Say, one day before or two after is brilliant precision, the same with weeks is also miraculous, even a month earlier or two later is still something remarkable. This is so, because it can always be said that I, with my brain of mathematician, and my love to the numbers, have unconsciously changed a bit the date told me by You.
So that, my dear Pal, if You are game to show Yourself I am ready to sacrifice myself, and die only at 85, while I have interesting ideas for, maybe, a pair of centuries more, really. But if I will take Your place the time will be of no importance for me, and helping You in the dying business will give me strength, so that I agree.
Anyway, bye-bye, my dear God, and I will expect Your visit at the mentioned night, or any time later, what suits You better.
Dec, 2018
Appendix
IF I WERE GOD
Oh, life is pretty doubtful a matter,
We judge about it, but that's a clatter,
And no one's ever grasped the part its greater,
So that we move in it like mannequins,
And ultimately lose, just rare win,
Yet were I God I would have done the same.
Then God's existence can be proved with nothing,
But to disprove Him means that one does not think,
For He the Nature ... dresses, is like clothing,
What seams discouraging for lot of us,
We find, this world is rotten, lies in pus,
Yet were I God I would have done the same.
And good and bad is relative a notion,
We sink in these nuances like in ocean,
Exacerbate the matter the emotions,
So we spill juices, albumins, or blood,
To multiply and th'others t'kill in bud,
Yet were I God I would have done the same.
Or sex and propagation take, such number
Of future copies makes us often stumble,
Survival's hindered thus, and I can grumble,
That in the sex we fun have but the trees,
Or grasses, fishes, suffer giving seeds,
Yet were I God I would have done the same.
Each living form is perilous for th'others,
Thus the variety is lessened rather,
While chaos is the equilibrium's mother,
What means that life is as if kind of mould,
And it disfigures Nature pretty bold,
Yet were I God I would have done the same.
To this is added bottom-up Creation,
And movement hazardous to no end-station,
With risk — the cause for joys, exhilarations,
And building this process will never stop,
And we shall always move in silly mob,
Yet were I God I would have done the same.
With this I don't raise for discovery my claim,
From atheistic point is life a perfect game,
And if a God exists I praise Him still, don't blame.
Sep, 2017
BULGARIAN LESSONS*
[ * This is from the folder "For Arabs, Chinese, And Hindus". ]
Abstract:This is a try to provide English reading people all around the world (yet basically without Europe and also without native English speaking people from USA etc., because they will hardly care much about this, as I suppose), what is reduced mainly to, Arabs, Hindus, some Asian people, and even Chinese, with an easy and simple introduction to Bulgarian language. Being this the material contains the following parts: the way how the Slavonic alphabet looks, together with one method to mark in Latin the exact pronunciation, then phonetical explanations coupled with author's ideas about the types of vowels and consonants, after this some simple grammar, without going into much details, and to the end is placed a super-short (which is not really very short) dictionary of Bulgarian words by categories together with their nearest relations with other Western languages (German, English, Latin, Greek, etc, yet also Russian in places as another Slavonic one). The last means that here is performed comparative analysis of Bulgarian language, and such comparisons are done also in the previous parts, what is important feature of the material and such things are not given in usual lessons. In short, this is not a series of lessons in Bulgarian but a unique review and solid basis for further rich on consequences evolvement in the next materials to one crucial for the whole world idea.
0. Introduction
My dear readers, I hurry in the very beginning to tell you that this is not a textbook of Bulgarian language and can not substitute such necessary tool for learning of this language, if you have decided to learn it. Yeah, but if you don't cherish much such ideas then somebody has to convince you that this is necessary, what I intend to do not only in this, but also in the next materials. And this one thing is not a textbook, no, it is more than this, it is a try to provide you with a popular, although for that matter superficial, introduction to this language, to make you a bit acquainted with it, not to be frightened by it, because this is not some rare language with no or just a few other similar family members around (like, say, Hungarian, or also Estonian), but is first of all Slavonic language, then European one, what means that we have many common roots and words with the Teutons, the English, the French and Latin people, but also with the Greeks, and even with the Turks and Persians. In contrast with these and many other languages, though, the Bulgarian is very simple, nice sounding, and worth learning it, especially on the background of contemporary, I would say, mess and deadlock in linguistical aspect, because you know that for the last about a century several languages have come down from the world stage, namely: before a century the French, then the German, then after the collapse of Communist block also the Russian, and remained only the English, which is ... well, bad, of course, unsuitable for many nations (on what I will dwell in the third material here).
So that if you know English good enough to read and understand it, then you better read these papers, more so because here I will compare different languages, will make comparative analysis of Bulgarian and at least English, and will do this in quite untraditional and unorthodox way, using some new ideas of mine about standardization of the alphabets for the whole world, and about the kinds of vowels and consonants in all languages, and this should be interesting, I suppose. So, for example, in the first chapter I will give Bulgarian alphabet, yet only to see it, to know that it is not something twisted like Hebrew or Arabic or Sanskrit, or even Greek alphabet, but is not much different from the Latin, and then will make use of one latest invention of mine to use only the 26 (and even minus 3) standard Latin letters for writing of all words, and so how they are pronounced, not in the crazy — ah, sorry, — English way. Then in the next chapter I will discuss the various possible sounds in all languages and show you that the Bulgarian has the simplest phonetic at all, even better than that of the Italian, which is proverbial language in the sense of clear and simple vowels (yet it is pretty restricted, over simplified — just to give an example: they don't say bible but say bibbia —, and, hence, poor), where the Bulgarian phonetic is all-comprising, there are present many old sounds, from Sanskrit, through Arabic, and to the English. Further we will come to the grammar, which is again the simplest possible, we have no cases, only present, future, and past tenses (and, say, the Italians have 14 tenses), all genders are easily recognizable by the endings, though there are some peculiar (yet not difficult) moments which will be explained. And at the end will be given some super-short dictionary but with explanations, why we use this or that word, to which other contemporary or ancient roots it is related, what is part of my etymological researches given in my enormous and inimitable book about my God Urrh.
So that, when I say: "Dear reader, it's for you/ Arab, Chinese, or Hindu/ or from other nation, too", then this is the real situation, I don't just attract gullible readers, I am telling important things, and you'll do better to pay them the necessary attention. My only common advice is: don't try to read everything at once, the things are easily explained and in clear English (my relatively limited English vocabulary is this time of advantage for foreign readers), but the material is difficult, my explanations are highly informative, so that you better read by a chapter a day (or even a section sometimes), and then go to have some coffee (or some ... hmm, refreshing sex, ah?).
Ouch, let me include in the beginning also some shortenings, because some words I will repeat often, and it is well accepted in scientific literature to use abbreviations. My short signs will be the following: lang. for language, char for character, V. for vowel, C. for consonant, M. for Modifier, w. for word, r. for root, let. for letter, alph. for alphabet, bc. for because (it turns that I use it quite often), m. for means, s. for see, comp. for compare (with), sim. for similar, smt. for something, smb. for somebody, smw. for somewhere, and maybe smt. more will be added later. Then all langs I will shorten to 2 or 3 chars, like: Eng. (for English), Bul. (Bulgarian), Rus. (Russian), Fr. (French), Ger. (German), Teu. (Teutonic), It. (Italian), Am. (American), Lat. (Latin), Gr. (Greek), Ar. (Arabic), Per. (Persian), Tur. (Turkish), Skr. (Sanskrit), Chi. (Chinese), and possibly others; also with "s" this will m. the people speaking this lang., say, Lats, or Ams, or Ars. et cetera (even Frs or Engs, end you read it if you want as -men). And also "" are for usual quoting of ws, '' are for the pronunciation, where also It. font may denote some foreign w. or may just stress on the meaning.
1. Bulgarian alphabet
I will tell you the Bul. alph. but before this is necessary to have settled some way for explaining of pronunciation, which things I discuss in my maybe oldest work in this field "An Illiterate World" (further as "Ill.W."), but so far as I have made my latest invention of "Myrski's English Transliteration" (further "Eng.Trlit."), where are used only the lets from Lat. alph. and without whatever points, stresses, or other "chicks" above or below, I will paste here one fragment from the short user's guide for the latter proposition. It is not so universal, yet it is good enough, and for Bul. lang. it is more than enough.
—-
Firstly the Latin (Lat. for shot) alphabet is purified using each letter for only one sound, what means that "c" becomes 'c' and 'k', "g" becomes 'g' and 'zh', "y" is freed (with using of the "i"), as also "q" (substituted with the 'k'), "x" (changed to 'ks'), and "w" (it isn't used in the Lat.). In addition are introduced "h" and "j" as modifiers (M. /Ms), where "h" is M. for the vowels (Vs), used for prolongation (to 1.5 sounds approximately), and also for consonants (Cs), used to harden their sounding (like 'th', 'gh', etc.) , and "j" is M. for Vs, used to build diphthongs (shorten to diph., usually written as "ai" or "io" etc.), and of Cs, used for softening of their sounding (like in the Sp. for Spanish cañon); when there is a necessity to write "h" as readable char then 'hh' is to be used (if in the given lang. for language may arise confusion). As you have seen, the double quotes are used for direct quotation of chars, and the single ones for this new transliteration, and in this manner it also shows how the chars are to be pronounced.
Then is introduced one new basic V., in addition to the usual "a", "e", "i", "o", and "u", which is coded with 'y' and sounds like in Eng. (for English) "girl". In addition to the basic Vs we may have also Md (for modified) what means that one begins to tell one sound but ends with saying another one; examples for this are: the Lat. "ae" (like in "back") and "oe" (used mainly in the Fr. for French), but also many others, like: 'ya' as in "but", "yi" (this is Rus. for Russian eri, as in myi-we etc.), Fr. 'uo', 'io', Fr. and Rus. etc. 'ie', and whatever you want; mark though that here can't be used "j" bc. it isn't V. Then there can be also diphs, mainly with "j", like 'jo', 'ja', aj', uj', etc. (the examples are obvious and in other langs they are usually written using "i"), but also how one wishes, like in: 'iy' (as in 'niy'-near), 'aey' (as in 'paey'-pear), 'ou', 'au', etc.; there can be triphthongs, too, like 'auy' (as in 'tauy'-tower), 'aiy', etc., but they are better to be thought as two syllables (like in Ger. for German 'bau|y'-Bauer). As the basic, so also the Md Vs, as well as the diphs, can be prolonged adding "h" after them (like in 'gyhl'-girl, 'fah'-far, 'suhn'-soon, 'mjuhzik'-music', etc.). If one wants to make the way of combining the Vs indisputable one has to use subscripts for the Md Vs (like in 'byat'-but, 'blaek'-black, 'myi'-Rus.-we, 'paey'-pear, etc.), and /or superscripts for the diphs (like in 'boj'-boy, Ger. name 'Johanes', 'grou'-grow, 'taun'-town, 'tauy'-tower, etc.), and /or put between the Cs "|" or "-" to signify that they are not to be joined (say, like in Lat. pi|ano), but usually this is rarely necessary because every lang. permits, either simple combining of Vs read separately, or modifying or making of diphs.
As to the Cs, there are used all usual ones, with the following remarks: 'c' is like in Caesar, or Ger. Zahn-toot), "h" is written like 'hh' when read (with exception of beginning but still somehow read "h" like in Ger. 'haben'-haben-have), "k" is 'k', hence "ck" is 'kk', "q" is written with 'k', "r" may be sometimes given as 'rh' or even 'rj' (but if it is equally read in the given lang. only 'r' suffices), "v" is 'v' (so Ger. "w" is changed to 'v'), the Eng. "w" is written as 'vh', "x" is 'ks', 'z' is like in "zero", then 'sh' is like in "shop", 'ch' is like in "church, 'zh' is like in "measure" or Fr. jour-day, 'th' and 'dh' are the same like in the Eng., "ph" is not used in new langs and changed to 'f', in some langs may be met also 'bh', 'gh', etc., the Eng. "j" is 'dzh', and is added usage of "j" as softening sign after Cs (like in Sp. 'kanj|on').
So that is it. Don't forget that this is method for writing of the words how they are read, so that if there are several ways for writing of one phoneme then confusions may happen, the responsibility for which take the very lang. It is lang. specific, but except of this it is still universal for every lang., and the Lat. alphabet is well known.
—-
And now there are no problems to cite for you our Cyrillic (Cyr. for short) alph., which has 30 lets, but 3 of them are combinations (щ, ю, я), so this gives 27 in number, not really more than in Lat., yet with 'sh', 'ch', and 'zh' included as single lets, and with the most important sound 'y' (like in girl), which is missing from all Western alphs.
А ('a'), Б ('b'), В ('v'), Г ('g'), Д ('d'),
Е ('e'), Ж ('zh'), З ('z'), И ('i'), Й ('j' as semi-V.),
К ('k'), Л ('l'), М ('m'), Н ('n'), О ('o'),
П ('p'), Р ('r'), С ('s'), Т ('t'), У ('u'),
Ф ('f'), Х ('h' as let.), Ц ('c'), Ч ('ch'), Ш ('sh'),
Щ ('sh|t'), Ъ ('y'), Ь ('j' as M.), Ю ('ju'), Я('ja'),
As simple as that. Where you can see that roughly half of the lets are from the good old Lat., with some mixing here and there bc. of the Gr. alph. If we start from 'a' then our "в" looks like Lat. "b" bc of the Grs (they just never have together 'b' and 'v', either this or that, and their β-'beta' is now read 'vita'), then our "г"-'g' is more like Gr. γ, "ж" is a new sign, "з"-'z' is like ζ, our "р"-'r' looks like Lat. "p" bc. the Lats have messed the things, this is Gr. ρ (and "п"-'p' is Gr. π, and the image of the last, according to Myrski is ... a chicken or hen), then our "с"-'s' is nearer to Gr. σ, then "у"-'u' looks like Lat. "y" also bc of misunderstandings between the Grs and the Lats (this is the image of Gr. υ, which has given both Lat. "u" and "v"), then "ф"-'f' is made symmetrical, "х"-'h' is Gr. χ and it is pronounced also in Sp. in this way, and the other lets are new inventions of Cyril and Methodius (who made our alph. back in 9th century).
So this alph. is called Cyr., but it is rather Bul., not only bc. we make perfect use of it and it suffices for us, whether other nations add smt., at least Lat. "i", but also bc. we pronounce everything as we write (and v.v.) while even the Russ have some exceptions, don't say pure 'e' but 'ie', for example (and have also that "donkey" sound 'yi'), the Serbs also have additions, and the Czechs and Poles have surely problems with Lat. alph. (and the Turks, too). So that this alph. is pretty good for all langs, it is quite near to what is given in "Ill.W." yet I will not use it here, I will use my way for transliteration with Lat. chars in single quotes bc. you can't learn it so quickly. But let me again stress that we read everything exactly, we have no exceptions of reading of some sound according to the environment, i.e. what is after the char., yet sometimes also what is before it (like with "-gn-" m-ing 'nj', say, It signore); neither we write one sound in several ways (like the Frs write the nasal sound 'oq' in 4 different ways; or take also the "traditional" from old Gr. "-ai-" m-ing simple 'e', like in Fr. paire which has become "pair" in the Eng.). It is really amazing how we, the Buls, being such ... barbarous people in many other aspects, have managed to use the alph. so straightforwardly and correct, but that's it.
And one more moment, the alph. is not smt. unavoidable there can be used another one with some tricks, many nations use this approach (say, the Turks) but it is always good to have an adequate with the lang. alph., like our is (at least bc. it is a relatively later invention), not such utterly inadequate like with the Fr. and the Eng., and from this we can elementary transfer to whatever new standard for world-wide alph. there emerges, so that, in the end, the alph. also is very important element, and it is now one of the European alphs (and langs), mark this!
Ah, maybe it will be interesting to you to perceive why some people use unsuitable alph., and not only do this trying somehow to cope with the difficulties using several chars to mark their sounds (like the Its, the Sps for Spaniards, or the Gers), what is decent behaviour, but try to differ maximally from the (Lat., usually) original, and read everything topsy-turvy (like, e.g., Fr. "oi" as 'uo', or, Eng. "i" as 'aj', etc.). Well, I have come to the conclusion that here, in addition to the normal (but if in some measure, not overdone) wish to differ from the others, to express oneself, hides also mere ... hypocrisy, for they have understood pretty formally the bible words that in the beginning was the word. Id est they have pretended that they don't change the ws, yet reading them in different way is a changing, this is not real faith, this is hypocritical behaviour. The surest way out is to use different alph., and the more universal it is the better.
So, and now let us come to smt. more lang. specific, to the
2. Bulgarian phonetics.
2.1. Vowels
The Vs in the whole world, in my opinion, are of three categories: basic, modified (M.), and combined (comb-d) or diphthongs (and triphthongs). I am sorry if this will make some literary men or linguists indignant, bc they may not use this terminology, but I am not to be blamed that there is not an unified view to such things, and even the Indo-European langs (I.-E. for short) are called by the Gers Indo-German, or, say, the Engs write "a" and read 'ej' (as also the well known Tur. ... coffee is called in Greece Gr. one). Such things often happen (that one finds that — I beg to be excused — the own sh## does not smell) and I like to have universal and unbiased approach for every nation, so that I have thought about this even in my "Ill.W.". And I am telling this bc., as you will see just now, the basic Vs are all present in Bul. lang., but I have come to the conclusion which exactly are they not bc they are from the Bul., but bc. they are basic ones.
a) I count for basic vowels (or main, pure) the following 6 Vs: 'a', 'e', 'i', 'o', 'u', and 'y' (in Cyr.: 'а, е, и, о, у, ъ'). And this exactly in Bul. pronunciation, not in Rus., for example (who have our "ъ" but don't pronounce it at all, think that this is smt. like apostrophe), or in Ger. (who have not the 'y' sound but use it in some endings, e.g. their Lehrer-teacher is pronounced 'lehry'), or also in It. (they don't even dream about such beautiful 'y' sound), not to mention the severe cases like Fr. or Eng. (it turns out that the latter don't have simple 'a' — they have 'ah', have 'ae', etc, but not the purest V., i.e. they have confused all ideas about what is basic and what is derivative in some way). Well, in the Rus. variant of this paper I explained to them what they don't pronounce correct (and they have paid no attention at all to me, you can bet about this), and that their usual "е" is 'ie', but their "back 'e' (э in their Cyr.) is the right 'e', but will not indulge here in such deviations (it is enough for you to learn Bul, there is no need to come to Rus. or Ukr. for Ukrainian, these langs, in fact all other Sl. for Slavonic langs are, in one or another aspect, severe cases). So, these differences come often from old Gr., and there, really, are two 'e'-s, ε and η. But let me mention also, as a bad example, the Frs, who use three kinds of stress signs, neither one of which is real stressing, and when they put two points above some V. this means not its modification, but exactly on the contrary (like, e.g. their Citroën).
b) The modified vowels (Md), as we have already said, are such where we want to say one thing but until we say it we change our intention and say smt. else, yet this is one sound, not a comb-n. When there are 6 basic Vs then there can be maximum 6*6 Md Vs, each with each, yet you may count them for 30, bc. modification with the same V. are meaningless, and with 'y' the possible are as if only 'ya' and Rus. 'yi' (you try so say smt. like 'ye' or 'yu.' — but maybe the Chis will use them). There are many such Md Vs in Ger. or Fr., or Eng. (where the right way is the Lat. one, their "-ae-" and "-oe-", what is accepted also by the Gers, say, their böse-angry, etc) but in Bul. there are no such sounds (we write rarely our "ьо" as 'io', but it may be taken also for the diphthong 'jo' without making of big error). Well, we often substitute more open Vs ('a', 'o', 'e') with their more closed pairs ('y', 'u', 'i'), and may pronounce the known on the East 'boza' like 'buzy', but this is taken as uneducated, and it is another thing. And, as already said, in Bul. when we write, say, 'a' we read it exactly, not like the Russ, who pronounce their unstressed "о"-'o' as Md 'ya' (as in Eng. "but", however strange this may seem).
c) The combined vowels (double and triple "thongs") are now a comb-ns of several sounds which are spoken joined, in one breath, as one syl. for syllable, yet this is not one sound; they can consist of basic as well also of Md Vs. ( There is used the w. diphthong also for some cases where are used 2 chars but is read only one, like in the mentioned Fr. paire-'per', but for me this is not correct use of this term. ) Such comb-d Vs we have, yet in the simplest and everywhere spread variants, with the semi-V. 'j', either before, or after the V., like: 'jo', 'ju' (written with one let., "ю"), 'ja' (also one let., "я"), as well also 'aj', 'oj', etc., but as far as we have our "й"-'j' char, there are no problems at all (as also in Ger. with their "j"). Ah, there may be some problems with the let 'j' in general, bc. it may associate with the previous or with the next V. (like in the example of Fr. mayonnaise, where I always have thought that it is 'ma-jo-nez', and it turned that it is 'maj-o-nez'), but with our 'ju' and 'ja' lets there are no problems in Bul. (yet in Rus., and maybe some other Sl. langs, there are long endings for adjectives, like '-aja', '-juja', '-yij', where, if there were not these last 2 char in the alph., there might have been problems, and we would have been forced to give them here as '-a|ja', '-ju|ja', '-yij'). I suppose that 'j' as semi-V. can be observed as 'ii', and when it is joined with some V. it remains only one of its parts, i.e. either the basic 'i' or the modifying 'i', but this is not of principal importance.
Yet mark, please, that there is a difference between 'jo' and 'io', as well also between these Vs. and the usual consequence of Vs. (like in It. piano, what the Its pronounce as 'pj|ano', the Sls as 'pi|ano', and the Engs as 'pjae|nou'). But these are not problems for the Bul., as said, our lang. has the simplest phonetics, like in the It. and even better with the Cs. We even have not long Vs, which can be signified here with adding of "h" as M. (say, like in Eng. "ah"), there may happen sometimes 'aa' or 'ii' but these are just by 2 Vs ('a|a' or 'i|i'), they can be split on two lines, and in some langs, like in Lat. and It., there is not so much stressing than is slight prolongation, and in the Lat. they are usually marked with horizontal line above the let. (but such elongation existed in the Skr., and it exists in the Gypsy lang., so that they will say, for example, 'mahngo' for their beloved jargon 'mango' m-ing simply a man, or 'bahte' for Bul. 'bate'-older-brother).
2.2. Consonants
Here, too, exist no problems at all, especially with our special lets 'sh', 'ch', 'zh', and even 'sh|t' (with this peculiarity that in Rus. the last let, is read 'sh|ch'). Despite of this I will explain here the things properly again by types of Cs, how this is given in "Ill.W.".
a) The basic consonants are the following (19), according to me, and they go in doubles and triples, namely: 'b-p, v-f, d-t, m-n, r-l, g-k-h, z-c-s, zh-ch-sh', and they all are present in the Sl. langs, and we don't need more than them. It can be said that the Rus. 'shch' or Bul. (what is the beloved Gypsy sound) 'dzh' must also be added (like the latter is added in Eng. with "j" or in It. with "g" sometimes), but this is unnecessary luxury, and then the Poles can require also 'psh', 'ndr', and others), and such comb-s are split at the end of the line, where you try to split 'sh' or 'zh' (which not only in this transliteration are written with 2 chars, but usually on the West, where the most severe case are the Gers, who write our 'ch' as "tsch"). Some of these Cs, in general from the triples above, may not be present on the West, but they exist in all Sl. langs.
b) Modified consonants in Bul. lang. do not exist, but they are present in many Western, as well also in old and Eastern langs, like, for example: "ph" and "th" for Gr. φ and θ, the Eng. 'dh' , like in "this /that", their notorious "w", which even becomes a V., and many aspirated consonants in the old Eastern langs (like 'bh' or 'gh' — which sounds I prefer to call choking sounds, if you'll excuse me, my dear Ars, Pers, and Hindus), and so on; even our usual 'r' on the West is not heard in many cases (like in the classical case of the "car" pronounced as 'kah'). We don't use even our "ь"-'j' as M. where the Russ use it quite often (e.g.: 'myishj' is a mouse, 'rechj' is a speech, etc.), and not only they, this is often met sound in It., Sp., or even in Ger. and Eng. like 'rj'; I personally don't think that this lack of using of one good M. in Bul. lang. is a good think, bc. it gives melody to the ws, but that's it, we like "it" to be hard (m-ing here mainly that "ь" is called "soft sign", where "ъ" is "hard sign").
c) There can be various combined consonants, like our "щ"-'sht', or the mentioned 'dzh', or even Srb. for Serbian 'srp' (like in 'srpski' m-ing exactly Srb. — and in such cases we insert our beloved "ъ"-'y'), and so on, but there is nothing difficult here. I repeat, in Bul. the phonetics is the simplest possible, like It. and even better, and bc. of this we speak relatively good Eng. (not like the Chis, Negroes, and even Its, or also Russ — who, for example, can't pronounce the w. "girl", they say smt. like 'giorl').
3. Simplified Bulgarian grammar
Well, even the simplified Bul. grammar for Eng. speaking Ars. etc., has to take some 50 or so pages, yet the great Myrski will try to do this on a pair of pages (how? — obviously only perfunctory, there is no other way, but I have explained that my goal is to introduce you in Bul., not to teach you it).
3.0. Main verbs and pronouns
The main verbs, naturally, are to be and to have, but I may add a pair more verbs (like must, will, can, etc.). Let me tell you though that we have even not an infinitive form, we use the 1st person sing. for singular (resp., pl. for plural). So that to be is 'sym' with forms in present tense: 'sym, si, e; sme, ste, sa', then for the future tense is used particle (like in the Eng.), 'shte' m-mg "will", and the forms are: 'shte byda, shte bydesh, shte byde; shte bydem, shte bydete, shte bydat'. In the past tense there are some variants, the simple past tense is called in Bul. 'svyrsheno'-finished 'vreme'-tense with forms: 'bjah, beshe, beshe; bjahme, bjahte, bjaha' (yet have in mind that we read the 'h', this is not M., maybe it has to be given here as 'bjahh', ... 'bjahhme', etc. but I said that we have not prolonged Vs.), then there can be said also 'bil / bila, bilo /bili' when we are not sure about the action, and some other more complicated forms like 'sym bil, si bil, ...', 'bil sym bil, ...', 'shtjal sym da sym bil, ...' but such things are rarely used. It is also interesting to comp. our present tense with the It. one, where they say: sono, sei, e, siamo, siete, sono, which are very similar.
Then the verb to have is 'imam' with present tense: 'imam, imash, ima; imame, imate, imat', the future is 'shte imam, sthe imash, ...', simple past tense is 'imah (имах), imashe, imashe; imahme, imahte, imaha', and also variants like 'bjah imal', 'bil imal', bil sym bil imal', and others (we will look at this mole closely later). Though, exactly in Bul., 'imam' isn't main verb, we don't use it for building of past tenses, only 'sym' is used, I cited it by tradition. So that let us add also the verb "must", which is of the r. of Eng. "try" or rather "thrive", i.e. some pushing forward with force, and there is even one form, we take this as particle, and say just 'trjabva' in present tense, 'shte trjabva' in future, and 'trjabvashe' or trjabvalo' in past tense. The verb "will' we already gave, this is 'shte', also in one form, but to can is full-rights verb with forms, in the present: 'moga, mozhesh, mozhe, mozhem, mozhete, mogat', then in the past is 'mozheh, mozheshe, mozheshe, mozhehme, mozhehte, mozheha', also one more past tense as finished action, 'mozhàh, mozhà, mozhà, mozhàhme, mozhàhte, mozhàha', and in future 'shte moga, shte mozhesh, ...'.. We have no modal verbs (like the Gers who have 6 such), and the passive is expressed in third person sing. (e.g. "this material is written by me" will be '... e napisan ...', where 'napisan' is participle from 'napisha'-to-write.
Now about the pronouns, which are a mixture of Lat, Ger., Gr., and maybe even Skr. words. The main forms are: 'az, ti, toj, tja, to; nie, vie, te', what means, by the way, that we have 3 genders, and are more or less similar with the Ger. (ich-'ih', du, er, sie, es; wir, ihr, sie; or then with the Eng. forms but the Eng. lang. is said to be Teu. one), or It. (io, tu, egli-'elji', essa, esso, noi, voi, essi). Then in Accusative they are: 'men, teb, nego, neja, nego; nas, vas, tjah'; further in Dative are the same preceded by the particle 'na', i.e. 'na men, na teb, ...' or shorter: 'mi, ti, mu, `i' (stressed in order to differ from 'i' as "and"), 'mu; ni, vi, im'; then the possessive forms (for mas. for masculine; where fem. will be for feminine, and it is built with adding of an '-a') are: 'moj, tvoj, negov, nejn, negov; nash, vash, tehen'; and reflexive form is 'se' or 'si'. Ah, and I mentioned the Skr. bc. "your own" is 'svoj', and a farther in law is 'svekyr', what in Ger. is Schwieger (read 'shvihgy'), and in It. it is suocero (read 'suochero'), and smt. similar is in the Skr., with the m-ing of smt. own, added to you.
3.1. Prepositions
Well, this point is left from the Rus. variant, bc. they have 6 cases and we have not a single one (although there is a rudiment of one — the vocative case, when addressing smb., say, if he is 'Ivan' we say 'Ivane', if she is 'Penka' we say 'Penke', etc, though 'Pencho' remains unchanged), and without cases are used simply more prepositions. This is so, but in regard of the frequency of use, not of their numbers, and the main are the following: 'na' as of, possession, for, at, on, etc. (like in "bettering of the rules of working of this appliance" will be 'podobrjavane na pravilata na rabota na ustrojstvoto', and we try somehow to drop some of them, like the marked in It. first occurrence), 'za' as for, about, 'po' as on, through, via, by, etc., 'ot' as from, out of, 'kym' as to, toward, 'v /vyv' as in, into, 'pri' as to, by, 'do' as next to, adjacent, but also others, like: 'nad'-above, 'pod'-below, 'otpred'-at-the-front, 'otzad'-at-the-back, 'vyn'-outside, 'okolo'-around, and others
( If you are interested I may give you some hints about these prepositions, which ideas a hidden behind them. So 'na' is variant of "on" but the m-ing of possession may come from the particle "now" in Eng. or nah in Ger. in the sense of smt. obvious, or to attract attention, and we use illiterately the particle 'na' as "take it". Then 'za' has to stay smw. around Ger. zu as to, for; 'po' must be akin with old Gr. πεδον as earth, ground, where are also the pedestals; 'ot' might be related with a Skr r. 'ud' as smt. raised above, or also comes from our 'otivam' as "go to"; 'kym' is Lat. cum as with; 'v' is inserting, fusion, some 'fi'; 'pri' is like Lat. per, which is also old Gr.; 'do' is after in the Lat. view of the things, where in It. dopo means after (and I have strong suspicion that this is related with the hole in form of our 'dupe' what is ... an ass-hole); 'nad' is above and here is our 'nadezhda'-hope, so that we maybe hope in some god; 'pod' is somehow like 'po' and especially 'pod' in Bul. is a floor; 'okolo' is the circle, and around this 'o' stays also the Rus. 'u'-around; and so on; these are very fuzzy ideas, but for one-syllabic ws this suffices. )
3.2. Articles
Ah, here are new moment. Bc. what is this article you know but you think that it has to walk all by itself before the noun, yet it turns out that there can be exceptions. And for the Russ, by the way, these exceptions seem enormously big bc. they don't use at all articles (somehow manage, around their 6 cases, to do without these parts of speech, say, when they say "good book" in Rus. they understand that "this is a good book" and when they say "book good" — they have the habit to miss the verb to be, what came smw. from the old Lats —, they understand that "the book is good"). So what I wanted to say is that the article in this sense in the Sl. langs is called 'chlen', which word means also a member, and you know that every man has some special "member", called sometimes "cock", and to say that the Russ have no "cocks" seems wrong, the more so bc. the 'chlen' stays usually before, yeah, but the Buls put it ... ha, ha, they put it behind and even glue it to the noun! And this is the strange moment here, that we don't say, e.g., "the table", but, this w. being 'masa' in Bul., say 'masata'; or also the chair is 'stol' and "the chair" will be 'stola' or even 'stolyt'; or also the mentioned quite recently 'dupe'-bottom with definite article will be 'dupeto'; similarly also in pl.: 'masite, stolovete, dupetata'. Not that this is smt. difficult, but it is pretty strange.
Though, on the other hand, there is nothing shocking in this and I will give you now some similar examples of gluing of some words together in different langs. I mean not only ws like businessman or landowner or foreword and similar things, but in Ger. all numbers till 1 million are written as one word — could you imagine this? —, and the very Russ glue the reflexive particle 'sja' ('se' in Bul, -self in Eng.) with the verb (e.g. to bathe is 'kupatj' and bathe oneself is 'kupatjsja'; though in Bul. this is not glued). Yet the most similar to the Bul. case exists in It, where they join not only the reflexive particle, but also the pronoun or article, and for example, say smettetela ('zmettetela') for "you stop with this" (to stop is smettere, smettete is for 2nd person pl. and la is article m-ing here this or that or with that). So that we are not really perverse in this sense, we are more or less like the Lats, and if one gives a thought to the matter it will turn out that the Bul. way is even more justified, and not we are perverse in this regard but all other nations, bc: what is more important from the combination "the table"? I suppose this is "table", not "the" (or der, die, la, il, al, etc.), so that we put the more important thing first, this is the American tendency in ordering of the documents (the last is on the head), or also the date, the month goes before the day. All is a matter of habit. Well, there is difference for mas. like 'stola' what we call "unfull member" (or, then, maybe, empty one, ah?), while 'stolyt' is "full member", where the latter is used only for the subject in the sentence, but these are things to which nobody pays any attention, and if you use always the form with '-a' everything will be correct (yet for the Russ this remains a kind of nightmare, they may live by ten years in Bulgaria and still forget the 'chlen').
3.3. Genders
The genders are three, mas., fem., and neu. for neutral, what is the most spread case around the world (but in the Lat. langs, like It. or Fr. etc., not counting the very Lat., for your information, they don't have neu., what seems to me quite a radical approach, i.e. you either have a "baton", or have an orifice, and I indulge in such reflections bc. I suppose that this has forced the old Engs to apply their even bolder decision, to take away all genders for unanimated things). So, but I have opened this subsection bc. our genders are just a pleasure to have them, they can be guessed almost always by the endings, and if the w. end on consonant then it is mas., if it ends on '-a' is fem., and if ends on '-o' or '-e' is neu.; there are as if no nouns ending on 'u', then 'i' is used for pl., and ending in 'y' does not exist now but earlier this, or similar let., was used like the Fr. dumb "e", i.e. as sign for the end of the w. but that is not read. There surely may happen exceptions (we are humans, not robots, we can't live without exceptions, even the very ... life is an exception, if you ask me), but they are quite rare, say, the classical case is 'bashta' as father, or in children lang. 'tati', or Rus. 'papa', what are all variation of Lat. papa, or then Tur. baba (you maybe recall a fairy tale about some Ali-baba) what comes from smt. sim. in the Skr. (like their deva-god, from which on the West has left only the Lat. diva as a kind of goddess).
In the same moment in the other langs are much more exceptions (say, in Rus. ws ending on their "ь"-'j' may be mas. or fem., also in It. are exceptions for Lat. and especially old Gr. ws), and there are langs, like Ger., where is just necessary always to learn the gender. For the Gers I usually give the following example: the spoon is der Löffel ('loefel'), where "der" is for mas., and the fork is die Gabel, where "die" is for fem., and I have invented nearly a poem (in prose) about the reason why this is so, bc. a normal person will take that the spoon is some hole, and the fork is, well, not one, usually 3 or 4 spikes, but still smt. pricking, isn't it? So I have tried to penetrate in the soul of Gers and maybe even ancient Aryans, and have come to the conclusion that the spoon in merely ugly, disgusting, while the fork is just beautiful, slim! This has to be so (or else you find other explanation), and in my old age learning It. I have met the same idea there, where the spoon is il cucchiaio ('kukkjaio', and il is for mas.), and the fork is la forchetta ('forketta', and la is for fem.), and not only the genders are the same, but forketta is smt. small and fine (it is diminutive from their forca), but the most important consideration here is that the spoon is smt. wry, ugly, bc. the bitch-dog there is la cuccia, there is Bul. 'kuka' what is your hook, and there is Lat. coccus /cocci, as bacillus /bacilli.
And one more remark, bc. in the Eng. there are no genders for things, that the genders are not rudiments, they are good idea, they provide ways for distinguishing of the ws when pronouns are used, and there are many cases where they are simply necessary. You know that even names are not qualitative enough, and if you don't make differences also in professions (like our 'profesor /profesorka', or 'uchenik /uchenichka' for school-children, etc.), and don't use (in the Eng.) diminutive forms (and not only the Slavs use such things, the Gers too, and the Its are the top), then the lang. becomes poorer, where what it (and the life in general) needs is diversity, these are important moments. So that in this regard, too, the Bul. lang. is very simple and good.
3.4. Verbs and tenses
Like we have given above examples with the main verbs we will give here with some others, say, with to "work", what is 'rabotja' in Bul. But let me tell you in the beginning here that the point is not in the number, but in the difficulty (say, the Eng. tenses are 4*4 = 16, yet half of them are continuous, there is added suffix "-ing", these are simple things, and in many cases are used some equal particles for all persons, and the forms are nearly the same — what is even not good, if you ask me —, etc.), and I have looked now (I am going up to 70 years and I have never needed to know how many tenses we really have — do you imagine this? — bc. I know that there are a pair of tenses and that's all), so we have had 9 tenses. Well, according to me, there are about 2.5 tenses, with full forms I mean, and the other variants give some kind of modality and are built with adding of some particle (w.) so that can't be counted for "full-rights" tenses; besides, the problem for the foreigners in Bul. lang. are not the very tenses, but this 'bjah' or 'bil' difference, and the type of the verb, i.e. is it finished or not. Because we don't have continuous tenses (all Slavs don't have, and the Gers, too) but have these two types of verbs which we call 'svyrsheno' and nesvyrsheno' 'vreme'-tense (and let me shorten them to 'svyr.' / 'nesvyr.'), and when it is 'svyr.' it can't continue more, while 'nesvyr.' is imitation of continuous tense.
So, now to the 'rabotja'-to-work: present tense is 'rabotja, rabotish, raboti, rabotim, rabotite, rabotjat'; past 'svyr.' (call "aorist" what I don't know what m-s, smt. Lat.) is 'pabotih, raboti, raboti, rabotihme, rabotihte, rabotiha'; past 'nesvyr.' is 'raboteh, raboteshe, raboteshe, rabotehme, rabotehte, raboteha'; past indefinite is 'sym rabotil, si rabotil, e rabotil, sme rabotili, ste rabotili, sa rabotili' (and this is for mas., for fem. in sing. is added '-a', and in neu. is added '-o'); past preceding is 'bjah rabotil, beshe rabotil, beshe rabotil, bjahme rabotili, bjahte rabotili, bjaha rabotili'; future tense is 'shte rabotja, shte rabotish, shte raboti, shte rabotim, shte rabotite, shte rabotjat'; future preceding is 'shte sym rabotil, shte si rabotil, shte e rabotil, shte sme rabotili, shte ste rabotili, shte sa rabotili'; future in the past is 'shtjah da rabotja, shteshe da rabotish, shteshe da rabotish, shtjahme da rabotim, shtjahte da rabotite, shtjaha da rabotjat'; and future preceding in the past is 'shtjah da sym rabotil, shteshe da si rabotil, shteshe da e rabotil, shtjahme da sme rabotili, shtjahte da ste rabotili, shtjaha da sa rabotili'; what now makes 9.
Yeah, but with full forms are only present and past, usually 'svyr.' or 'nesvyr.', they are sim. and nobody bothers to make the difference (and if, then adding some explanatory ws that the person has worked but has ceased), they are smt. like the imperfect (I worked); then the past indefinite (with 'sym, si, e, ...') is like the present perfect (I have worked) and there are not new forms; and then past preceding (with 'bjah, beshe, ...') is like past perfect (I had worked) and again has no new forms, so that till here we have 2 and a half tenses. The simple future tense is like in Eng. with adding of one w. before, there is nothing to learn here (yet in the Lat. langs there is what to learn), the other future tenses are not used, maybe only future in the past, 'shtjah da rabotja, shteshe da rabotish, ...'. Still, I don't say that the tenses are very simple, they are the most difficult part in Bul. lang. (together with the phonetics for some people, bc. a lang. learned in old days is never spoken like that learned with one's mothers milk), but from my experience with hearing how the foreigners speak Bul. the major errors with the times are to confuse past tenses of 'bjah rabotil' with 'bil rabotil', where 'bil' form is a modal thing, that smb. has done smt. but I am not sure about (and this usually in 3 person); also we have different types of verbs, 'svyr.' and 'nesvyr.', what I will try to explain now.
In plain ws, and not how the grammarians will explain this, the situation is such: the basic words, like 'rabotja', 'ucha'-to-study, and others, are 'nesvyr.' (i.e. continuous), but when you build derivative with prefix, say, 'izrabotja' (to do, make) or 'naucha' (to learn well), this now becomes 'svyr.' type, yet we can make them to be 'nesvyr.' adding a suffix, usually '-vam', what here will be 'izrabotvam' or 'nauchavam'. Here can be various difficulties, also for the Buls, but the rule of the thumb is that the 'svyr.' tense can't be pronounced by itself, one has to add before it the particle 'da' with m-ing of "to"; here one can't say 'izrabotja' (in a sentence, like "I want to make this") but has to say "I want 'da izrabotja' this", or 'da naucha', but 'izuchavam' or 'prepodavam' (this is to teach smb.), etc. can be used alone. And there is also the mnemonic rule that if the verb is longer then the action continues, where by the shorter verbs they are as if truncated somehow, they are 'svyr.'-finished. Yeah, and to recompense these problem we have one auxiliary verb, 'sym', we make no difference between transitive or not verbs (they exist, but we don't care about them), and we have no strong or irregular verbs, which usually are about a hundred in a lang.; well, some r. Cs can change if it is difficult to pronounce some form (like 'moga, mozhesh, ...') but such things happen also in the best "families".
And now, in order to check what we have understood (also for the author, bc. native-speaking people don't think about grammar things when speaking) let me invent one verb with Eng. rs meaning this activity which one having a "prick" can do with it, which verb in Bul. will be 'da prikna' as 'svyr.' and 'prikvam' as nesvyr.' So we will have: present 'da prikna, da priknesh, da prikne, da priknem, da priknete, da priknat', past ('svyr.' or not I can't make the difference) 'priknah, prikna, prikna, priknahme, priknahte, priknaha' ('prikneh' somehow does not sound good to me, neither I can see where is the continuation), then (roughly like perfect) 'sym priknal, si priknal, e priknal, ...', then (like past perfect, or Ger. Plusquamperfekt) 'bjah priknal, beshe priknal, ...' (where if you are not sure about then 'bil priknal, ...') , and simple future 'shte prikna, shte priknesh, ...', what is quite enough and like in Ger., or in rough strokes (not counting the continuous tenses) like in Eng., and without this something will be missing. So, and as to 'nesvyr.'-continuous forms we will have: present 'prikvam, prikvash, ...', resp. future 'shte prikvam, shte prikvash, ...', simple past 'prikvah, prikvashe, ...', like present perfect 'sym prikval, si prikval, ...' and like past perfect 'bjah prikval, beshe prikval, ...', what gives another five continuous forms (if we don't count 'shtjah da prikvam, ... shtjah da sym bil prikval, ... shtjal sym bil da prikvam, ...'). You try alone with 'demokratiziram' or, if you like, 'onaniram' which are 'nesvyr.', or with 'da prestana' and 'prestavam, what is to stop, or also 'da propileja' (here the endings will be different) and 'propiljavam', what is to waste (time or money), or even with one jargon w. 'da izkrejzja' and 'izkrejzvam' built from Eng. "crazy".
3.5. Other grammatical moments
This point is not especially necessary, here I indulge in some reflections bc. of the Russ, but as far as such things happen also in other langs, and I don't know (and have no idea about) Ar. or Hindu or Chi. etc., so that such things may exist in some of those langs, too, and for this reason I decided to leave it in its place.
First of all about movement and still standing, or Akkusativ and Dativ in Ger. (resp. accusative and prepositional case in Rus.), I said already that we make no difference here, but I would like to give you my version about why this difference exists from very ancient times and in all ancient langs, bc. I have met nowhere such explanations and they might be interesting for some of my readers. I have though about this and have come to the conclusion that the point here is related with the Eastern philosophy, or rather theosophy (divine explanation of the world, scientific in as much as this was possible in those times, but presupposing the existence of some gods), which views are expressed mainly in old Gr. slogan "Everything flows, everything changes" (Παντα ρει, παντα κινεται). And when everything changes it is important to know whether we are moving or not, yet not only this but also the assertion that the movement is more spread and universal than the stillness, and for this reason for it is chosen the simpler case (accusative is the nearest to nominative case, I suppose, in all langs with cases) than for the stillness (the prepositional case in Rus. is not of the difficult, yet there are necessary prepositions, but in Ger. the Dativ is unquestionably more difficult then Akk.). So that this difference is rudimentary in the contemporary langs but in the ancient ones it existed (and in the Skr. there were 7 cases, and even the main forms of the verbs to be and to have, as well also the pronouns, are similar, so that this is an old thing). In Rus. exist not only this, they make difference in the periods of time, and when they speak about hours and days of the week they use accusative (for the movement, there the things change fast), but from the weeks, then months and years, they use prepositional case (for one can stay still in a longer period). It is not at all easy to make this difference in Ger., too, with all their articles and adjectives etc., and also the existence of transitive verbs or not is a mystery nowadays (I still don't feel these things, have to think about and make errors), and from here whether has to be used haben-to-have or sein-to-be causes problems, while in Bul. such problems are left behind (for we are living in such times that people not only not like to look philosophically at the things, they even don't like to think at all).
Further there are langs where the numbers are far away from the strict decimal positional system like in Eng. and Bul., in many other langs there happen some exceptions. For example, the Russ make difference for numbers ending on one, then 2 to four, and then from five and up (here they use pl.), there are exceptions also for the years, they have two different ws for pl. of the w. year. The Gers, on their part, not only write big numbers in one w., they pronounce up to 100 (!) first the ones and then the tens (say, my age of 65 in the moment will be "five and sixty"), and other moments (I discuss these things in "Reflections About The Numbers"). Yet this can be accepted somehow, but the really crazy Fr. way to pronounce numbers (by 20-s) is total confusion. So that it is full with rudiments all around the world, but not in Bul. lang., we are democrats in regard of the numbers (and if there are problems with the tenses then they also can be simplified further). For example, we have had earlier nasal sounds, but don't have anymore, have abandoned the cases, from roughly the middle of the last century have rejected one dumb 'y' in the end of the ws if they end on C., and one char. that once is read so, but other times in another way, too, and now we don't need to look even one char. forward, to say nothing about several or the whole word.
So this is the Bul. lang. and now we move to the last chapter about some ws and rs in Bul. in order to allow you a little more closer look at it, to convince you that we are Europeans.
4. Very succinct list of Bulgarian words
Here I will use the same examples (with maybe slight changes here and there) which I have used in the Rus. variant with the purpose to show how near Bul. lang. stays to the Rus. On one hand this is wrong approach, bc. the so called Ars, Chis, and Hindus surely don't know Rus., but I have used nearly arbitrary set of ws, and why should I now choose another one? But not only this, I think, standing on my enormously big Urrh, that I will succeed to prove here how European (m-ing: Sl., Teu., Eng, Fr., Lat., Gr., Ar., Per, and so on I.-E. langs) the rs and ws of Bul. lang. are, so that studying it you will lose nothing but only get to know more I.-E. rs. This is so bc. our ws are on about 90% Sl. but on about 10% old Bul., what means chiefly Tur., Per., Gypsy, even Mongolian; then the Sl. rs are, quite approximately, in 60% Latin, in 25% Teu., and in 15% also smt. Eastern but come to them directly, not via the Lats; then the Lat. ws are, again very roughly and in my opinion, on 90% Gr. and on 10% also smt. Eastern (Per., directly Skr., smt. like this); then the Teu. ws are on 70% Lat. and Gr., but on about 30% again Eastern (this time Aryan, Per., etc); and the Gr. ws are not exactly their own, surely (they have not fallen in the Adriatic from the blue), they have just carried over old Per., Ar., and Heb. (for Hebrew) ws, say, in 85% and have mutilated them bc. of their pretty poor phonetics. In short, everything is mixed, but don't forget that Bulgaria is placed next to Greece, and ancient Greece was though for navel of the ancient world so that we may be on the border of Europe, but we are still in the middle of ancient world, we unite all these and many other langs. Just to give an example for old Bul. w.: nice in Rus. (as chief Sl. lang.) is 'krasivyij', and we have the w. 'krasiv', but we have for synonym also 'hubav', what surely (at least for me) is related with Ger. hübsch ('huebsh') m-ing the same, but we have not taken it from the Gers, this is old Bul. word.
So, and now I will write all in lines, where in the beginning will be the Bul. w., then the m-ing in Eng., and then some explanations (I will try for them to be short but am afraid that in places they will be very long), usually on one line I will put several sim. ws, and if occasionally the meaning has to be clear I will put only "=" (in Rus. there are many such signs but here they will be much rare). To the usual shortening like: m. for means, s. for see, comp. for compare (with), I will add rel. for related (with), sup. for suppose, smh. for somehow, ~ for near to, sim., rel-d, / as alternative (or), ? for I don't know, ".." if I find the explanations are too long (and you better look in the Urrh); s.im. for sound imitation, c.Sl. for common Sl., Ser. For Serbian, Gyp. for Gypsy, East. for Eastern, and also cyn. for cynical, jar. for jargon, conv. for conversational, cult. for cultured.
4.1. Verbs
'rabotja' - work (c.Sl.,~ Ger. arbeiten); 'dejst(vu)vam' - act (c.Sl., comp. with Lat deo-god), 'bachkam' (jar.) - work hard (there is smt. Gyp. here, or Tur.; 'bichkija' is a handsaw; 'bicha' is to cut, hatch);
'pravja' - make (this is s.im., to make big noise; also 'proizvezhdam' is to produce, hence 'pravja' ~ produce); 'vyrsha /izvyrshvam /ispylnjavam' - make, accomplish (according to me 'vyrsha', also 'vyrsheja' - to-trash-wheat, is related with ... god Vishnu; the last w. is ~ fulfill bc. 'pylnja' is to fill); 'stroja' - build (~ stretch in the sense of to order, line up; from here 'postrojka' is a building);
'rykovodja' - rule, govern (from 'ryka' - 'hand', sim. in meaning with Lat. manus); 'upravljavam' - the same (from 'pravja', but maybe the right hand as the strongest is also meant bc. "right" in Rus. is 'pravyij'); 'komand(u)vam - = (command, smt. Lat. rel-d with cum-with);
'jam' - eat (here surely has to be hidden rel-n with the existence, bc. "to be" in Rus. is 'estj', and even one old form 'esmj'; on the other hand this is s.im. — comp. with Eng. yum ); 'pija' - drink (c.Sl., also smt. Lat., in It. piovere is to rain, also Po is a river); 'gyltam' - gulp (c.Sl., s.im; 'lapam' as jar., ~ 'lapa' as wrist);
'stoja' - = (stand or stay, and let me not explain so widely spread ws.), 'stavam' - stand up; 'sedja' /'sjadam - = (sit /sit down);
'lezha' / 'ljagam' - lie (horizontally); 'namiram se' - is placed;
'spja' - sleep; 'pochivam (si)' - rest (?, smt. East., not Rus., not Lat.); 'dremja' - =;
'bjagam' - run (c.Sl., smh. rel-d with 'byrz'-fast); skacham' - jump (from 'skok' what is ~ hop); 'ripam' (jar.) - jump;
'kachvam se' - go up (here has to be rel-n with an old East. r. 'kyt /kat /kys /kus); 'slizam' - come down (~ slide);
'letja' - fly (~ light); 'reja se' - soar (from Gr. ρεω, yet comp. with ray what comes smw. from the Skr.); 'pluvam' - swim (smt. Gr., ~ float, comp. plot /plane); 'gmurkam se' - dive, plunge (?, maybe from 'more'-sea);
'hodja' /'vyrvja' - go, walk (c.Sl.); 'pytuvam' /'pyteshest(vu)vam'- travel (from 'pyt'-road-path);
'cheta' - read (c.Sl., rel-d Rus. 'chtitj'-honour); 'pisha' - write (c.Sl., s.im., rel-d ... piss, where the latter is 'pikaja', and in the Rus. the difference is only in the stressing); 'smjatam' - compute (the idea is of 'smilam'-to-grind);
'chertaja' - draw (from 'cherta'-line, c.Sl.); 'risuvam' - paint, picture (c.Sl.); 'bojadisvam' /'ocvetjavam' - paint ('boja' is a paint, Tur.' or Gr.);
'kopaja' - dig (~ cup and /or cap); 'dylbaja' - delve; 'chukam' - knock (Tur. /Per., in Rus. 'stuchatj); 'rezha' - saw (c.Sl);
'probivam' - bore, drill; 'pilja' - cut, saw; 'rendosvam' - shave wood (~ It. rendere-render-etc.);
'govorja' - speak (c.Sl., smh. rel-d with the governing); 'mylcha' - keep silent (c.Sl.); 'byrborja' /'bryshtolevja' - babble (s.im.);
'vizhdam'- see (Lat. vidi); 'gledam' - see (~ Ger. Glass-=, also Rus. 'glaz'-eye); 'chuvam' - hear (Bul., maybe Per.; in Rus. 'slyishatj'); 'mirisha' - smell (Gr.; in Rus. is 'njuhatj');
'useshtam' - feel (Bul., ?, in Rus. 'oshchushchatj'); 'pipam'- touch (some palpitation with fingers); 'dokosvam' - touch (Bul., ?);
'bija' - hit (Lat. batuo-beat-etc.; also 'tupam', 'nalagam' 'byhtja' as jar. — in a way s.im.); 'nakazvam' - punish (Sl. r. 'kaz- /ukaz /nakaz', ..);
'milvam /galja' - fondle, caress ('mil' is nice; 'galja' ~ glide); 'laskaja' - flatter (comp. lasso, lass);
'mislja' - think (c.Sl., s.im. of some 'ahm', yet rel-d Gr. mnemo-smt.); 'razsyzhdavam' - ponder, contemplate (the r. is 'syd' m-img also law-court, so it is sim. to judge); 'izmisljam (si)' - invent, imagine (from 'misyl'-thought);
'hvyrljam /mjatam' - throw (the 1st is from 'hvyrkam'-fly, s.im., and the 2nd is old r., smh. rel-d with metaphor /meteor); 'ritam' - kick (~ rhytm and hit); 'blyskam' - jostle, bump;
'streljam' - shoot (c.Sl., 'strela' is arrow, it flies 'stremitelno'-fast); 'srazhavam se' - fight (c.Sl., 'srazen' is hit, 'strazh' is sentinel); 'porazjavam' - hit, smite; 'unishtozhavam' - destroy ('nishto' is nothing, i.e. annihilation);
4.2. Nouns
a) People:
'chovek' - human (c.Sl., Rus. 'chelovek', old 'chlovek', maybe Tur. bc. there 'choluk /chokuk' is child; in pl. 'hora' what is Gr. and older, in Rus. 'ljudi' what ~ Ger. Leute-'lojte'); 'myzh' - man (in Rus. is 'muzh', in Ser. 'mazh', I insist that is so called bc. ... 'mozhet'-can, to beget a child); 'zhena' - woman (Gr., γιναικα-'gineka'); 'dete' - child (Gr., this is as if a detail, part of the woman); 'momche' - son / 'momiche' - girl (smt. 'malko'-small.); 'bebe' - =;
'mladezh /'junosha' - young man (c.Sl., 'mlad' is young; the 2nd is Lat.); 'devojka' - girl, young woman (Lat. and Skr., diva);
'sreshta' - meeting ('sreshtu' is against), 'razdjala' - parting (from 'delja'-divide); 'guljaj' - spree, blast, jamboree (Ar., ~ ghoul); 'vecherinka' - evening gathering (bc. 'vecher' is evening);
'obich' - love (not Sl., old Bul., smt. Mongolian, though ~ big, bull, etc., ..); 'chuvstvo' - feeling (c.Sl., from 'chuvam'-hear where might be smt. Per.); 'celuvka' - kiss (Ger. in my opinion, from zu-to-or-near and Zunge-tongue); 'pregrydka' - hug, embrace (from 'gyrdi'-breast, Lat., ~ guard); 'drugar' - friend (c.Sl., in fact Skr., ..);
'bitka' -battle, combat (Lat.); 'dvuboj' - duel ('dve' is two);
'bog' - god (Per. baga, and rel-d big-bull); 'angel' - =; 'djavol' - devil (Lat.); 'karacondzhul (jar.) - bogy, demon (Tur., 'cara' is black);
'korem' - belly (~ core; in Rus. is 'zhivot', but the same w. in Bul. m. life, ..);
b) Fauna, animals:
'kotka'/'kotarak' - fem. /mas. cat; 'kuche' /'kuchka' - fem. /mas. dog (c.Sl. — bc. curls in a Rus. 'kucha'-heap);
'kon' /'kobila' - mas. /fem. horse (c.Sl., ~ Gr. centaurs and ... dragons); 'krava' - cow (deeply Skr.), 'bik' - bull (big animal, c.Sl.); 'ovca' /'oven' - fem. /mas. sheep (Sl., maybe as disgusting exclamation 'uf'; in Rus. "he" is 'baran' what rel-s with 'barin'-master-owner, in my view); 'koza' - goat (?, maybe bc. jumps and happens in unexpected places, if rel-d with 'koz' /kaz', ..); 'magare' - donkey (I think from Gr. megera-ugly-witch); 'prase' - pig (..); 'swinja' - she-swine;
'kokoshka' - hen (s.im.); 'petel' - cock (Gr.); 'pile' - chicken (s.im. and smt. Lat.); 'patka' - she-duck; 'gyska' - she-goose; 'pujka' /'puek' - fem. /mas. turkey (bc. says 'pu', not Rus.); 'pytpydyk' - quail (s.im.); 'jajce' - egg;
'vylk' - wolf; 'lisica' - fox; 'gligan' - wild boar; 'elen' /'syrna' - mas. /fem. deer;
'lyv' - lion; 'leopard' - =; 'slon' - elephant (Sl., ..); 'zhiraf' - =; 'shtraus' - ostrich; 'hipopotam' - = (Gr. & Lat.); 'krokodil' - =; 'maymuna' - monkey (East.);
'zmija' - snake; 'gushter' - lizard (maybe bc. 'se gushi'-hides);
'riba' - fish (I think bc. lives in rivers; and your w. is Ger. and bc. says 'fyss' and disappears); 'rak' - crab (old r., maybe Skr.); 'kostur' - perch, bass; 'pystyrva' - trout ('pystyr' is motley); 'hajver' - caviar (Ar.);
c) Flora, vegetation:
'dyrvo' - tree (c.Sl., Gr. but sim. turf !); 'treva' - grass (c.Sl., Gr. but sim. tree !); 'hrast' - thicket, bush (some s.im.); 'stryk' - stem, shoot; 'filiz' /'izdynka' - offshoot (the 1st is Tur.); 'kitka' - bunch, nosegay (smt. old, maybe Per., 'kicha se' is make beautiful with flowers; 'kiten' is beautiful, yet not Rus.);
'bor' - pine; 'elha' - fir tree; 'smyrch' - spruce; 'dyb' - oak; 'buk' - beech; 'jasen' - ash; 'bresa' - birch; 'topola' - poplar; 'lipa' - lime tree;
'jabylka' - apple; 'krusha' - pear, 'sliva' /'dzhanka' - plum; 'praskova' - peach; 'zarzala' /'kajsija' - apricot (the 1st is Per.); 'djulja' - quince; 'grozde' - grapes;
'limon' - =; 'portocal' - orange; 'banan', 'kivi' - =; 'ananas' - pineapple;
'dinja' - watermelon; 'pypesh' - melon (Gr.); 'tikva' - pumpkin (I sup. bc. it 'se natikva'-shoves-or-pushes, crawls, everywhere);
'jagoda' - strawberry; 'malina' - raspberry; 'kypina' - bramble; 'borovinka' - blueberry; 'casis' - black currant;
'chushka' - pepper ('ljuta ch.' - hot p.); 'domat' - tomato; 'krastavica' - cucumber (Bul. from 'krastav' as scabby, covered with pimples, and the Eng. w. is Lat. cucumero); 'kornishon' - gherkin; 'luk' - onion ('praz' - leek); 'chesyn' - garlic; 'tikvichka' - marrow, zucchini; 'patladzhan' - eggplant (Tur.); 'cveklo' - beet; 'kartof' - potato; 'rjapa' /'repichka' - turnip /radish; 'salata' /'marulja' - salad /lettuce;
d) Nature:
'zemja' - Earth, ground (c.Sl., ..); 'nebe' - sky (Ger., Lat., ..), 'slynce' - Sol, 'luna' - moon (Lat.);
'kamyk' - stone (.., but ~ comet); 'pryst' - earth; 'pjasyk' - sand; 'mrysotija' - dirt; 'kal' - mud, slime (where in Rus. the same 'kal' is ... faeces — the r. is Gr. but ..); 'ruda' - ore;
'voda' - water (the r. is Ar., ..); 'more' - sea (Lat. mare); 'reka' - river; 'potok /-che /ruchej' - brook, rivulet; 'izvor' - water-spring; 'blato' - bog, swamp;
'skalà' - rock; 'planina' (in Rus 'gora') - mountain; 'gora' (in Rus. 'les') - forest; 'vryh' - peak; 'poljan(k)a' - meadow; 'ezero' - lake; 'nizina' - lowland (the r. is Skr.); 'vyzvishenie' - height, upland; 'urva' - precipice; 'klisura', 'defile',- ravine, valley;
'vyzduh' - air ('duh' is spirit); 'oblak' - cloud (c.Sl.); 'mygla' - fog; 'dyzhd' - rain (c.Sl., ?, maybe by a dose); 'snjag' - snow; 'led' - ice (c.Sl., ?, maybe bc one slides on it); 'skrezh' - frost (Bul., maybe bc. one has to scratch it from the window); 'para' - vapor (Gr. r.);
'den' - day (Lat. & Skr., ..); 'mesec' - month (Lat.); 'godina' ('god' in Russ.) - (I thing ~ Ger. gut-good as big chunk of time); 'sedmica' - week (from 'sedem'-7);
'sutrin' - morning (smt. East., the sun 'se jurva'-rushes, and comp. Mongolian 'jurta'-tent); 'obed' - lunch (I sup. bc. we like to eat much then, 'obyedatjsja' in Rus. or 'ujadam se', 'prejadam' in Bul.; this is also Lat. view bc. in It. it is pranzo but 'prysvam se' in Bul., what is s.im., is to burst); 'nosht' -night (Lat. notte — and this is bc. there is no sun then);
e) Food:
'hljab' - bread (..); 'mljako' - milk (old East. r.); 'meso' - meat (Lat., ..); 'jajca' - eggs; 'maslo' - butter (Gr.); 'sol' - salt (Lat.); 'zahar' - sugar (East.); 'piper' - pepper; 'ocet' - vinegar (Lat.); 'olio' - oil (from olive, old r.); 'brashno' - flour (Bul., I sup. as smt. grounded to 'prah'-dust); 'fide' - vermicelli (?); 'oriz' - rice (old r., ..); 'jufka' - nuddles (smt. East.);
'sirene' - white cheese (smt. Lat., ..); 'kashkaval' - cheese (Bul., from 'kasha'-mush); 'kremvi(r)shi' - sausages (Bul., from 'krem'-cream); 'salam' - = (It.); 'shpek-salam' - dry salami (also 'lukanka', 'sudzhuk'); 'pastyrma' - biltong (Lat., 'pastir' /pastor);
'banica /banichka' - Bul. pie (usually with white cheese; I sup. from 'panica' as bowl); 'kifla - bun (?, maybe Heb., in Rus. is 'bulka' but this w. in Bul. m-s ... bride); 'gevrek' - a kind of dough-nut (Bul. & Tur.);
'boza' - traditional East. & Tur. beverage, sugary and slightly fermented;
'skara' - grate, barbecue (East., and smh. rel-d ... scare, ..); 'cheverme' - rotating grill (Tur.); 'shishche' - small skewer but often as the meat on it; 'kebabche' - "fingers" of minced meat, roasted; 'kjufte' - smt. like the last but in form of big lens (the w. is probably Heb. bc. in Rus. are 'tefteli' and there are Heb. 'falafels');
'gjuvech' - our (again Tur.) dish, stew baked in oven; 'tarator' - cold soup chiefly of yogurt and minced cucumbers with spices;
'salata' - =; 'desert' - =; 'predjastie' /'ordjovyr'- hors d'oeuvre; 'meze' - appetizer (Tur., often used w., according. to me is understood as a bite of smt. messe-meta-between two swallows); 'shopska /meshana salata' - main sorts of salads; 'ljutenica' - a kind of chutney; 'kjopoolu' (Tur.) - eggplant mash;
'zakuska' - breakfast; 'obed' - lunch; 'vecherja' - dinner;
'vino' - wine; 'vodka - =; 'bira' - beer; 'rakija' - raki, schnapps (Ar.; distilled alcohol of fruits, chiefly out of grapes or plums, but nowadays everything is, as we say, 'mentè'-fake;); 'mastika' - anisette (the name is Gr., and the funny thing is that in Rus. the same w. m-s floor polish); 'menta' - mint-brandy; 'konjak', 'likjor', 'brendi', 'limonada' - =;
f) Products of civilization:
'kyshta' - home, house (East. & Sl., of 'kyt /kat' r., ..); 'mazè' - basement; cellar; 'zdanie' - building (c.Sl., 'sidam' is to build, but I think is ~ old sumerian zikkurat); 'postrojka' - the same (from 'stroja'-build); 'tavan' - ceiling /mansarde; 'nebostyrgach' - skyscraper (literally);
'vhod' - entrance; 'ishod' - exit; 'asansjor', 'balkon', 'mecanin', 'toaletna' - =; 'banja' - bath, 'kuhnja' - kitchen; 'staja' - room (Bul., from Gr.);
'gradina /-ka' - garden; 'dvor' - yard (c.Sl., ..); 'vila' - holiday home, 'koliba' - hut;
'zavod' /'fabrica' - factory; 'predprijatie' - company, enterprise (Sl.); 'uch(e)rezhdenie' - institution; 'sluzhba' - office; 'ministerstvo' - =;
'masa' - table as furniture; 'stol' - chair; 'taburetka' - stool; 'etazherka' - shelf; 'garnitura' - furniture set; 'krevat'- bed (Sl., I think is rel-d with Rus. 'krov' as roof); 'toaletna chinija' - toilet bowl (and this 'chinija'-bowl always sounds funny to me);
'chinija' - plate, dish, 'kupa /kupichka' - bowl; 'lyzhica' - spoon; 'vilica' - fork; 'nozh' - knife; 'chasha /chashka' - glass, cup;
'stan' - loom, machinery, also camp; 'tezgjah' - bench; 'bjuro' - desk or office; 'gishe' - counter;
'plan' - = or scheme; 'chertezh' - drawing; 'skica' - sketch; drawing (also jar. 'skica' as funny bloke);
'risunka' - drawing, picture; 'snimka' - photo; 'kartina' - painting;
'kniga' - book (c.Sl., of Ar. origin, ..); 'uchebnik' - textbook, manual; 'bukvar' - primer; 'tetradka' - notebook (Gr.); 'moliv' - pencil; 'mastilo' - ink; 'himikalka' - ballpoint;
'cigari' - cigarettes; 'puri' - cigars; 'kibrit' - safety matches; 'zapalka' - lighter;
'televizor' - TV set; 'hladilnik' - refrigerator; 'radio', 'kompjutyr', 'video' - =; 'peralnja' /'mijachna mashina' - washing machine /dishwasher;
4.3. Adjectives
'hubav' - nice, beautiful (old Bul. and East.); 'dobyr' - good (c.Sl.); 'losh' - bad (Bul., rel-d 'lesh'-carrion); 'vreden' - harmful; 'zyl' - vile;
'prav' - right, true (m-t as straight, 'prava' is a line); 'greshen' - erroneous (also 'grjah' is sin);
'mlad' -young (c.Sl., m-t as 'malyk'-small); 'star' (un-cult. 'dyrt') - old;
'krasiv' - beautiful, nice (Sl. r., comp. 'Rus. 'krasnyij'-red with 'krasivyij'-beautiful); 'grozen' - not nice, ugly (this is ~ grand but the things are mixed bc. in Rus. 'groznyij' is terrible — like their Tsar Ivan the Terrible —, and in Bul. 'strashen' is terrible);
'visok' - high (and 'visini' is poetically for the sky, but smh rel-d with It.-Lat. vicino-near, ..); 'nisyk' - low (Skr. r. ni-); 'slab' - weak (~ slight, but also smh rel-d with the opposite notion as the w. syllable which is strong, also 'sila' is power); 'debel' - thick, obese (Bul., in my opinion m-s not-belle); 'pylen' - the same (rel-d plenty);
'byrz' - fast (Sl., some s.im.); 'ymeren' - moderate (bc. 'merja' is to measure — the Gr.-Lat. r. meta /messe); 'baven' - slow' (comp. Lat. bovinus);
'svetyl' - bright, lucid (..); 'tymen' - dark (in a way rel-d with ... teem, temple, etc, but ..); 'bjal /beli' - white (Lat. bello-nice); 'cheren' - black (I sup. it is from Skr. cyamas from where is you cyan, the colours are very fuzzy; ~ this is given Rus. 'chiort' as devil, but there are other possibilities); 'zhylt' - yellow (old r., yet m-t as gold /-en); 'zelen' - green (c.Sl., mutation of 'zhylt'); 'sin' - blue (also ~ cyan, rel-d senior, ..); 'cherven' - red (the colour of Skr. carma);
'mek' - mild, soft; 'tvyrd' - hard (c.Sl.); 'gyvkav' - elastic (old r., .., take at least Gr. letter γ which has a hump);
'topyl' - warm (Sl. & older., ~ 'topja' as to melt); 'studen' - cold (c.Sl., maybe the reversed action is m-t bc when a thing solidifies it can stand); 'hladen' - tepid (Sl.); 'goresht' - hot ('gorja' is to burn, ..);
'preden' - at the front; 'zaden' - at the back; 'ljav' - left-wing; 'desen' - right-wing (Gr., not Sl.);
'goren' - upper; 'dolen' - lower;
'umen' - clever, intelligent (old Sl., 'um' is intellect, in a way s.im. of hmm); 'prost' - simple, silly (Gr., but simpleton is 'glupak');
'typ' - blunt (comp. stupid); 'ostyr' - sharp (smt. Lat.); 'plosyk' - flat ('fl-' is ~ 'pl-'); 'kriv' - wry, curved; 'crygul' - circular, round; 'kvadraten' - square;
4.4. Some jargon and vulgar words
Here, or course, I can't do without cynical and obscene ws, but without them a significant part of piquancy of conversation is lost (especially in our "democratic" days and years, while such ws are encountered in millions of copies over the Internet), and also one has to grasp at least the spirit of conversation (whether they praise or curse him), so that I find this subsection for quite important; regretfully is only that I can not spend so much time to explain each of the words (Bul. as well also Eng. and others) but these things are treated smw. in my Urrh. So let us begin.
'mentè' - fakery, imitation (surely Lat. r.); 'trik' - =;
'dalavera', 'alysh'verish' - mercenary or business machinations (Tur.);
'chalga /-dzhija /-dzijstvo' - Tur., or Gyp. music;
'zadigam', 'svivam' - to pinch smt., carry away;
'izchezvaj', 'chupkata' - get lost, piss off;
'budala, abdal, galfon, typak, typunger' - simpleton, fool, idiot (also 'budalkam' is to fool);
'adash, arkadash, aver, majna' - close friend, buddy (the 1st 3 are Tur., the last is from around town Plovdiv);
'majtap, kudosh' - joke, pun, fun (Tur.); 'tashak'- salty joke as jar. (the direct m-ing is of testicle);
'vagabond, 'huligan' - =, 'nehranimajko' - hooligan, bum;
'myrdà' - bad guy (~ 'smyrt'-death and 'smyrdy'-stinks); 'katil' - murderer (Ar.);
'pederast, pedi, pedal, manaf' - mas. homosexual;
'kopele' - son of a bitch (the "result" of copulation, usual addressing between teenagers);
'mamka mu, mama mu stara' - damn it, cult. f##k (we hide here the witty idea that his /her /it mother is too old, else I would have ...);
'tvojta mama, maicata ti' - you s.o.b., f##k you;
'vyrvi na majnata si' - go to hell or even worse; 'siktir' - f##k you, piss off (Tur.);
'pyrdja' - to fart; 'sera' - to sh## (smh. rel-d with Lat. sera-evening and serum but ..); 'lajno' - sh## (Gyp.);
'zadnik, gyz, dupe' - bottom, ass (the 2nd is vul., arse, while the 3rd is nearly polite);
'cica /coc|ka' - tit; 'badzhak /badzhaci' - thighs (Tur.);
'mace' - girl, pussy (in Ger. is Mietze); 'svaljam (njakogo)' - to court, woo smb. (literally m-s to take down; resp. 'svalja mi se' is wants that we become lovers);
'pich, pichaga' - nice guy (of Tur. origin but we put good m-ing in it, not that he is just a good f##ker, this is usual addressing between friends);
'pichka' - a broad, whore, vagina (exactly here the bad m-ing of this Tur. w. — ~ Lat. picem as tar — is shown); 'putka' - vagina (the r. is old, I've found Skr. rel-s but .., well, in fact here is the possibly known Fr. putain-'pjutaq' m-ing the same); 'kurva' - prostitute (gone awry from the right way);
'kur' - penis (this cyn. w. has to be from Gr. κυριοσ as god, master, i.e. this is my master, but it is smh. rel-d with Lat. cura-care); 'huj' - the same (the w. is Rus. but we also use it and in my opinion it is just a happy exclamation, smt. like 'aj /uj', but it is smh. rel-d with Ar. and Skr. 'ud' as penis);
'shibam, eba, chukam' - to copulate, f##k ('shibam' literally m-s to whip and is semi-cult., 'eba' is vul. and there are some interesting moments but .., and 'chukam' is quite polite bc. m-s to knock);
'chikija' /'bija ch.' - to jerk (Tur.);
'duham' / 'pravja svirka' - to blow, blow-job (the 2nd is almost polite; yet used as curse will be 'da go duhash').
Conclusion
Well, the conclusion is necessary chiefly in order not to end the material on cynical words, yet we can as well summarize the things about Bul. language. The quintessence is that it has perfect alphabet, where not only is written everything how it is said and v.v., but there are not places where one sound can be written in more than one way, and one should not look ahead in order to understand how the concrete place has to be read. Then it has also the most simple phonetics that is possible to have and it is better even than in It. because they have not our most important vowel which we marked here as "y", and have not all necessary consonants and simplify the word like little children; we have also no modified vowels, yet we have the simplest and necessary combinations of vowels, chiefly with 'j'. Further, we have nearly the simplest possible grammar, with 3 genders (like all decent nations) that are recognizable elementary by their endings, have no cases at all (with a tiny exception to which nobody pays attention), have no long endings of words (like the Russ), neither difficult matching of articles (like the Gers), which are even shorter and glued to the rear of the words; in addition to this we make no difference between moving of not, i.e. transitive or not verbs, although we have them, use one main verb for building of all times (and passive forms), and have the necessary about 5 used tenses with only two tables of endings, even have a way (like other Slavs) for building of continuous verbs instead of tenses with longer or shorter suffixes, as well also can show some modalities in a simple way. According to our words, we have a mixture of nearly all world languages, not only of Sl. (which are in their core Lat.), but also of Teu., Gr., Ar. and East. and with some practice can be well understood by people of all other nations.
And, come to think about, all these amazing results we have reached bc. of our cleverness to move the articles at the end of the words (where they belong being a kind of characteristic of the words), and chiefly because we were not ashamed to include the most important vowel in our alphabet and words (which the other Slavs either not read or miss, heaping up several hardly pronounceable consonants together, and the other nations, like Engs, Gers, Ars, etc., mark each in its strange way but not as usual letter). So, because the Buls like "it" to be hard, and the Bul. girls, too, I'll tell you, everything reduces to this "hard sign" which we marked here as i-Gr., but it was used as i-Bul., i.e. this 'y' written in Bul. as "ъ", this important and big "Ъ".
Rus. original in Sep. 2011, translated in Eng. and revised. in Feb 2016
UNDER BULGARIAN BANNER*
[ * Also from the folder "For Arabs, Chinese, And Hindus". ]
Abstract:In this paper I stand thoroughly on my "Bulgarian Lessons" with the intention to make one directly crucial for all Arabs, Hindus, Russians, Kazakhs, Negroes, Chinese, and many other nations, what in the end means for the whole world, proposition that is related with Bulgarian, yet not exactly, banner. What is the concrete proposition let remains for the time being a secret, but I will support it with enough arguments. Well, it sounds to a great extent utopian, but nevertheless is entirely realizable and leads to a bunch of nice consequences. It must become known to as many as possible number of people, at the top, but also at the lowermost levels, between adolescents, so that, please, scratch your intelligent (for it is not a custom to say otherwise) heads, and give a thought to it. In author's opinion it is as simple as it is brilliant, but at the same time is entirely actual.
0. Explanation of this what I don't mean
Well, to tell you honestly, the Bulgarian banner is put here to catch you, or for advertising purposes — because you know that nowadays everybody must advertise himself, this is the only way if behind somebody do not stand strong and powerful circles, and what powerful circles can stay behind a unique and original thinker like you author? So that the banner must not be understood literally, only as a metaphor. I don't invite you to stand under the Bulgarian banner for the simple reason that there is nothing special or out of the ordinary in it — usual tricolor, white, green, and red, which allows 6 different permutations, and 3-4 of them are already used; in any case, we have equal with the Italians views about this what colours are the best.
Further, I don't have in mind also our national coat of arms — lion, like our money unit, "lev" in Bulgarian —, for the reason that it is ... well, at least ridiculous, because there have never been lions in our land, and they will likewise not emerge (if the global warming will not turn us in a desert, of course). Usually the other nations boast with some eagle (even with two heads — to make the things more interesting) like symbol of power, or with something specific for them (say, baobab, rising sun, maple leaf, or hammer and sickle, and similar things). To be lions can imagine themselves only ... small nations, like the Hebrews, with their Leons, yet the Hebrews have lived earlier where the lions live, for them this is justified, while for us — with nothing. Still, with the coming of democracy in our country have grown the appetites also regarding the lions, and now we have whole three of them on our coat of arms. And they are intertwined with one another like Islamic ornaments in the mosques. But then, if it comes to this, I have a proposition in this regard, this time to the Bulgarian authorities: let us make them five, where will be at the bottom four not very big lions, and above them, and having stepped with one paw on the back of each of the ordinary lions, rises the Lion-King (or President). Or even better proposition, it is in the style of stars on the banner of European Union: let there be on our coat of arms exactly seven lions, and they will chase each other like little mischievous mice, running in direction of the right hand, or counter-clockwise. Or even better than this: let there be again seven lions, but they will run in two concentric circles — in the outer four lions and counter-clockwise, and in the inner three and clockwise. ( And on Internet sites they will really run, ah? )
Actually, there can't be said that is felt deficiency of brilliant propositions by me. But let us go down to business, to the very overwhelming proposition, that will turn everything upside down, with the single intention to do good to all countries, firstly to those in some big unions and confederations (like Russian CIS, Arab countries, South Asian countries, India, China, other Far Eastern countries, South and whole Africa, Latin America, and so on), and in the end also to Europe and USA, raising them to a higher step, which will allow them to compete more successfully with the powerful countries like USA or United Europe (in the same manner how the latter was finally turned to reality because of the wish to be able to show stronger resistance to the United States of America — as main argument in my opinion).
1. The very brilliant proposition
It, as it was naturally to expect, is extremely simple, and related with something Bulgarian, yet not with the banner or coat of arms, but with Bulgarian language! ( For it can't be said "Under Bulgarian language", especially because the latter word in many other languages is the same as the tongue. ) It is the following: let us make Bulgarian language official language in your community or state!
There are many — and obvious, come to think about — reasons for this, but in this section we will discuss the three most important ones. Though I have to warn you that I have made initially (and before about five years before this translation) this proposition to the countries from CIS (the former significantly melted Soviet Union, and also so called "big brother" to the Bulgarians", so that this was quite natural decision of mine), and despite of my adaptation to the new auditory I, still, in several places, may have some similar situation in mind. This is, however, unavoidable, because I address pretty big, in fact enormously big, auditory, and can't be acquainted with the exact situation in all other cases, but it will be sufficiently similar in any big block of countries, or even in a single big country (and, frankly speaking, in any country at all, as small as Bulgaria, with its seven-something millions, or smaller than this, say, in Estonia). So that I have made my proposition and the people there, as is said, don't give a damn about this, but this may lead to situations where, chiefly because of not paying much attention to this super-important question with the common for the world language, they will be damned, as it is also said, by other nations, because I raise, in fact, the ancient problem from the Babylon tower fable. But let me continue (or, rather, begin).
1.1. Bulgarian language is very simple
Here I stand on the expressed in my "Bulgarian Lessons" (further only "BulLes") theses and will not repeat them, so that you better read them before (or, at the worst, after) this material. Yet for completeness of the explanations I will allow myself to sum up some of them. Ah, and because of often repetition of many names of nations I will use shortenings (explained in "BulLes") like Bul. for Bulgarian, Rus. for Russians, Ar. for Arabs, etc., and with adding of "-s" will understand the people there, say, Buls for Bulgarians, Frs for Frenchmen, et cetera. So the Bul. lang. (for language) has the perfect possible alphabet, and when I say "perfect" I mean it! It not only contains all necessary for us letters and we don't use a single other letter more than this, but we write each sound (C. for consonant, of V. for vowel) in one only way, and hare no need to look around for to know how the char (for character, obviously) is to be read. More than this, this alphabet can with big success be used for writing in all other langs, on which ideas I have hinted in my "Illiterate World" ("IllitW"), and given example in the latest "Myrski's English Transliteration" ("EngTrlit"), for the reason that there are present all basic Cs and Vs of all world langs. I don't know Ar. or Heb. or Skr. alphabets but I am afraid that such purity of ideas and straightforwardness of their applying do not exist in them (if not for other reasons, then because our Cyrillic alphabet is the newest, made "only" in 9th century). And nowadays this alphabet is one of the European's, so that it becomes not less important than, for example, the Gr. one. And it pays to learn it, and it is not much different from the Lat., providing some mixture of Gr. and Lat. letters, and if with it you can write whatever — name, geographical place, etc. — in the same way at it is to be read, this becomes very important. Yet in order not to torment my readers I have used in my "BulLes" the Lat. letters like explained in "EngTrlit" and will put the words in '' quotes also here.
Then about the phonetics. As explained in the former material we have all necessary main Vc and Cs, have even some Cs which are not present in the Lat. (like 'zh, ch, sh'), have no modified Vs or Cs (like in Eng. bad, bear, or in East. 'bh, ph, dh', etc.), but have all necessary combined sounds (diphthongs), chiefly with 'j' (as "jot" and not in Eng. reading, i.e. 'aj, ej, jo, ju' etc.). This is also very important moment, and you try to find another lang. where the things are better, and with the use of our indispensable letter "ъ" given here as 'y' (like in girl) we avoid building of hardly pronounceable Cs (like, say, Cz. name 'Bendrzhih', or Ser. 'srpski'), and this V. is widely used not only in the old, but also in the contemporary langs (like Eng., Ger., or Rus. in modified form as their unstressed "o" like 'ya' or eri like 'yi'). So that it can boldly be stated that Bul. lang. is not like the proverbial as paragon in the world It. lang., but is even better than it (in many aspects, but here I mean only the phonetical ones). Well, in langs where some basic Vs (or Cs) are missing people may have some problems with learning of the simpler and unmodified or combined form (say, if they are used to say 'ie' instead of simple 'e', or 'dzh' instead of only 'zh'), but here nothing is to be done, the simple is just the simple, so that such nations will have to go "to the basics" as is said.
So we come to the grammar, and here, again, Bul. grammar is the simplest possible (if one compares with alive langs, I don't know Esperanto), with some small peculiarities here and there (but well, the uniqueness of Buls has to show itself somehow, only the letter 'y' is not enough for us). Here we have genders but they are always (with very few exceptions) to be recognized by their endings, so that this poses no problems at all, and the genders are necessary at least to keep restricted the use of pronounces to make it clear who does the thing. We have articles like almost all langs (yet without the Russ) but they are also simple with the only peculiar moment that we glue them at the end of the words (what is even better because in this way we say the more important thing, the very word, first, and only then change it a bit), and, for example "the table", it being 'masa' in Bul., will become 'masata', and similarly with the other genders. Then we use only one main verb, 'sym, si, e, sme, ste, sa' and have even no infinitive form, because of what we use the 1st person sing. (for singular, resp. pl. for plural) as infinitive. The used grammatical tenses are about 5, including: present, 2-3 past tenses (like imperfect and perfect), and future, but taken as endings with tables these are only two, in other cases are used particles (like Eng. "will") what simplifies the things; also we have not irregular verbs, only some mutations of the root V. is possible here and there (like 'moga'-to-can becomes 'mozhesh, mozhe, ...'). We have, instead of continuous tenses, ways for building of two types of verbs, which can be taken as imitation of these tenses (for example, there exists a verb 'da izrabotja, pronounced usually with the help of this particle "da", as to make, finish something, but if we use the verb 'izrabotvam' this will be continuous tense, we do this repeatedly, unfinished number of times).
OK, and we have no difficulties with transitive or not verbs, neither with the passive forms, nor with the numbers and the counting; we have short forms of adjectives (not like in Rus., Ukr., etc., what makes them sound like ... Chi.), and so on. As to the words, they are mostly Sl., but also Lat. (because the Sl. words are quite often of Lat origin), then also Teu., directly Gr. in some cases, older East., like Tur., Per., Ar., so that they should not make special problems for anyone (i.e. everybody will find something similar for him of her). As to this, whether the Bul. lang. is so rich like, say, Ger., or Eng, or Rus., or Lat., etc., then my opinion is that there is no such thing like insufficient or poor lang., poor can be the lang. of somebody, and if a given lang. happens to have not enough terms in some field, then words from other langs around are taken, this happens all the time, in the old centuries, and in the current days. But some langs can not be much precise as to the functions of different words in the sentence, where the Lat., Ger. (maybe Skr., Ar. etc.), even other Sl. langs with cases (for all other Sl. langs have cases, only Bul. has not) are overly precise, one can't pay so much attention to the grammar nowadays, while some other langs, like Eng. in the first place, then also Fr., It., maybe others, pay just not enough attention, they hurry too much, what now is not good.
In this aspect our Bul. lang. is really the best compromise variant, roughly speaking, between the very difficult and precise Lat., and the oversimplified Eng. (yet the latter looks simple only at first sight, not if you want to master it, with correct writing and correct use of ... incorrectly build derivatives of words — say, "man clothes", what is this, which word is adjective to which, or also "I work my work", who speaks so, somewhere in Mumbo-jumbo tribe, or in a civilized country? — , this is not a good decision). I will not indulge here in reflections about the poverty of the Eng. in grammatical aspect, because I intend to write third material here dedicated to the Eng. lang., but it is, on the contrary with Bul., the worst possible lang. and in spite of this it is more and more widely used nowadays (maybe in order to ... make more precipitous its plumping down after about a century or less — like the communism has fallen down, not because its ideas were bad, but because the communists have overdone everything). So that the Bul. lang. is the best choice having in mind the very lang., but there are other moments in the communities, on which I will ponder a bit in the next subsections.
1.2. Internal political advantages for each community of nations
This is an obvious observation, yet maybe only Myrski dares to say it in the open. What I mean here is that it isn't good when the official lang. happens to be mother (or father, or of the kindergarten) lang. of the hegemonic ethnic group. When this is not so the frictions in the community (or even in the country, because in each country there are various ethical minorities) are significantly less. Usually such situation happens for other reasons, not because those at the top have deliberately thought about this, but it is so. Look around yourself, and also in the time. Here is the European Union which has no official lang., but the unofficial official is the Eng., and there is no Eng. speaking country in the community (well, for the moment, but even if England enters in this union it will not be the domineering in ethical aspect, at least because the very Engs are not 100 percent Engs). Or look at the USA: there the official lang. is Eng., but when this state was formed roughly 1/3 of the population were Irish, another third were Hebs, and the last third take all remaining nationalities (chiefly Teus); in the current days there live all possible ethnic groups, but the new immigrants are mainly from Indochina. Or look (well, conditionally, virtually) at the ancient Roman Empire, where the Romans were the ruling nation, but all in some extent intelligent Romans have studied old Greek. Or cast a look at the "conspirators" from Swiss, or at Belgium, and surely other examples. The official lang. is necessary, or at least a pair of such mostly spoken, but when this is not the lang. of the "older brother" then the situation in the country or community is more quiet.
This is valid entirely for the CIS countries, where the major frictions happen with the Ukrs, and I have told them that if they don't like the Bul. then let them adopt the Ukr., or ... Georgian, or Chi., or of the Chechen people, only not the Rus., but maybe one must simply not cast pearls before the .. Russ, who knows? And similar problems exist also in the tiny Estonia, or in the "Great" Britain with the Irish, or somewhere with the Zulu people, or in the Ar. countries (I suppose), or in the enormously big as population India and China, where, surely, are spoken several langs. While Bulgaria is pretty small country for some nation to take this my proposition as a try for domineering over the world, and even if so (because this is possible, the Serbs almost sure will raise their protesting voices) then I for this reason have explained to you in the very beginning what I don't have in mind, to copy our political chaos and confrontation. In a way, if I am right, and if many nations will little by little begin to learn Bul. lang., then exactly we, the Buls, will be put is the most disadvantageous situation, but, well, I think that the tiny Bulgaria can sacrifice its national interest in the name of peace all around the world, or then, hmm, can remain the last country which will use Eng. as official language. Jokes aside, but the internal political advantages of using of one easy enough foreign lang. as official one have to be obvious.
1.3. External political advantages for each community of nations
This is also almost obvious, with the use of Bul. lang. each other nation will at once enter in Europe! We are insignificant country, about only 1 per mille of the population on Earth, and also stay on the border of it, on Balkan peninsula, yet we are at the center of ancient world when the Gr. democracy has arisen, so that we have absorbed everything valuable from the conflict of Eastern with Western civilization (where for the West their civilization has emerged thanks to the old Grs, but Myrski can allow himself to doubt in this and to have his special opinion, namely that the Grs have stopped the direct influx of Easter culture to the West and in this way maybe even delayed Western development; at least in phonetical aspect the Gr. lang. is very poor, and has shown its bad influence on the Lat. one, what has forced the Lat. nations later to change many things — say, the Its. have changed all 'c'-s to 'ch'-s). So that learning Bul. lang. all nations outside Europe, and then the newest world, the USA, will only win, and that is why I address my proposition to all such people, and they are milliards, and in some way dissatisfied with the way how the West ignores them, while armed with the easy Bul. lang. they will be able to oppose the (decaying) Western civilization.
I repeat, taking Bul. lang. all other (deprived in some way) nations will figuratively said put their leg — well, let it be only the big toe of one leg — on the European territory, and in one entirely peaceful manner! Like the saying goes: "If the mountain will not come to the Mohammed, then Mohammed will go to the mountain", i.e. if one can not nowadays lead conquering wars, then he can just try to copy something from Europe, the Bul. lang., which will serve him as a kind of visa. And, again to repeat, to take not some part of Bul. territory, or our disorganized way of political and economical evolvement, but some non-material cultural artifact, so to say, to which we have come chiefly because are not like the other civilized countries, are unique in some way, even barbarians, but clever and civilized barbarians (because, after all, we have not begun world wars, nor thrown atom bombs, like some civilized nations have done).
And don't confuse, please, the official lang. with your mother (or father) one! I don't try to convince you to forget your Ar., or, Kasakh, or Hindu, or African, Chi, Indonesian, an on and on, lang., but just learn and use as first (or initially as second) foreign lang. the Bul. one, which is not only an easy lang., but perspective in political regard, if you could succeed to raise it higher and give it wide spreading in the world; in this way you will be mixed in European affairs, and maybe even show better influence over us (especially over Buls this is quite possible, and the Europeans are also not paragons of good citizens — to remind you again about the First and Second World Wars, which were not, say, Chi. or Ar. or Zulu or you-name-it wars but European, alas). I don't state that the other langs are bad, more then this, I have repeated in many places that the most important thing on this world is the diversity, and every lang. is good in its own way — like a personality, so to say — but standard is standard, this is necessity!
This was necessity back in the times of Babylon, but in those times people have thought that they have to fight with one another, this is their purpose, this is way for selection of better people, and so on. Such view to the things has existed till less than a century, and in fact still exists, yet I say: people, enough selection! We have reached what we can, we try to substitute even God in creation of new species, it is time now to live quietly, in better organized society, but better organization can't be got without official lang., and you see well that there is not good candidacy for world-wide one. Look around and judge for yourself, but the Lat. has faded long ago, like Per. and Gr., then Fr. also has come down from the scene, Ger. too, Rus. too (not only because of the crashing of communism, it is simply not good), It. is for children (in my opinion), Sp. might happen to be good, yet I doubt about the grammar, and the phonetic also is not better than of the Bul., and the alphabet is badly used, and, on the other hand, nobody, really, thinks to adopt Ar. or Swahili, or Hindu, Chi, Kazakh, etc. lang. (the center of civilization is still taken to be Europe), so that it remains only the Bul., that's the situation. If you don't take the baton from me and carry it to more and more people and nations, you will only slow the peaceful development in the world. It is true that in my old age I often defend the thesis that we have to slow the process of development because we are moving too fast in the last nearly two centuries, so that the not accepting of my proposition may turn to be not so bad, but I doubt in this. I doubt because it is one thing to slow the scientific or economic or military (they all go hand in hand) progress, and it is another thing to slow the means for better communication between the people and the nations (which have never been good enough).
So that, how one looks at the matter, one standard lang. is necessary, but this does not mean that you have to speak Bul. in the pub., or in the bed, or with the children, or on work, no, you have just to speak at least two langs, to what I am coming now. And one more advantage of Bul. lang. is the fact that its pure phonetics and its most important "ъ"-'y' sound are quite good platform for learning of other langs; you may not believe me much but I am convinced that the Buls speak relatively good foreign langs (at least compared with, for example: Russ, Chi, Fr., Negroes, Its, Gr., and surely others, but these are the nations which I have had possibility to hear speaking Eng.).
2. Other arguments in favour of the proposition
2.1. Bilinguality has its advantages
Ever since Ancient Greece was known that the language is logical creation, way for writing of signs and symbols, "logoses", and the intellectual people can speak good. Now, for somewhere about half a century, is known that the center of "logos" is placed in the intellectual or left hemisphere. And when it is so then, surely, if somebody has two such centers he is more intelligent, even if he has not special education — at least because the new linguistical center, the new language spot in the cerebral cortex, this is a new window, through which the brain looks at the world around. And one learns one things in one lang., but another ones in another, and in case of necessity he translates one knowledge in another lang., transfers it to the other center — in other words, these centers communicate between themselves, do not copy the things literally but change them a little, give them a thought, argue with one another, and in disputes the truth is born.
All this is well known, and if it isn't then look around and you will see that where the people are bilingual these countries differ with something from the gray flow around, like, for example: in Switzerland, Belgium, Canada (they have many Franco-phones there), and even in the very USA (there nearly by everyone is one family lang., which the children learn already before they begin to go to school); or take as an example the different nationalities in the former Soviet Union (or, then, the old Austro-Hungary, or contemporary Germany with its many immigrants like Slavs or now Turks, or the Great Britain and different nations there; or India, etc.) — surely that the more some people differ from the proper Russ, the more exotically and interesting they seem; or then take the Hebs — they are born polyglots (because they were often persecuted and were forced to run from one county to another), and it is a secret for nobody that they are clever than the other nationalities, generally speaking. So that two linguistical centers is very good (three or more is already luxury, but two are just necessary). And then what it happens with the pure Russ (or other major citizens of one country or community)? Well, it happens this, that they are not equal with all other nations in the now CIS, but also in the very Russia, for the reason that the others have two language centers in their heads, while the Russ have only one! And don't begin to argue with me (said I to the Russ before, but this can be applied to all Gers in Germany, or Engs in England or USA or Canada or Australia, and other examples), that the Russ, see, all learn foreign lang. from young years, and if before this was the Fr., then now this is the English. Learn they surely do, but to know it, they don't! It is one thing to learn some lang. in order to have good grades in school, from textbooks, and it is quite another thing to learn it so that to be able to use it (in order to, say, buy something in the shop, or converse with colleagues at work, and in general to read in this language, to curse in it, as it often happens).
So that all this pure Russ or Gers or Engs etc., speaking only the official for the country lang., are simply sillier than the other ethnic minorities, even the Gypsies, they are the gray majority, on the background of which the other ethnoses differ and stand out — you just have to swallow this bitter pill!. Because to know good some second lang. means not only to translate phrases from your mother tongue in it, but to think in this other lang., what is just another step higher. I personally know this well because I have studied in two different countries and in two different langs. So that you all pure, now "Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus, and from other nations too" (in order to justify the coined by me title for the folder where I put these materials), stand quickly under the banner of Bul. lang. in order to become equal with the other minorities! In this way you will become, up to some extent, ... immigrants in your own country, after some 50 or so years, but in a positive sense, not that you will be somehow discriminated, but that you will have incentive to strive. Because that is how it is, the immigrants try to move forward, to become equal with the others, and for this reason each (developed) country feels necessity of some amount of immigrants, this is beneficial for both sides. And don't think pretty long time because then you will not become more intelligent.
2.2. The native language can be reformed by the native people
Naturally that this can be done, because it has happened so with the Lat. lang. by the contemporary Lat. nations (Its, Frs, Sps, etc.), but also with the Ger. (it has not 6 cases but only 4, and the tenses are significantly simpler than in the Lat., and there was hardly readable Gothic font by them which is now abolished, etc.), so that such things can be done, yeah, but you (my dear Arabs etc.) will ... not do this and basta. And not because this is so difficult to be done (though it, surely, is not easy), but because you will never get rid of the feeling that in this way you disfigure or mutilate, maim, you own good language. That's it. Because, you see, we love something chiefly because of its (or his or her) shortcomings, its imperfectness (not that I pretend that discover America with this). I mean that it happens usually so, one wants to have some difficulties in reaching of a given goal (here of mastering of your lang.; yet also when you court a girl you don't want it to be pretty easy, right, and if she is such then you don't value her much), i.e. the point in having of difficult langs is not only in the exactness of them (for natural langs, definitely, from the positions of exact sciences, are not exact and can never be such, there are necessary other tools like, schemes, formulas, drawings, etc.), but in the satisfaction when you have mastered them, that you are clever person, not like the common people. Yeah, but the standard lang. has to be the contrary to this, it has not to be so nice because is restricted or imperfect in some way, but because is easy to be learned and used in everyday activity. These are different things.
And on this place in the Rus. variant I give them example how they can "mutilate" their lang. trying to make it like the Bul., but this is not suitable to be given here. Still, I have ideas about this what, in general, has to be bettered in the langs that I know (more or less), and they usually follow the points of advantages of Bul. lang., beginning with purifying of the alphabet, then of the sounds, then of the genders, articles, tenses, and so on. Though for the Rus. this is nearly hopeless, the best way for all Sl. langs is just to return —because historically it was really so — to the Bul. lang., than to try to maim their own one, at least not to force this process, for it little by little is simplified, like almost all other languages. Yet what concerns the Eng. there the process is rather reversed, there the lang. has to be made a bit more complicated but more conventional; say, have to be made, first of all, difference between verbs and nouns and introduced more different forms of the verbs (I may spit this here, I think — if I will live long enough to make my proposition for English ... Myrskanto lang. — to add to the verb forms suffix "-ow", in a Gr. manner, e.g.: workow, thinkow, stayow, etc., but this only for the infinitive), then between nouns and adjectives (but here I have not taken the decision, it is difficult), then something has to be made also with the genders, then there is a pity not to have diminutives, and other moments. I don't want to indulge here in more explanations (at least because I can't know all world langs, can I?), but I mention this for to stress that this process is a kind of ... masochism, where in the Bul. this is already done, in broad outlines.
With Bul. lang. all Arabs etc. at once wash their hands and only the Buls will suffer (really, but not much, each coin has two sides, as you know). What returns us again to this that using Bul. lang. as "scapegoat" will preserve the other langs from harsh and unnatural mutations! In fact I have doubts as to this whether Bul. authorities will embrace my proposition or not, but I am democratic dissident, I don't publish in Bulgaria, I, so to say, am emigrant from it, and we have "traditions" in not understanding and spitting at revolutionary and prominent people and ideas, so that such reaction will not surprise me. I have called myself Myrski and I think about the world, which in Rus. is 'mir', yet surely not neglecting the interest also of Bulgaria (how I understand them). And, well, I have told you that we are civilized barbarians, what means civilized yet barbarians, or, then, v.v., and you may bet that no Bul. authority will confess that we are barbarians, this is not, hmm, pedagogical. So that, my dear Arabs, Hindus, and who you also can be, if after some 50 years, and this if you have adopted my utopian but realizable idea expressed here, Bul. Government decides not to allow you to use our lang. because it is national cultural artifact, you have always the choice to use it unofficially, like the Europeans use now the Eng., or else not to say that you have understood my words about us being barbarians literally but just as metaphor. ( For me remains the problem of how we, being barbarians, have succeeded to come to this paragonal lang. of us, but, after all, we are unique nation, we are capable of many things, this is related with our genes. And the civilized barbarity is a way to express your uniqueness, to differ with something really valuable. ) But let us go further.
2.3. You have no other way out
In two words, and how I have already mentioned, the choice is mainly between the Eng. and the Bul. langs, there are no other candidatures, and while all nations are not informed about my proposition they simply choose the Eng. one, what is not the right thing to be done. I can easily analyze your fears about Bul. lang.: the point is that there is just no such practice to choose something because it is good, no, people usually choose something what they are forced to choose, by powerful conditions, i.e. because of compulsion. Yeah, surely. But must we always behave in this way? Aren't now the times more democratic than centuries before? Of course they are such, or have to be. And when you chose the lang. of the stronger state you never like it much, you know this, nobody likes the ruler and his symbols; after all, the democracy has won its positions because it succeeds to fool the population that they have to listen to their rulers when they have chosen them, not because the choice from below is reasonable — I have dwelled in many places about this. So that the choice of the stronger is natural, it might be used, but when there are no other alternatives, and when there are such, then one has to take them, too, in consideration.
What I propose you here is one alternative way of choice, a way for choosing of something because it is better. Or have another look at the things: the choice of the proposition of the stronger is good for those who feel themselves somehow also strong, or can become such making this choice, something of that kind. And are you, my dear Arabs, Chinese or Hindus, so much exhilarated by the choice of Am. (because that is what Eng. nowadays means) lang., are you feeling stronger by this, are you happier? Allow me to doubt in this because nobody likes world gendarmes, and these are the Ams. While Bul. lang. is, indisputably, the lang. of the weak, for we are the poorest possible country in European Union (a bit better than Albania, but it is not in EU, so that we are at the tail). That's it. Even if we were not the poorest we are one of the smallest according to the number of population, but we are also the weakest in economical regard. And after this come the other consideration about the alphabet, good sounding, easiness, et cetera. So that if you are feeling akin to the Ams choose their lang., however bad it can be, but if you are feeling somehow neglected, underestimated, deserving more respect from the stronger USA and Western Europe, then join the Buls in their language, which the Cyril and Methodius have invented more or less with the similar purpose, to allow us to have better means for communication between the Slavs. I am reviving, and extending, old ideas, this is not really mine idea. Yet the weak alternative is important. One has always to have the so called plan B.
But OK, I agree to the compromise, for the whole world to learn as foreign lang. (because there is 1st and 2nd), together with the Bul., also the Am.-Eng, and even the Spanish. And how the triumphant march of the Bul. all around the world will proceed, we shall see in the next section.
3. The exact steps
3.1. Realization of this idea in ... Nativestan
Nativestan surely means you own community, it might be CIS countries, or Arabian countries, or Central-Asian such, or India, China, Indochina, some African countries, and so on, for the moment I exclude only the Western Europe and USA from this beginning stage. And, well, I don't have in mind something revolutionary, only accelerated evolutionary evolvement, i.e. evolvement with planning at the top, with a vision, as now is said, yet at the same time sufficiently slow, in order not to force the older people to learn again new lang. in advanced age.
a) Stage of discussions and popularization of Bulgarian language with a view to making decisions for the future — from 2016 (for the Russ. it was from 2012 but time has passed) till 2020. During this time you have simply to show interest to Bul. lang., converse with friends or professionals about it and the proposition, and (where this is possible) try to read things in it, in order to become convinced that it really is so easy, as I am presenting the things. There have to be organized all thinkable courses (by Internet, full-time, part-time, in the schools, etc.) for learning of Bul. lang., visiting of our country, and so on. In pretty modest scale can be organized teaching of Bul. having initially, say, only a thousand people knowing relatively good both langs, but better the Bul. one. Such people surely can be found, there are enough Bul. immigrants everywhere, as well also young (or old) unemployed people in Bul. who know some other foreign lang. and can be taught in it the Native lang., or, then, just come to Bulgaria to study (no matter what). When the people see that the Bul. is easy to understand and learn, then may begin its learning in some schools as second foreign language. But in all cases the people at the top have to have their saying and take the necessary perspective decision, somewhere about 2020, as to the stages of introducing of Bul. as new standard lang. in Nativestan. Without this all will remain only a new whim — nice, good, yet why have we to bother about?
b) Stage of accepting of Bulgarian as recommended language in Nativestan — from 2020 to 2030. I.e. this lang. will be simply some plus by applying for a given job, it will be advisable to label all products in the shops in Bul., and with its alphabet, to try to use it in all possible cases (by the traffic rules, for example), and, in general, for the time being, have to be offered parallel texts in the shops, at work, and so on. This sub-stage, in fact, will be its actual transitional period, in schools it will begin to be learned as first foreign lang., but it is clear that if somebody is older than 40 years then he (or she) will somehow do without serious learning of Bul., relying only on its understanding, without good abilities to express himself in it. At the same time, under already taken decision for subsequent entering of this lang. in all states and regions (or countries) of this Stan, surely also other countries outside this community, first of all Slavonic, but also Arabian etc., will also show interest and many of them will follow this decision of your community. In this sense the Nativestani and their followers will simply happen to be the first, on the crest of the gathering speed wave.
c) Stage of adopting of Bulgarian as official language in the community — from 2030 to 2040. This, naturally, will mean that all young people who have begun to learn this lang. will find now work to translate all official documents of the community, and of each state, as well also to occupy places as necessary translators in all institutions. This will be the stage of real penetration of Bul. lang. in the (presumably immense) Nativestani continent or part of it, yet, I suppose, nobody will be ... sent to prison for this, that he or she will not speak Bul. in some official place, or do you have objections? But everybody will speak, because the world will begin to orient itself to the Bul. standard, in parallel with its alphabet.
d) Stage of ruling of Bulgarian as official language in Nativestan (and not only) — from 2040, or to round the number more (and because the things, as is seen, are delaying) from 2050 and further.
3.2. The way of Bulgarian language around the globe
Well, I have done, in broad outlines, my proposition, so that let us look, a bit more frivolous and humorously, at what will happen in the world, beginning somewhere in 2020 and to the middle of 21st century. The things will look so.
First of all will be either the Russ, or the other Slavs from CIS, or the non-Slavs from CIS, or also the Arabs, Afghani people, Persians, some Negro states from Africa, or some Southern American states, or also Far East, beginning with India, or China, or Indochina, or Indonesia, or, then, Ruritania or Bimbinistan, or whichever country or community, because if there is (and I hope it will be) continuation then there must have been a beginning. All Sl. states, of course, will become at once interested in this proposition (and will become even angry that not they have guessed about this earlier and not their own lang. now triumphs around the world). When the Czechs, Poles, and all southern Sls — but also the Romanians and maybe the Hungarians, because they live long enough surrounded by Sls for to adopt many Sl. words in their langs — grasp that they have nowhere to go, and if so then better sooner than to happen to be in the tail, then they will also join the wave of first enthusiasts; if the CIS counties are not from the first then they will also unite with the massive flow, especially the central Asian republics, Mongolia, and around, because for them the Bul. will, surely, be better than the Rus. or the Eng. as American. In this way will turn out that the half, if not more, of Europe (if till that time people will succeed to agree as to where exactly on the east it ends) already speaks Bul. and this will strongly change the balance of powers in Europe. The Gers will begin to think, has not come the time to join us, and they will not think long. The Gers are good people, they can be convinced in whatever — say, that the fascism is a good thing — if one tries hard enough. After them will follow all Scandinavian countries, because they are to the half Teus, and that half that isn't Teu. is quite specific (Ugro-Finnish, and nobody else understands them — almost like Swahili, ah?).
And what will happen on the south of Europe? Well, nearly the same. With the Greeks, certainly, the things will not go smoothly, they still think that, when they carry the same name as the ancient Greeks (and their noses are as long as by Socrates), then they are the same people and they have the same (if not bigger) abilities, but this is far away from so (they, let it be said with their silent permission, in such extent are like the ancient Greeks, in which the Neanderthal looks like a monkey, in my opinion, or, then, as a giraffe looks like a goat). In this case we will skip them for the moment, but as far as their phonetics is maybe the most restricted from all other nations (they, for example, have either the letter 'b' but have not 'v', or vice versa, though never both letters; or also they simply have not one letter 'u' — could you imagine this? — and imitate it with "ου"), so they will like neither the Eng. nor the Sp., nor, say, Chi., Ar., and so on, so that later (in no case sooner) they will join the Bulgarizing (for the moment) Europe.
Farther, across the Adriatic, comes Italy, and they are like little children. For them is difficult to pronounce even the simple word "fact" and instead of it they say fatto, to say nothing about more difficult Cs or diphthongs (I have had the possibility to listen how one It. girl has spoken very funny in Eng. — grammatically correct, nice to the ear, but was not able to say even the word "really" and said 'rilli'). So that for such "children" Bul. phonetics will look like manna from heaven, the more so because by us and by them the national tricolour has the same colours. Then after them come the Sps and they, naturally, think that their lang. is the most Lat. one today and because of this exactly it must become world lang., in what, I confess, is a grain of truth. But they will not succeed to oppose the powerful wave flooding the whole Europe and in the end they will understand that better Bul. than Eng. (at least because we write how we speak). The Portuguese will agree with the Sps rather than with the Frs (to whom their lang., as is said, stays closer), because in Latin America they are simply brothers. The Scandinavian countries will go with the Gers — where are they to go? And then it will turn out that from the whole Europe will remain only France, which will resist for long time (nearly like the Grs), but they, too, will capitulate in the end, because for them will be better even Chi. or Swahili, only not the Eng. ("damn those Anglo-Ams", will say they to themselves, "they have ... shat at all our nice words and still command where only can, while with the Buls we will have it much easier, look, they have taken in their lang. a heap of our words like: 'bushon'-electrical-fuse, 'tirbushon'-corkscrew, 'ekler'-éclaire-eclair, 'minet'-minette-blow-job, and similar things"). Well, and the Engs we will leave for the time being, they are not from the Continent.
And how will look the things in the Near East and the Arab lands? Well, just brilliantly, I'll tell you! If they are not the fist enthusiasts (what is quite probable) they can outstrip the Russ or other nations, but in no case will remain behind. At least the Turs will not fall behind (for them the phrase about the Mohammed is, in fact, their own). The Ars can think that the Buls are giaours and infidels, what in some extent is true (at least I join with the opinion of other prominent or "non-prominent" Buls, who think that we are not a nation but a herd — only, then, of rams, who go obstinately ahead), yet here it goes about our lang. and this is something else, it is perfectly suitable for the East. nations — in any case it reflects better their peculiarities (due to our unforgettable V. "ъ"-'y', first of all), than all Western langs (if you like, taken together). Bul. lang. is better than the Eng., but even if it was worse, they would not have accepted lang. in which is spoken in USA for their official lang., believe me (the Ars never forget the bad, to put it mildly, attitude). Besides, even now there are not a few Arabs in Bulgaria (because in their lands people often fight and we don't, we could have been preferred only for this reason), and they speak Bul. nearly perfect (a bit harder, but without problems).
But let us move now to the east, to India. Well, I don't know this country, but our phonetics should not be difficult for them (we have not, roughly speaking, their glottal Cs and elongated Vs, for them the Eng. also is good, but when the world does not like the Ams, and the very Hindus also have not good reasons especially to "love" the Engs, then the Bul. will be for them like a new Mecca and Medina). Farther, after Tibet, is China. The Chis I, surely, don't know, but many of them like it in Bulgaria in the present days, and when they will understand clear that they will never make the world speak Chi., then they will learn anew, little by little, the Bulgarian. And the question again stays as: Bul. or Eng., and taking into account our perfect alphabet and purest phonetics then their choice will be like of the whole world, believe me.
And how are in the meantime going the things in Africa? I would have said: normal. From the east or north our lang. moves to the south almost without problems (really, to say this what you write, one can meet neither in the Eng., nor in the Fr., and in the Teu. langs there are many exceptions, for the reason that the Lat. alphabet was not made for them, and it is not pretty good even for the very Lat.). On the north of Africa will be some delay (somewhere till 2030-2040, but not later), until the Frs boycott the proposition, but sooner or later they will join the Ars and the whole world. In this way, moving to the south and along the western coast, we will reach South Africa and, this time our, Cape of Good Hope — because it will turn out that the entire Africa is invaded by the Bul. lang. (the inner regions, where are mainly various wild animal sanctuaries we will leave in peace — I don't hope to teach, say, the lions, to growl in Bul., right?).
And how is it with America? Well, the Southern, on the basis of Sp. and the world tendency will surrender not later than the middle of 21st century; in addition it will also want to differ with something from the North one. And the North, it will ... also capitulate for the reason that till the middle of this century the glory of United States of America will be darkened: by the European Union, by the united with Bul. lang. CIS and other Southern Asian countries, and by the united Arab lands (because, if you ask me, after the petrol, and after, so, 20-30 years, the main raw material will become the ... sunlight, and it is there in absolute abundance, so that the Arabs, as well also the whole Africa, will definitely prosper in half a century), but also by itself alone, so to say, because it is high time for the USA to pass the "shirt" of global economic leader. And with them will surrender the (nowadays not so much) Great Britain, as also Australia (though the latter can be left as ... reservation for the Eng. lang., I personally have no objections).
So that, however one looks at the things, in the 22nd century Bul. lang. will become the single standard lang. of the whole world, together with its alphabet (if not with a new one, according with my proposition in "IllitW").
In conclusion
I can't restrain myself to exclaim with the words of the great Ostap Bender (this is from a book of known Rus. humorous authors Ilf and Petrov), that the Bulgarian language will become new-English, and the English will become old-Bulgarian!
Yet everything depends on the people around the world. If they will be convinced that I am right in my opinion about Bul. alphabet, purity of sounds, easy grammar et cetera, and all this compared with other possible langs, not just by itself, if they call to their help some scientific consultants and ask their fellow citizens living in Bulgaria, they have to come to the conclusion that this my proposition (as also many others, surely, but let us leave them now) is very important and there is no sense to oppose it because of positions of misunderstood national pride. What I intensely lack is ... a befriended with me powerful dictator! You may laugh at this but this is the bitter truth, most of the important for the people creations are introduced with the strong hand of some dictator, and the same was the situation with the very democracy in Ancient Greece introduced by the tyrant Pisistratos. If I have had some buddy-tyrant at hand, he would have at once called an international council of a dozen eminent linguists from the whole world, including representatives from, say: Eng., Fr., Ger., Rus., Ar., Per., It., Sp., Hin., Chi., and other lang. groups, and would have asked them for their opinion; he could have also invited by two students from about 20-30 countries and required from Bul. authorities to teach them for, say 3 months, in Bul. and then asked also their opinion about this lang.; or he might have also tried to conduct such courses with the mostly spoken in the world langs, like, e.g.: Chi., Hin., Eng., Ar., Rus., Ger., Fr., Sp., Port., It., Africanas, Indonesian, etc., and try to compare the knowledge or both kinds of students. Yeah, but I know not such powerful tyrant and the tyrants are also not much valued nowadays.
Instead of this I use the common people for meaning what is not a good approach because they happen usually to be either teenagers or "oldagers", for the reason that the people from between these poles usually don't read, they have no time, and in addition to this my readers, naturally, are not specialists, they are profanes. So that it is very good to say that "vox populi, vox dei" only that it isn't so, the "vox"-voice of the common "populi"-people is far away from being "dei" or of God. But well, what can I do? As I said somewhere before, you just try to act reasonable, to communicate with your friends about this proposition, to perform partly the work of an educated monarch, because you are those whom this concerns, I am nearing my 70, I will never see the triumph or the failure of my ideas. Yet I will make one last effort to present the things to you from different viewpoint, because when some theory is sound it has many facets, it can be taught in different ways, it always allows new perspectives, and if doesn't allow (say, that the Eng. is good lang., to the opposite assertion of what I will dedicate the next material in this folder), then some new look will disprove the unmotivated assertion.
So now let us start with the highly desirable wish to know at least two langs and know them good, use them every day, because in this way every one of us builds in his or her brain two linguistic spots, which incessantly communicate between them, giving to you look through two "windows", in two directions, so to say, a stereo view to the things, this surely will increase the intelligence of each of us. This, naturally, means that the one lang. has to be your mother one, the lang. that is spoken in the family or local community, and the other one is the official one, which is spoken everywhere else, i.e. in the schools and Universities, on work, on the streets and official places, by the central informational agency, in the Government, and so on. OK, and in order to be possible for the bigger majority of population to have different local lang. than the official one it is obviously necessary that the official lang. has to be native lang. of one very small minority, do you agree? So, but you see quite well that if in the times of Babylon people could have done somehow without one common lang. all around the world, then nowadays, and with the global communications meaning chiefly the Internet, these requirements have to be applied to all nations (really to the Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus, and to many other nations, too); yet in the same time the official lang. has to be natural one, spoken really by some people, with its common for many I.-E. langs roots and with its idioms etc., not invented artificially. In this way we come to the requirement that it is highly desirable that this lang. was of some small nation, about 5-10 millions, not more.
Now it is time to enter other restrictions because we still have several candidates. The natural restrictions are that this lang. was easy to be learned, good sounding, with maximally suitable alphabet, with sufficiently easy grammar but not with mixing of common grammatical categories, and all the things that I explained in section 1. In addition it will be much preferable if this standard lang. is of people from Europe, placed relatively in the center of civilized world, and if these people or lang. look a bit strange and even queer this will only make the things more interesting, will guarantee the uniqueness of the lang. and the view to the world around, that these people are not some gray mass that can only fight and proliferate in enormous scale. The small nations, like all exceptions, are always interesting, the point is only that they were representative samples of human population, peaceful and relatively intelligent, what concerns the genes.
So that's it. Like some Ben Spinoza has proven that if God is one ever-present substance etc. etc. He must be unavoidably good, in this way I have shown to you that if the world wants to have better means for peaceful communications it is bound to choose Bul. lang. as world-wide standard for the next half to one millennium. Not that all other langs have to be abolished, but the best is the best, and who wants to be second or third? I have done my duty, I have proposed to you something highly necessary, your part is to accept it and live happily for a long time, or to reject it in order ... to preserve causes for future conflicts.
Rus. original in Dec. 2011, translated in Eng. and revised in March 2016
DOWN WITH THE ENGLISH (LANGUAGE)!*
[ * Again from the folder "For Arabs, Chinese, And Hindus". ]
Abstract:This paper I write practically anew in English and its contents is obvious — we, all the world, have to cease using this language so widely because it is simply ... vulgar, many grammatical categories are not well qualified, it is not exact enough to be used so massively, it was, in a way, a miscarriage, it seems simple and good for the pubs and stadiums, but not for official conversations in it. Yet because the topic is more or less clear, and I have touched it in the previous materials in this folder, I will speak a bit more frivolously and comical in some places, what has to make the work more palatable. The sections here are: some preliminaries and explanations why I write this anew and don't use the Russian variant, then some try to excuse the ancient Englishmen who have made this super-simplified language, then what is so bad with this language in comparison with the others European (at least) languages, and in the end will mark out some important places where something has to be done in order to better the language if the people want to better it (because it, in spite of all its drawbacks, sounds good, nearly like singing). Only I have to warn the readers that, being third material in the sequence, this one has to be read after the others, it is not good to skip them.
Surely, it does not deserve to be so widely spread, this is very good language to, hmm, curse in it, or sing songs, speak in the pub, but not as official language for nearly the whole world. It is contemporary Latin, yet the ancient Latin was very precise and this one isn't. So that I intend to ruin it totally here, if not for other reasons, than at least for to ... spur the people using it to take measures for its bettering. Yeah, but, my dear Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus, don't skip the previous materials in this folder because I use many things from them, also many shortenings, at least those for the langs, and don't intend to explain them also here (for nobody pays me to do this, right?).
0. Preliminaries
I write this material anew because in the Rus. folder is as third material one small letter to all CIS citizens about the very name of this Union, which is not suitable for Ars etc. (though I gave there very interesting propositions, like the one variant is to call their countries ... Bear Lands). And you can well see that there just have to be at least three things, this is pretty old tradition for to break it here. Then there emerged in 2015 one more material in Rus., an Angry Continuation, where I began nearly to call them names for not giving a damn (not that to give a damn is such a good thing, but still) to my brilliant ideas, where I explain to the Russ that for the last 25 years the number of people outside CIS speaking Rus. has diminished with roughly (though quite precisely, I am mathematician, I can make approximate calculations) 100 mln, and those in the CIS speaking Rus. have diminished with nearly another 100 mln (this time not so precisely calculated) or are ready to give it up at once if there is another alternative (at least the Ukrs are utterly malcontented, and the non-Sl. countries are about 90 mln). And I checked for them in the Internet that there is no other Sl. lang. without cases, the Bul. is just unique. And so on, but this is not for the present auditory. Ah, and in the end I have put some poetical jokes with their Putin, and threatened them to call him for help and beg him to whack them on the heads, figuratively said, what I don't think to do because I don't try to impose my views, I try to make the people think alone because the situation with their lang. is serious.
Yet, my dear Arabs etc., don't cry, I will find about what to speak here. For example, just now I will try to exonerate a bit the old Engs for their so drastic spoiling of the lang., although in my view, what means that the good may sometimes change place with the bad and v.v., but such is the life, really, neither good nor bad, simply has to be lived.
1. Why the ancient English have spoiled their language?
Surely with good intentions, you may bet it, but have overdone the things (like, for example, the communists, or Catholics, etc.). And why have overdone them then, ah? Well, because of the major desire of everything alive, which is ... And what is it, according to you, this first and unavoidable aspiration of everything alive, animal or vegetation? But I will not play hide and seek with you because this is not the point in this paper, it is clear that everything alive wants to live and procreate, what means chiefly that it has to oppose the nature, which does not allow it to do this so easy. But when the people try to oppose something they usually forget about whatever moderation and begin simply to oppose the circumstances, or to act just in spite of something. That's it. So that when the ancient Engs simplified up to illiteracy their lang. they have done this in spite of something. If you think that such desire is attenuating circumstance then I exonerate them, but if you think that this is aggravating circumstance then I accuse them even more. It depends. Yet I don't think that they have done this because were more uneducated than the other nations — all common people, peasants, especially before about a millennium were uneducated simpletons, like the Engs, so the Frs, or the old Teutons. It remains only to look what exactly they opposed and why were so ... pissed off by it.
Now, the old Engs were genetically or ethnically Teus, but they lived under the strong influence of the Fr. in social area, so that they opposed both, the Teus and the French. What means that they were pissed by both nations and to stay on such cross-pissing isn't easy, in my view to the things. More concrete, the Teus, judging by the contemporary Ger. lang., were excessively strict in what they said, they even now write all Nouns with capital Letter, and I hope you see pretty well that such Thing is boring, right? Then they count till hundred in the reverse order and connect all numbers till one million in one single word, e.g. the Great French revolution has begun in onethousandsevenhundrednineandeighty and this is even more boring. Then they have four cases what is not so strange, the Lat. has seven. But they the bad habit, when some compound sentence to build want, in the subjugated clause everything in reversed order to put, have. Did you get it? And when the sentence contains a pair of subjugated clauses and takes normally half of the page, and when they also like not to insert new paragraphs and usually write the whole chapter in one paragraph (till about two century they still have written in this way), you can well imagine that one begins to feel very bored. This their ordering of the words in the sentence they call not exactly erection, sorry, but Rektion, yet one can as well have an erection and also finish with it until they finish their long sentence with their long words. And when, in literary works, the noun has 3-4 adjectives, including some subjugated clause, and you have to take extreme care about the endings of every word and in the necessary case (with definite articles in one way and with indefinite ones in another), and remember the not yet said verbs till you come at last to the end of the sentence, then you can become even extremely bored, what I called, with your silent permission, pissing off.
And the Engs are Teus, there must be no doubts about this, but if you want we can prove it with a tiny set of words for everyday use and compare with their Ger. variants. For example the following: bread, milk, egg, water, sea, tree, grass, bird, stone, home (and in Ger.: Brot, Milch, Ei, Wasser, Meer, Baum, Gras, Vogel, Stein, Hause, where the sea is different but die See is a lake, the tree is different but the der Forst is a forest, and only Baum and Vogel seem Teu. words), or also some verbs: read, learn, sleep, go, fly, eat, drink, swim, work, f##k (and in Ger.: lesen, lernen, schlafen, gehen, fliegen, essen, trinken, schwimmen, arbeiten, ficken, where as if only lesen is Teu. and arbeiten is around the letter "r" where is the robot and our Bul. 'rabotja'), and so on. And there are other problems with the Gers, like that one can rarely guess the right gender (where I usually give the example with del Löffel as spoon and die Gabel as fork, which have equal endings).
And one pretty strange thing, they read always "ei" as 'aj' (like Einstein and heil), what is as if motivated with nothing because they can pretty well write it with "ai", while in this way they simply restrict their lang., for they can never write 'ej'. So I have thought about this and wondered for a long time until once occasionally saw in one dictionary (with directions for reading in Eng.) that the Hebs have nearly (up to, maybe, 80%) the same words and where there is "ei" they read it like 'ej'. And then I said to myself, maybe the Gers on the purpose read all words in this way, to have something to differ from the "nasty" Hebs, and that this was introduced somewhere around 17th century; in short, the Ger. were also pissed off by something and have worsened a bit their language for that reason.
And being on the pi..., well. let us say "extremely boring" wave, I can give you another similar example with the Buls, which is still a big puzzle for our linguists, I suppose, but never more for your Myrski. We almost always when are saying "yes", what is 'da' (quite similar with Ger. ja meaning the same, by the way), are shaking our heads, while when are saying "no", what is 'ne', we nick with our heads, and this, surely, is not Sl. ... perversity but local, Bul. one. The enlightening came to me when I heard that the Grs say exactly 'ne' for "yes", where "no" for them is 'ohi' (i.e. ah /oh how bad the thing is), and for their 'ne' can be found some relations in Lat. (there is the note as something important that we don't deny, I suppose, or there is also the Eng. "now", or Ger. na, meant as "look, hark"). So that we also can act in spite of something and this is quite spread and natural (though silly, of course) reaction.
But to return to the old Eng., who were p..., extremely bored, by the old Gers and decided to act on the contrary; which contrariness may be coming also from the Celts or the Irish (I have the feeling that the latter are taken as proverbial .. donkeys by the Engs). But there were also the Frs, who since many centuries have (not well deserved, if you ask me) high self-esteem or pride (like the cocks, in fact) and have tried to teach (I suppose) the old Engs how to live and how to love and how to build society and whatnot (or, then, the old Engs have taken them for examples and in this case despised them as really better in some way — you have to know that nobody likes the paragons for the simple reason that he can also be one of them but has not sufficient strength of character, prefers to behave wildly and naturally). And the Frs have shown that there can be two genders (all Lat. nations have now only mas. and fem.), and that they can be bold enough to read the Lat. words in their own way (say, to write "oi" but read 'ua', though neither of the Vs is the same; or also to use three kinds of stressings neither of which is real stressing; or mark some V. with two dots above not in order to modify it but on the contrary, not to modify it). And they have also invented such wild sounds which one can never hear in another civilized country, only in the jungle. And they use widely nasal Vs and insist that this is only a V., with no C. after it (like, say, Ger "-ung" what is as if prototype for the Eng. "-ing").
So that the old Engs have decided to oppose the difficult Ger. lang. how only they can, and also to surpass the Frs and made them feel ashamed (seeing their ideas in absurd dimensions)! And the curious thing was that they succeeded, they have made pretty good sounding and easy to speak it (only not to write) lang., I can't deny this! As experiment (like also the Fr. revolution, or, then, the communism, etc.) this is great achievement (as I said, for the pub, for cursing, for everyday use from uneducated peasants), only not as world-wide spread lang. with pretensions of exactness, like the good old Latin. These are the reasons for no genders in the Eng. (because one such means nothing, there is no distinction, there can't be "unary" arithmetic system, it has to be at least binary), for equalizing of the verbs and the nouns (say, if a stone or earth are indisputably nouns then they can also became verbs in some sense), for making of almost no derivative words, like adjectives (say: man clothes, car park, tourist industry, etc.), for almost no forms of the verbs (like: I can, you can, etc.), for no distinction between people (say, he is a professor, and she is a professor), for no diminutives, etc. etc., and for reading of the words just how they like and giving reasons for as much as you want cases of confusion (e.g., "sure" and not "shure", or "I read now" and "I already read this book", or I and eye, or man and men, and many others). I, for my part, as former scientist, agree that the negative contribution is a contribution, but I insist that it is negative. Yet enough for now, because we will chew this issue also in the next sections, from a bit different aspects.
2. What is so bad in the English and needs strong measures for bettering, if at all possible?
Let us begin from the beginning, and in the beginning was the alphabet (shortened to alph.). Already in my "IllitW" I have been interested about the common sounds in all world langs, and have made my decision and invented one standard alph. for the whole world so that there is at least one better variant. Yet recently I came to the idea to use better the good old Lat. alph. in my "EngTrlit", which is also quite suitable, but there is also our Sl. Cyrillic which is perfect for the Buls but can be used also relatively good for any language. You see, as much our alph. is good to such extent the Lat. alph. is bad for the Engs; it is bad also for the Frs, but the Engs have surpassed the badness of the French. To learn Eng. as uneducated people do, only to speak it but without writing, how it was in the past centuries, this is not so big a drawback, but nowadays everybody learns reading and writing and here begin the problems, especially for the foreigners. So that here something has to be done, at least can be used the transcription or words like it is given in the dictionaries, though there are more than 40 sounds in the Eng. and this isn't so easy, neither these characters are good enough for writing, but nobody wants to learn anew and the situation continues to be the same. Transliteration of a lang. sometimes happens (for example the Turks have done this using Lat. alph.) and somebody has to think about this, but the changes have to be made on a large scale, only writhing "color" instead of "colour" is not sufficient.
Then there come the sounds. Again, as Bul. phonetics is pure and contains all basic sounds, in such extent the Eng. sounds are complicated (if not more, then at least as much as the Fr. ones). Yet this is irreparable, I think, because if there is some sense in learning of Eng. this is because of its sounds, they are just beautiful; difficult for the foreigners but good to the ear. My remarks can regard only the triphthongs, which can be thought for two syllables (say, "tire" can be taken for 'taj-y' in my writing here).
And now we come to the grammar and here almost everything is botched. First there are the genders, which are simply necessary, I have not heard about a lang. with no genders for non-living things, they are necessary because there exists category of pronouns and they diminish the repeating if we want to make the things clear, and, please, don't tell me that we are all equal, both sexes, because we are not, there are tiny differences, this is how God has created us, He has not made us equal, equal are the amoebas and the worms, even the vegetation needs different sexual organs. Though I have discussed this somewhere in the previous materials, the point is not to have no genders, but to distinguish them easy, or to have (and to use) suitable suffixes (like -ess for fem.). I will dwell in this area in the next section, more.
Then what is this, that 2nd person sing. and pl. have to be exactly equal, in what other lang. this exists? I sympathize with the ancient Engs that it is difficult to use 3 or 4 polite forms (like in Ger. there is Sie with capital letter from 3rd person pl., then Du with capital letter from 2nd person sing., then in old times was used some Er again with such letter from 3rd person sing., and there can also be used Ihr again with such letter from 2nd person pl.), and the politeness of capital letter can not be seen when speaking, but this does not mean that there must not at all exist pl. for 2nd person (or, then, sing.), this is not childish, this is vulgar (and I don't say that to be vulgar is a bad thing — everything on this world is necessary, at least to distinguish the things — but it is nonetheless vulgar). In Bul. we have 'ti' for 2nd person sing. and 'vie' for 2nd person pl., which form we make with capital letter if this is polite form. And here also exist obvious decision — how the Engs have run away from the Teus in the old times, so they can move closer to them now and retain their "you" only for pl., with or not capital letter, and for sing. use Ger. du (or also 'tu').
Then we come to the verbs where exist this so brilliant that even stunning decision to make no difference between verb and noun, and in this case I also don't know to exist precedents around the world — so that one can quietly state that the Eng. is almost in all aspects unprecedented lang., only not in the good sense (because there are unprecedented fools, or cruelty, or naivety, and so on). When the forms are equal then one has to add something and these are the pronouns, but they are unnecessary otherwise, I have shown in my "BulLes" that there can be quite simple but still different forms, so that here also we will chew the things in the next section (the Its, by the way, not only miss the pronoun of the doer, but begin with the pronoun of the object, like for "I have done this", what in Bul. will be 'az go napravih', they usually say, again in Bul., 'go napravih', where we would have said 'napravih go').
Further we come to the tenses where, thanks God, I find everything OK. I mean that no matter that the tenses are given as 16, half of them are continuous and built easy from the non-continuous, and from the 8 are used usually 4-5 tenses, and as tables with forms for each person there are only two tables, what is nearly the same as in Bulgarian. There are also not big differences with the transitive or not verbs, the perfect is built only with "have" (not like in Ger., and similar to Bul.). Yet there are strong or irregular verbs in the Eng. (which don't exist in Bul.), but I think that this is not so difficult moment, one learns, after all only two more forms, where are analogies, and in all Lat. langs the things are much more difficult.
Another good moment in the Eng. are the numbers, and I would have added the lack of double negation, which exists in Bul., what isn't correct, I admit, but the situation here can be changed only under the pressure of all Arabs etc., we alone continue to value our bad habits. Ah, I personally like the use of gerund, although here the things are also oversimplified (but one can somehow do without deep grammatical analyses). Yet there are many other bad points in the Eng., because there remain the mixing of nouns and adjectives (this glass junk, or car park, or men clothes, etc.), the possessive case is not correctly applied (because of mixture with pl.), the lack of diminutives (which exist in every self-respecting lang., so to say), and other moments. I alone have not thought these things through (no matter that nobody asks me about my meaning), but I will cast some raw ideas in the next section.
So that the Eng. is a miscarriage and has to be reformed if people like it, or then left to die naturally (after a century). This will be a bit regretfully if we continue to take as standard the symbols of the stronger, because then can as well happen that the next world-wide spread (say, in the 22nd century) lang., if my ideas will be left also to fade away, will be Chi., Hin., or Ar., which I suppose are much worse as choice than Bul., but one can not oppose millions and milliards with naked ideas (and without powerful dictator at hand). Because of this I say "Down with the English!", because at this stage, in which the Eng. lang. is now, the only way to better it, is to provide some stimulus for this, after first throwing it down in the mud, for the simple reason that such is the dialectics. If it is not so, then why the Engs, and here I mean the intelligent, the grammarians, have allowed the situation to become so grievous and have not lifted a finger, but have succeeded to convince the common people that the double negation is a bad habit?
3. Ideas for bettering of the English language
Here I will tell you some raw ideas for bettering of the Eng., yet I have again to repeat that this is as if announcing of one of my further ideas, which I intend to christen "English Myrskanto (lang.)", I have not thought seriously about the matter, these are only pieces, and I even don't want to give them all away. Still, nobody knows how long he will stay on this world, so that better I will spit something, than keep all in secret.
This time we will leave the alph. in peace and begin at once with grammatical categories. About the genders I think to make them even ... 4, adding one for animated object but without precising of which sex exactly. Then the personal pronouns will be: io (read as 'jo'), tu ('tu'), he, she, it, et; we, you, they, where "tu" can be confused sometimes, but "du" will also be confused, and it is better to have some correspondence between tu and you (yet maybe it has to be written as "tou" or "tue", I can't judge here, I don't know the Eng. so good). Then in objective case they will be: me ('mi'). te ('ti'), him, shim ('shim'), tim ('tim'), tem ('tem'); wim ('vhim'), youm ('joum', or 'jom'), them, yet they still don't sound pretty good to me (but I object to preserving of "her", this does not correlate with "she"). In possessive case they have to be: my, ty ('taj'), his, shis ('shis'), its /tis ('tis'), ets ('ets') /tes ('tes'); wis ('vhis'), yous ('jos') /yours, thes ('dhes') /theirs, and if one so much wants may use also mis ('mis' and tis ('tis'); this also doesn't sound pretty good but there is some logic. In this case the reflexive pronouns have to be a bit simplified to: myse ('majsi'), tyse ('tajsi'), hisse ('hissi'), shisse ('shissi'), itse ('itsi'), etse ('etsi'); wisse ('wissi'), yousse ('youssi'), thesse ('dhessi').
Then we are going to the verbs. The infinitive has to have a bit Gr. ending, with "-ow" (read 'ou'), , and the endings for present tense, in alike to It. (as Lat.) way, are: -o ('o'), -ey ('i'), -(a)s ('as'), -am ('am'), -at ('at'), -on ('on'); the same for imperfect will be: -edo ('(i)do'), -edey ('(i)di'), -edas ('(i)das'), -edam ('(i)dam'), -edat ('(i)dat'), -edon ('(i)don'). For example: for workow in present: worko, workey, work(a)s, workam, workat, workon; and in past: workedo, workedy, workedas, workedam, workedat, workedon; or for studiow: in present: studio, studiy, studias, studiam, stydiat, studion, and in past: studiedo, studidey, studidas, studidam, studidat, studidon. Or let us take irregular verb, goow in present: goo ('goo'), goey, goas, goam, goat, goon, and in past: wento, wentey, went(a)s, wentam, wentat, wenton. Then the main verb amow (fo to be) will be in present: amo, amey, is, aram, arat, aron; in past: waro, warey, was, waram, warat, waron; in conditional form: wero, werey, wes, weram, werat, weron; I can propose even shortened forms like in present: 'mo, 'mey, is, 'ram, 'rat, 'ron, and in past: w'ro, w'rey, was, war'm, war't, war'n. Then havow will be easier: havo, hevey, has, havam, havat, havon, and respectively: hado, hadey, had, hadam, hadat, hadon, or maybe also hedo, hedey, et cetera. Also willow will be willo, willey, wills, willam, willat, willon, and then wildo, wildey, etc., or wouldo, wouldey, et cetera. It seems difficult, but not to the learning of the tables, they are maximally simple.
So this was the hardest part with the endings yet there are other moments, too. About the genders I think that it is almost imperative to use widely the suffix -on for building of mas. and -ess for fem., like studenton & studentess, professoron & professoress, dogon & dogess, caton & catess, birdon & birdess, and many many others; also boyon and boyess (if some girls want to say so), or girlon and girless, but I suppose the latter word has simply to be rejected, it associates with some hole or else loud cries. On the other hand "man" has to remain only as human, no matter of what sex (at least because of Lat. manus as hand, i.e. the "salt" here is not in the sex), and for men to be used machon, and for women — femess. In some cases one may use these genders also for things and, applying ets (instead of his or her) associations, to bildow (there is no need of "to" now but it can be left) nouns of desired gender, say: tableon (if it is very big, or, maybe, rough) and tabless (if it is pretty nice, or one just likes it), or also chairon, bedon, et cetera.
Then there have to be added also diminutive endings, where I can propose: -chic, -ino, -ina; as well enlargers (if I can say so), like: -chor, -ono, -ona. In this case man (instead of one, but also widely used in Ger.) can say also: tablechic or tablechor, as well professorino or professorono, or professoressina and professoresona; or small pine treino, or big oak treono (there have to be several variants because here it doesn't sound good to say treechor, but treechic maybe is still possible). You see, such possibilities enliven the lang., and these things can be applied even now, without the verb forms and pronouns.
Then there is not properly solved the possessive case, because suffix "-s" not always is heard and is confused with the pl., so that I think it would be better to use also ending "-sy", like statesy interests (because state's interest is rarely used and here the possession is obvious. Then one can surely say mansy /womansy clothes (or also machonsy / femessy clothes what now sounds much more precise), or hensy eggs. Then come the problem with building of adjectives from nouns, and there as if exists only -ish and sometimes -ian (also -ist in another sense), where I think can be used also the Lat. suffix -ory /-ary /-oly /-aly (like pulmonary, circulatory, spectrally), or sometimes only -y, so that then can be said carory park, or glassory junk, or monkeyly intelligent, or ramly /bullishly stubborn (after all it is said girly behaviour, or earthly plants, so that I don't propose Martian dialect). Or to give more examples, like: spirally galaxy, pressory review, bussory or tramory tickets (or bussy and tramy, but bussic or bussist or bussish are not good, I think), or headory /stomachory aches, and others.
Or there is much simpler approach, one has just to connect the word with a hyphen, and then man-clothes, or head-aches, or buss-tickets, or glass-junk, etc., are perfectly acceptable, no matter that the hyphen is not seen when speaking but it is supposed (yet to take as uneducated writing of man clothes etc.), and the next step to be connected writing as manclothes. Also I can't understand (and not only I, a big number of foreigners, I suppose, too, yet about 50 times less then the correct variant, judging by the number of occurrences given by the browsers) while sometimes is added -al but sometimes isn't, like democratical or touristical is not correct but commercial is OK, and when there exists domestically then it has to exist also domestical, I mean that when people feel necessity to build such forms (because in the other, and Western, langs is done so, then this has to be accepted not only as exception but as more correct usage).
And surely other things. At least have to be added a pair of hundred new words (not only machon and femess) in order to avoid confusions in some cases, like the proverbial: I and eye (with io this is eliminated), man and men (I don't see what is so bad with mans; yet "people" have to remain, this is nice word, like peeping of chickens), read in present with read in past (why not readed, or, then to insert one "h" as meaning nothing, like rehad). Also some words have to be excluded, not only "girl", also Miss /Missus /Mrs. and be used Lady instead, and there are others, too. But well, as I said, this is raw proposition, yet it is necessary, something has to be done in order to return the Eng. lang. to the "family" of other civilized lang., else it is now the prodigal son, it is lost in some thicket, from where it can hardly pull itself out alone, neither wants to do this.
Conclusion
In conclusion not only of this paper but of all three things for Arabs, Hindus, and many other nations, even Chinese, I will repeat that Bul. lang. is the best possible choice for all nations in this millenium, for several reasons: alphabetical, phonetical, grammatical, political, and as to the roots of the words, too, while Am.-Eng. lang. is on the contrary the worst possible, for the same reasons (only the tenses are well thought), that's it! The only problem for its massive applying is that we are very few people, one per mille of the word population and with not very good name as being barbarous nation. Yeah, but I don't propose to begin to love and worship us, just to love and use some of the things, the artifacts, that we have done (like, folksongs, dances, alphabet, lang., our genes, if you want), because we exist for more then 13 centuries and have proved our vitality and originality in many aspects, creating this perfect, I repeat, perfect alphabet and phonetics. If you don't like the Ams and the Eng. lang., and even if you like the lang., you have to throw it in the mud and step over it, it is high time to do this, the sooner, the better. I am joking, but you know pretty well that the mud heals from many diseases, it is healthy! If this lang will succeed after, say, a century to raise itself renewed from the mud and continue to walk around the world, then you have done good to it, you have given it the possibility to prove that it is vital and deserves to be used (because it has various positive elements, it sounds just nice), and if it will not succeed to stand alive from this mud-bath (in what I doubt, every language is good by itself, it is human creation), then it serves it right, because this is survival of the fittest! Bul. lang. has survived (we have been 5 centuries under Turkish, called now Ottoman, yoke, and have survived, and before this, in the 9th century, have created this now perfect for us, and for many other nations, too, alphabet), Bul. lang. is the fittest!
So that I simply appeal to you: use it, please, you will never do a mistake with this, you will only benefit from this! If you find our grammar still difficult, then help to make it simpler (this is possible, where the Eng. is almost irreparable — you have seen how I strived to do this but it isn't easy, and when I do it at last the native people will most probably not accept my propositions, because their own sh## does not smell to them), and if you find our words not sufficient, then there is nothing simpler then adding of new words, this is done all the time in all langs, but the fundament, the alphabet and the sounds are good, so that you will build on proper ground. The only problem is until the people speaking Bul. will reach a pair of hundred millions, and then the avalanche will move further by itself. The Arab countries are more than 300 millions, this will be enough; the CIS countries are also very suitable, the Negroes in Africa will also do the thing, or the South Americans, or the Hindus (more than a milliard), or the Far East, to say nothing about the Chinese. So that there are many possibilities. If only one out of a hundred people decides to learn Bul. then this will make some 6-7 hundred millions, more then enough for the beginning.
And don't forget that there, really, is linguistic crisis nowadays, even the very Ams, I suppose, feel this, and where there is not some ancient family lang. there the people just wonder what lang. to learn, as first, as well also as second (because they will surely not learn, say: Ar., Heb., Hin., Chi., Rus., Ger., Fr., and so on, and there remain as if only It. and Sp., yet they will not succeed to speak in It. with the Chis, will they?). Similar is the situation in whole Europe (the Gers may study Fr. but they don't like it much, and similarly the Frs, neither will somebody there, without special reasons, that's it, learn Pol., or Ukr., or Ar., or Gr., etc.). And similarly in the vast Central Asia, or on the south there, or in Africa, an on and on. So that just ponder about, ask the specialists, ask the people living there, or just risk a bit. We are small country for to have had possibilities to have done the other nations wrong, and this argument nowadays becomes extremely important.
That is what Chris Myrski said, and to what conclusions he came in
March 2016