JOTATA'S COMPARISON OF CONTEMPORARY LANGUAGES (Using the Paper About Democracy) By Jotata – Atatoj,   2021, known also as: Ivancho Jotata, Ochnavi Atatoj, Ivan Bugarow, Jotabash Giaurgi, Nostradamus Buladamus, and under other cloning names   JOTATA'S COMPARISON OF CONTEMPORARY LANGUAGES (Using the Paper About Democracy) By Jotata – Atatoj, 2021, known also as: Ivancho Jotata, Ochnavi Atatoj, Ivan Bugarow, Jotabash Giaurgi, Nostradamus Buladamus, and under other cloning names        Abstract: Here is made comparison of more than a dozen contemporary languages, including Roman, Teutonic, and Slavonic ones, in which I have translated my paper about democracy (what I have done chiefly with this purpose). For each language are given some statistical data and then in a pair of paragraphs in the succinct possible form is told what I mean about it, from the standpoint of its simplicity. Together with this there are many subsections added before and after the concrete languages, so that the material is quite big, and if you have not a pair of hours free you better do not begin reading it. In this way it turned out that this is pretty scientific paper, but it is popularly written and uses no special terms, so that it can be read by everybody. It must be added that the expressed here ideas are quite new and questionable, yet I provide pretty good argumentation about everything. The conclusion is that the easiest language in the world (or at least from the used ones) is Bulgarian, what may seem strange for many readers, and because of this I advice everybody to read my Democracy paper at least in two languages (to check that the translations are very strictly done), and then this paper, and make his or her own conclusions. It is to be expected that I will add soon also a pair of papers about the bettering of main existing languages.      [ I have no idea for illustration here, because this is scientific paper, not an action or love story etc., but because after a pair of decades (not earlier) I may begin to be read, I will give a hint for further possible editors. It is the following: a picture in a frame, usually as 450 x 450 pixels, where are shown, clockwise and beginning from West to East in an upper arc by a person from several (5 to 7) nations, in the sequence of my translations (namely German. English, Italian, Russian, probably one or two more, and at the right end is Bulgarian). The persons will be recognised by a ribbon of cloth with the colors of national flag, which must be wrapped around the forehead (but probably also hiding the eyes), and these persons have to be men, yet I will not object much (from the other world) if they will be women. What is important is that they all have to be pictured with a … stuck out tongue, as symbol of the language. That's it, take it or leave it. ]   Contents      -5. Excuses and warnings      -4. The problems with the languages      -3. Worldwide phonetics      -2. Conception for worldwide alphabet      -1. Cyrillic and Latin alphabets      -0. Introduction to the main language part      01. German language      02. English language      03. Italian language      04. Russian language      05. French language      06. Spanish language      07. Portuguese language      08. Romanian language      09. Dutch language      10. Swedish language      11. Esperanto language      12. Ukrainian language      13. Polish language      14. Czech language      15. Slovak language      16. Serbian language      17. Bulgarian language      +0. Common statistics      +1. About the names of the nations      +2. Conclusion before the end      +3. My further plans in this direction      +4. Ideas about improved German language (Ger+)      +5. Bye-bye   -5. Excuses and warnings      I think that I must begin with the excuses, yet, hm, not as regrets that I have done something improperly or erroneously, but rather on the contrary, to boast with my exceptions! Well, this may seem bold to state in the very beginning, but it is so human, that let us not comment it further, you just take that I am different, but in spite of this, or because of this, I may be right!      So I have to excuse myself that I am writing scientific papers in not exactly scientific way — e.g., I have no list of used literature (sources) —, but that is what is called popular paper, right? I am, in a way, an intelligent laic, meaning that I work here not in the field where I have studied, but if you take for granted that an education in the exact sciences (and I have a bit more than two such tertiary educations) is good enough guarantee for the thinking abilities, then I have the right to work also in the field of some non-exact sciences, like linguistics, or more precisely, in searching of an universal alphabet, at least this, when we can not find good enough language for the entire world. Because the problems are very important, they exist for long time, and everyone, who can contribute for better solution (than, say, the English language, and with its utterly unsuitable for it Latin alphabet), has to be met with open arms, methinks (the more such amateur like me, who has worked in this field for about a 1/4 of a century). And my interests for some time, about a decade and chiefly under my usual pseudonym, circle around the biblical fable about the Babylon tower, really!      So that I excuse myself for my non-professional approach, and bad meaning about the English language — and allow me to shorten the last word to lang, because it will be used quite often —, but I want to address the biggest possible auditory, and my meaning about the humanitarian sciences is that they are chiefly descriptive, they use many terms but do not say too much, give no procedural or quantitative knowledge! And the Eng — obvious shortening for English, like I will shorten also many other langs — is badly qualified, surely, this: I work, you work, they work, and so on, is probably the way how the … cave people have spoken, don't you think so? And also, you have to have heard that if someone is more capable than the others then he must try to give out of himself even more than the common person. And the Eng, with its brilliant building of all tenses could have made more efforts also in other aspects. And, too, simplicity is one thing but nice sounding is another one, surely; so that I do not spit at the Eng lang (at least not so much how I spit at Bul barbarity), I just call the things with their proper names.      And in order to finish this section — they will be many but I will try to make them not longer than 3 average paragraphs, when this is possible, — I want to even beg my possible readers to advertise me, tell about me to other and especially more educated acquaintances, to look at my works and make their conclusions, because I may, after all, make some small errors here and there, chiefly concerning my Bul lang, because I can't avoid to be a bit prejudiced about it, yet about the other langs I am quite honest and unprejudiced. -4. The problems with the languages      Well, I just told you that the sections here will not be long, but this will be true chiefly for those of the langs (and also not for all of them), while here I have many things to say, because the matters do not stay so like one might have supposed. One might have taken that the langs, as main means for communication between the humans, must be as easy as possible, but this is not so, no, they are, and this from deep antiquity, made more difficult than necessary on purpose! Why? Ah, for several reasons. For one thing because they have to divide the people in groups, and in this case there are many, so to say, decorative elements in them, requirements that are not really necessary, unless to differ from the other people (say, it is weakly motivated to use the letter "j", which is a variation of "i", it is in fact semi-vowel, it can't be pronounced alone, to sound as "dzh", like something Arabic or Hindu, but the Eng people have long ago taken this decision, in spite of the common sense, would I say; or then to write "I" with capital letter, contrary to all grammatical rules). This is, in a way, like with various flowers, they have such beautiful blossoms, just for the sake of being distinct, individual.      Then there is the added purpose of the langs to be used as means for denoting of superiority of some persons, who are better educated than the common masses. This is also natural, but in the contemporary times of bigger democratization (which is a new tool for … exploitation, but this is from "another opera"), it is not modern or even not decent to use difficult langs (like almost all Slavonic, or German, and others), and because of this (yet not only) I am in the vanguard of the fighters for easy langs. And there is another aspect of this relation of the good language with the well educated layers of society, this is the incorporation of many philosophic (or theosophic) elements in them, basically in the grammatical cases, which can lead us to the Skr (for Sanskrit, the lang of saint scripts of Hinduism). To give as example the difference between dative and accusative in Ger when something is standing or moving: my explanation is that the easier case (Akkusativ in Ger) is used when the things are moving, because the nature is in a constant motion, where the Dativ is used if smt (for something, resp. smo or smb you may guess when) stands, because there must be used force to stop the movement! Yet the cases are sometimes pretty funny, because, e.g., in Rus, if something is not present (money or whatever) they are bound to use genitive in order to produce, to generate it! I will not go into details here, but the idea is that the cases reflect the theosophic views at ancient times.      Then there are the genders, which are really obvious decision, and writing here in Eng I want to stress that the lack of genders leads to increased repetition of the nouns, due to the impossibility to use enough pronouns. And the subtlety here is to become "impregnated" with the ancient, Skr view at the genders, where the masc. (and further I will use only m., like also f. for fem.) objects are hard, tough, etc., while the f. things are just nice! Yeah, that's it, and this is one of the reasons why I am so angry at the emancipated women, because they just spit at the niceness in order to boast with smt impossible (their equality with the men). Let me give you some examples. There are in Ger the words Löffel (m., spoon) and Gabel (f., fork), which end exactly in the same way, yet not only are not of one gender, but even the spoon is m., while I, and I think many other people, would have taken that the spoon is a kind of hole and, in consequence of this, must be f., while the fork is smt sticking out and penetrating and has to be m, yet this model of judgment is wrong! And when I have begun to study It (before more than 10 years) I have found that this is not only Ger view, this is old and ancient, probably Gr, Ar (obvious shortenings), and so on to the Skr, and have guessed that the spoon is simply ugly, while the fork is just fine!      Or let us take also the strength, it is m. thing, yet it is almost always (you check it) f. because we like the strength! Because of this one often met in Rus case is for many (yet not all) words ending on their soft sign ("ь" in Cyr for Cyrillic), which look very like m., by their endings (especially in Bul, where we have discarded this sign), to be f., (including 'moshchj'-strength-or-power — and I will explain later the meaning of Lat (for Latin) transliteration here and in other cases). Or in Ger the tree (as trunk) is m. but the crown is f. being nice, like also the street, city, democracy, and so on. Also there is the world known papa as father, which is m. but with f. ending, and there is also Skr deva not as Lat diva-beauty but as god (say, Vasudeva was the father of Vishnu, who is also Krishna). So that, in order to finish with the genders, they are necessary, but the point is to be guessed easily by the endings of the words, what is practically so (up to 85-90 %) in Slav (for Slavonic) and Rom (for Roman) langs (at least in It it is so), but is not so for the Teu (for Teutonic) ones (at least in Ger).      Then there are the tenses, where for me simple is when there are: present, a pair of past tenses, future, and this is all, and from all tenses those with tables of their forms is enough to be only two! This is generally so in Slav (including Rus, Bul, and others), where the tables are for the present and for the past, relatively so is in the Teu langs, including the Eng, but in the Lat ones comes the nightmare, where the tenses are between 14 (in It, where only the past are whole 5) and 21, really, and this not counting the ways for expressing of continuous tenses or passive voice. Plus this there are strong verbs in all Teu langs, there are not so many such exceptions in Lat langs yet they exist, but, f.ex. (as for example), in Bul (and Slav, generally) there are not strong verbs at all, there are only some exceptions and mutation of the root vowel. There are many peculiarities here, surely, and the things do not stand generally good. And there are also the modalities (which are unavoidable in some measure), and other moments, especially these transitive and not verbs. If you have not already forgotten, I have spoken about the philosophical view at the world, and this transitive or not verbs concern again the moving or standing of the objects, because the intransitive are used when something is changed, and especially in Ger, but also in the Lat langs, there are many problems, which are practically missing in the Slav langs (e.g., in Bul there is only one auxiliary verb, to be, we don't need more than this).      But we must not forget the more simple moments, the basic moments related with the alphabet and the phonemes (vowels, consonants, diphthongs, and so on). There are many problems here, but I will come to them pretty soon in the next minus-sections, I will establish also many shortenings there, so that I will not dig here much about this. I want to stress chiefly on the introduced by me (because I have not met such terms used anywhere) basic phonemes, that have to be present in all langs (yet sometimes they are not present, say, the Greeks have never had both letters "b" and "v", they have had in ancient times "b" and have now "v", but never the both), and with the help of which can be relatively easy produced many, practically all, other phonemes of practically all langs! And also about the alphabet — ah, let me shorten it to alph —, there are many alphs (say, Gr, Ar, Armenian, Skr, Chi for Chinese, etc), but the point isn't so much in the images, as in the hidden behind them phonemes, and in this sense the Lat one is relatively good (at least with some made by me modifications), but the Cyr, or rather Bul alph (because we use it in the best possible way, only its letters, and our alph is the shortest of all Slav alphs) is the best, and this in a global for the world sense!      Ah, there are also other moment that provide difficulties in the langs, like articles, where the definitive ones can be present (what is the usual case) or entirely missing (e.g. in Rus), or if present then be put in front of the words (like almost everywhere) or at the end and even glued to the very noun (like in Bul, but also in Rum for Romanian, in order not to confuse it with Roman ones). There can be sometimes (in many Slav langs) also dropped the verb to be, as often used and supposed by default, and other peculiarities, but I will add nothing more here, because this already became the longest section till now. -3. Worldwide phonetics      Here I will speak about the vowels (V. for short) and Cs (C. for consonant), as well also for some semi-Vs or other peculiar moments, that are met in one or other lang throughout the world, i.e. about all possible phonemes worldwide! Well, they are too many, would smb say, and therefore this is an impossible task, what is not so, will I answer, there can be found a way for mastering of all phonemes, if the matters are rightly approached. And what is this right approach, can smb ask? Ah, it is simple, and often used, too, we must just find the basic bricks, the "phonetic atoms", so to say, and use them to build with their help more complicated phonemes! (I have explained this in the middle of my Jotolmach but there everything is in Bul.) So that let us begin with the beginning, with the exactly basic V. They are six, namely:      Basic Vs: i, e, y, a, u, o,      where, though, with the sign "y" I have marked this V. like in your "girl" or "bird", only not elongated! In order not to become confused I will use single quotes for to mark how the letters are read, so that this will be the read sounds, not written ones (what is a matter of alph). Also let me introduce some more shortenings, namely: L. for letter, W. for word, S. for syllable, R. for root, and Ph. for phoneme. This 'y' is not present in Lat alph but it is present in Bul one (the Russ — for Russians, similarly Gers are Germans, Skrs are Skr people, etc. — have it but don't use it, also in the other Slav langs it is not used), but it is both, old (exists in Tur — where, e.g., their kismet is read 'kysmet' —, Ar, Per for Persian, and others), as well modern (exists not only in Eng, also in Ger all endings -er are read as '-y', say, Lehrer-teacher, also in Rum, and if it is not used in the other Slav langs, then there happen funny moments of aggregation of many difficultly pronounced Cs, like Cze for Czech 'Bendrzhih' or Ser for Serbian 'srpska', so that it is utterly necessary. Yeah, but have you heard this somewhere (what I will also shorten to smw) else (with the exception of my usual pseudonym, which I still keep in secret)?      So, and these Vs can be grouped in pairs ('i - e, y - a, u – o', which are built with bigger opening of the mouth) or in triples ('i - y - u, e – a – o'). From them can be built all other possible Vs, in two ways, but I will explain this after the Cs, which are 19, namely:      Basic Cs: b, p,  v, f,  d, t,  m, n,  r, l ; g, k, h,  z, c, s,  zh, ch, sh ;      where I have so divided them with spaces, that to be seen that they are 5 pairs and 3 triples, and the last triple is "warming" of the previous one, and the reading, naturally, is in the most Lat (not Eng) way (and 'zh' is like in measure, or like in Fr for French bonjour). Note, however, that these pairs and triples are natural, their elements are often substituted one with the other, they mutate from one to the other (like b – p, or s – t — this happens between langs —, or m – n, or r – l, or g – k – h, etc.), all is thought through, nothing is occasional.      Then, one will not question the necessity of at least the first 16, but I insist that all 19 are necessary, because the last warm Cs exist in many langs, usually not the 3 at once in a given lang, but then two, yet there are used everywhere different ways for denoting of them, say: "cz" for 'ch' or "sz" for 'sh', or also "tsch" (by the Gers) for 'ch', or "sch" (Ger) for 'sh', or other ways; also let me stress that basic C. is 'zh', not 'dzh'. The wish to add even a single C. more (say 'dzh') leads to significant increasing of basic "bricks", what we can't allow us to do. And in order not to waste your time to think how I have come to this idea suffices only to mention that these all Cs and Vs are present exactly in this form in Bul alph, so that I hope you begin to catch why I am such defender of this alph (at least, but as lang, too).      Now, there is one more moment, which estimates what is basic and what is not, this is the easiness of pronouncing, without any change in the vocal apparatus, i.e. you can say forever 'y' or 'e' or 'g', 'm', 'sh', 'zh', but when we come to the next way for changing of these Phs you will see that it is not so there. Yet before this I have to add also one (at least) semi-V., the "j" (which exists in Lat and in Bul alphs, hence it is necessary); there has to be thought about using also of 'h' as semi-V., because this happens in some langs (in the beginning of the Ws); still, it is better to think about one more inclusion for marking of nasal Vs, although adding of "n" may also be used, if there is no other way. As number this gives 6 + 19 + 1 + 1 = 27 chars, and Bul alph has 30 chars so that it can be used for this purpose (although I will treat more profound this question in -1. section), and the Lat alph has 26, so that there, even if a way for good coding of these Phs was found (what I have found, be quiet), we must leave aside the warm triplet writing them as here, and then with 24 chars everything can be all right.      And now to the making of other Phs using the basic ones. There are chiefly two ways for doing this (acc. to me, but I hope this is obvious), namely: via modification (shortened to mod.) or combination (shortened to comb.), yet there can happen just consecutively (shortened to cons.) or adjacently written Vs or Cs. What this means and how they are distinguished? Well, everything is as I said it, mod-d Vs (let us begin firstly with the Vs) are such Vs, where we begin to say one thing, but say at the end smt else, like the classical 'ae' like in "man" or "than" etc., where we begin to say 'a' but end with 'e'. Or also the sound like in Eng "but" is now 'ya', which is, if you ask Jotata, exactly Rus unstressed "o", for which they say it is like 'a' but there is a difference. Or take also the proverbial (at least for me, because I think that this is some … donkey sound) Rus so called "eri", which is now 'yi' (hence it is 'eryi'), like in their 'myi'-we or 'tyi'-you etc., which turns to be widely spread also in Ukr (for Ukrainian) and Pol (for Polish) and Rum and other langs. Or then there are different "e"-s, and, e.g., in Rus the usual "e" is, in fact, 'ie'; or there is Ger 'io' like in their böse, and many others (the world isn't really tiny, is it?). All this is very good, and I will use this method of writing, but have to add two more things: the one is that the right notation depends on the alph and I will discuss this in the next minus-sections, and the other is that, in order to avoid confusions with the other adjacently written Vs or Cs, it is better to use lower index for the second V., like: 'ae', 'ya', 'yi', 'ie', 'io', et cetera. Ah, and there are also the nasals, where I will use for the moment the L. "n", like: 'on' or 'an' (resp. 'on' or 'an'), but allow me not to give examples (because the Fr is not my strong side).      Then there can be similarly mod-d Cs, like, e.g.: 'ph', 'th', 'gh', 'bh', etc., where "h" is sign for some hardening (or swallowing of the tongue — there are no such "beasts" in Bul, so that I may be wrong here), or also 'nj', 'mj', 'rj', 'lj', etc., where is meant the opposite, some softening; the indexing can also be used for better notation. And let me (as if again) stress on the moment, that the mod-d Phs are more difficult to be pronounced, and when they end the mouth is changed, quieted a bit (what is always difficult to explain to the Russ, who have 'yi' but do not have pure 'y', and think that it is just a matter of taste to have the one or the other, because the Buls have 'y' but have not "yi", yet this is not so, we, the Buls, are better equipped with our alph than the Russ). Here I have to add two things more, where the one is that there are principally possible other mod-s of Cs, like with the Eng "w", which can be given as 'vy', and the second thing is that in this way, using two known Phs (usually Vs) the explanations are better than speaking about frontal or back or middle part of the mouth (what is used by the specialists). Mark, however, that the mod-d Phs are still single Phs, they are not what the next variant is.      And this next variant concerns, as I said above, the comb-d Vs or Cs, where we have two (or sometimes more than two) different Phs, and the one of them can be even mod-d; if it goes about Vs these things are usually called diphthongs, but about comb-d Cs there is no other name (unless you decide to call them … diphsongs — it's up to you). The simplest examples here are those with "j" as first or second, like: 'aj', 'oj', 'ja', 'jo'. but also with other Vs (well, with 'y' will be pretty strange, yet it is possible), and I think there is no need to give Ws as examples. But there can be also 'ou', 'ey', 'iy', 'oy', and others; what concerns the triphthongs I personally think that they must be taken for two joint Ss, like your "hour" can be spelled as 'auy' in one S., or as 'au-y' in two Ss (and because I am strict about the Ss when writing poetry I usually use the sign "º" as a kind of antipode of the apostrophe, for adding of a S.). The comb-d Cs are obvious, like: 'st', 'sp', or 'sht', 'shp', or 'dzh', or 'rzh', or 'shch', and others, including longer comb-ns like mentioned 'srpsk' or 'vyrld' (meaning Eng "world"); on the other hand longer comb-ns of Cs can be looked at as just cons-ve Cs (with the remark that it is better to insert here and there by an 'y' or 'ya').      So that is how more complicated Phs can be made by using of simple basic phonetical "bricks" and the phonetics of all world langs can be united in one (the major requirement here is to forget boasting with some own obviously wrong assumptions, like Eng habit to write "a" and say 'ei', f.ex.). So that it is a matter mainly of alph, and because of this I end at last this even longer (then the previous longest, ah?) section and am going to the alphabets. -2. Conception for worldwide alphabet      Now, we have spoken in the previous section about basic Vs and Cs and the ways of making more complicated Phs, but this was generally speaking, it was not exactly. And what are the exact requirements? Ah, there has to be thought also about the following things: firstly about looking only one char ahead, not to be forced to write, say, '-eille' or 'tsch' and similar things, neither to write "gn" in order to read 'nj' (what exists from Ancient Greece and in many Lat langs); after all if there are 25 chars in an alph, then using 2 chars for a Ph. makes 625 Phs, this must be enough for all langs in the world, right?  Then we must have bijective correspondence between what is said (not written, in many langs) and the written in this world alph, hence we can't use one char (symbol) with two (or more) meanings, and till here we have written, e.g., 'nj' for soft "n", or lower index for distinguishing of mod-d Phs, hence we have to use some special modifiers (M. for short), that must differ from the other Ls, and which exactly will be the second char, when needed, but not as real L. that can be pronounced. This must be so done, that to enable addition of some other similar elements (say, a mod-n of 'y' to 'e', 'ye', if one wants, what as if can be heard sometimes in Ukr for the usually "е"; or also smt Chi, Ar, etc.). And there have to be also elongations, semivowels, and other peculiarities, and all this, at least initially, independent form the used lang (only with smt very specific can be thought about lang specific treating of the things).      Now more detailed. Bijection means in both direction, one to one correspondence (and, say, the reading of Eng Ws "I" and "eye" is not bijective, yet this is a defect of the lang, not of the alph; in the Eng exist even the curiosity of "read" as 'rihd' and "read" as 'red'). Then the elongations may be given as, e.g. 'eh' or 'e:' or otherwise, but has to be clear at first sight. And now to the Ms, which is good to be even of 2 groups, basic (from one Ph. to another), and for pronunciation (like, say, the stress). More precisely, and using for the moment numbers, I (the great Jotata) propose the following:      M1, or marked with single point (you think above the L.), is mod-n to the first V. in our list, 'i', 'like 'yi';      M2, or with 2 points, to the 2-nd V. 'e', like Lat 'ae', or Rus 'ie';      M3, or with small circle, to 'y', is practically not used;      M4, or with small line, to 'a', like 'ya' (in "but") or smt else;      M5, or with angle up, to 'u', like in Ger 'iu' (in Müll-garbage);      M6, or with angle down, to 'o', like in Ger 'io' (in böse-angry);      M7, or with tilde, nasal V., like in a heap of Fr. Ws;      (M8, or with 2 small lines, to smt new, this is as reserve).      OK, but these were Ms for Vs, let us move to the Cs. Yet there so many Ms are not necessary, it suffices to use the first 4 of them, where we can use M1 (with 1 point) for softening, like in 'mj', 'lj', some ancient 'rj' (what I have met in one etymological dictionary only in a Skr 'prjd' meaning — you guess it, or then seek for old Gr. perdeoo). Then the usual Slav 'r' is like it is, but the Western one has to be 'r2' (with 2 points, what isn't exactly 'rh' like in rhinoceros) because it is almost not heard. Then M3 we can leave even free for the moment, or use only for the peculiar Eng "w", a little circle is appropriate as sign above and we will write 'v3'. Further, M4, with a small line, can be used for hardening, like in 'dh', 'th', ph', and many others; naturally in this case the warm Cs will be 'z4', 'c4', and 's4'.      Probably it has to be added that in some cases there can be different approaches, and, e.g., when we have smt like '-tje-', then the same may be given also as '-tie-', and I have really observed such treating comparing now (by this enormously long translation) the Cze and Ser langs, but this is not so important and both ways can be used. Ah, and in this alph, when we will use single point as M., then the letter "i" has to be so designed that not to have a point! More precisely, the usual "i" will be just 'i' without point, and when with point this will mean mod-d "i" to itself, or the semi-V. 'j'; similarly we may use mod-d with M1 'h' to mean "h" as semi-V. (like in Ger haben).      Now let us move to the second group of Ms, where we will have:      M11, or little slash from left to right (smt like \), for stressing, what is L. from no alph but it seems very useful in many cases, so that it has to be included in our universal alph;      M12, or small horizontal line (another one), for elongation, say the "bird" will be 'by12d', or "law" will be 'lo12';      M13, or little vertical line or then a cross like the L. "x", for changing of adjacent reading of Vs or Cs;      M14, or little slash from right to left (like /), just for making of some difference, when there are equal Ws but meaning different things, like It "e" as "and" and "è" as "is", and in many other cases (I personally think that this is bad habit and the stress must suffice, yet when this is widely spread let us have also this possibility).      And what is this treating of adjacent Vs or Cs? Ah, this means that I have taken the decision to treat all adjacent Vs as somehow connected, according to the lang, while all adjacent Cs I take for just adjacent, because this is the usual case in various langs (although there are exceptions). When it goes about Vs, like in, say, piano, I take by default the Eng understanding, but in It it is 'pi-a-no' in 3 Ss, so that this changes the number of Ss and is good to be added. In the case of Cs this can, naturally, neither add no take a S. (this is important only for splitting of the Ws, what is another question), so that it is not so important (and because of this I think that especially for 'dzh', which exists also in Bul because it is Tur and we have many such Ws, it doesn't matter much whether we will pronounce it as comb-d 'dzh' or as 'd-zh', but smb may think that it matters and in this case must be used M13).      OK, roughly speaking this is the main part of the things, so that we will have in sum 6 + 19 = 25 proper Ls, 10 (or possibly 12) Ms, but for the last things there are no necessary both cases on the keyboard, so that they have to be counted for twice less keys, or we will need 30 (eventually 31) keys, what is pretty good, having in mind that we have usually 35 L. keys, plus the digits above in about half of their number in one case. In this way it is possible to have about 10 precoded mod-d Ph., for each individual lang, what can be even better than the current situation, especially for some langs where are used a heap of "chicks" above (or below, or glued with the image of) the L., what had to be expected for a new thing, we are not to worsen whatever. Ah, and when writing by hand the Ms can be written above, but when typing they are normally to be typed separately and then probably added to the image of the proper L. by editing program, how it is done with various "decorations", say, in Fr or It, or Pol and so on.      Yeah, there remain only some additions, yet of big (not to say enormous) importance. The point is that I want this alph to be the best of all, and to have all modern features, like various kinds of emphasizing (underlining, bold, italic), and even capitalization performed in an … proportional way for each char (where proportionality was reality in first typewriters, hence we have worsened the things now and sometime they have to be bettered)! How is this possible? Well, introducing several fields for each L., namely: main field for the basic image of the L. (say, 7 by 5 pixels, vertically and then horizontally), field for the first group of Ms (say, 3 by 5 pixels, usually above the main field), field for the second group of Ms (2 x 5 pixels but if above the first, yet they can be placed on the left of the L. and in the top part), and field for emphasizing, together with the part for capitalization (different kinds of lines, points, or borders, which can be placed below the Ls, but can also be combined with the field for the second Ms and placed in the bottom part and on the left of the main field).      Ah, this requires more explanations, but I have given more details in the mentioned Jotolmach, and will, as said, not do the work of entire institutes, so that you think further alone, but the point is that all this is possible, if some nation shows interest to make this alph. And if these will be the Eng people than it will be called new Eng alph, but if the Chis, Chi, et cetera. I will finish with this the current section and go to the last minus-section, which concerns two existing alphs, so that there will be nothing to be done there, everything is ready for use, after the interference of Jotata. -1. Cyrillic and Latin alphabets      I will begin with the Cyr alph because it is better and I have used it for starting point when have tried to come to the global idea. Especially in Bul there are 30 chars in the alph (in Rus there are 32, plus 'yi' and normal 'e', called back one), and all basic Vs and Cs are directly present there, namely (giving first Bul char and then Lat):      Basic Vs: и - i, е - e, ъ - y, а - a, у - u, о - o;      Basic Cs: б - b, п - p,  в - v, ф - f,  д - d, т - t,  м - m, н - n,  р - r, л - l ; then г - g, к - k, х - h,  з - z, ц - c, с - s,  ж - zh, ч - ch, ш – sh.      This makes 25 chars, to what are added also "й" -'j' for Vs, and the soft sign "ь" - 'j' for Cs as Ms (say: 'Йотата' am I, Jotata, or 'май' is the month May, but 'мышь' is Rus 'myishj'-mouse, or 'быть' is Rus verb 'byitj'-be, because the Buls practically don't use this soft sign); what makes now 27 chars, and there remain also 3 chars which may be dropped when needed because are comb-s, read namely as: 'sht' (what is 'shch' in Rus or Ukr, also in Pol etc. but with Lat chars), 'ju', and 'ja', and this is all.      As you see, there is nothing redundant or missing for us; what we have not are ways for making elongations (because we haven't such things — our Gypsies have), which can be given with our "х", but this is not very suitable because we read it (say, if we write 'ah' in Cyr this will be read as "ach" not as "ah", what are details, and I don't intend to force you to use Cyr alph on the West, I just insist that it contains very strong ideas (about the warm Cs, about the soft sign, and not to forget the hard sign which I mark here usually as 'y'), at least because it was made much later than the Lat or Gr alphs, in 9-th century. But for all Slavs, including those who do not use Cyr (like Pols, Czes, etc.), who amount up to half a billion people, Bul alph is unquestionably the best choice! And not only for the Slavs, also for all (I suppose) Southern Asian people and Ars and Pers and all other in the Near East, what already exceeds the million-billion mark. So that I don't think that I waste your and my time thinking about some billion people around the world!      OK, and now to the Lat alph, but with it I have already finished in general terms, introducing the most important 'y' sound, and purifying it a bit, so that each L. has a single function (say, "c" is never 'k' but only like in Caesar). As mentioned before, here, naturally, the warm Cs are missing as chars, but we may allow us to use 2 chars, and in this way there even leave 3 more chars, "q", "w", and "x". I have come to the idea that the image of "q" seems a bit like a … nose, so that it can be used for nasals, then "w" can be used as the semi-V. 'vy' (because it is used not only in the Eng), but "x" is still unused. The elongations here can with clear conscience be made with "h", the softening can be made with 'j' (not only for Cs, but also like in Johan) and the "hardening" with "h", where is probably necessary to add that there is an easy remedy for Ger "ch" and "sch" /"tsch" — they have just to begin to write "hh" instead of "ch" and then all other warm Cs can be applied without problems in the way how I propose this. But, naturally, langs like Fr or Eng, (or also Northern Teu ones) have to find ways (i.e. new transliteration) for writing of all their Ws in this purified Lat (of Jotata). If this will be done (in what I, frankly, doubt) the Eng lang will sit stable on the throne, but for the moment the question with it is open, it is very good in some aspects, and very bad in others!      But, using my reading of Lat, or Bul reading of Cyr, or the new proposed here by me alph, or maybe using some better alph (in what I will not believe even if see it, I have though about these things for years), some decision has to be taken, because the Eng entirely wrong reading of the Lat chars can't be used forever, the ruling of USA will soon cease and then we all will be forced to learn … Chi, most probably! Some decision has to be found, i.e. some good enough alph has to be used at least for the names — personal, of geographic areas, of chemical element, commonly used wares, new terms (like handy, gay, spam, and so on), because the world is, for one thing, one, and, for another one, there are hundreds ways of speaking and calling of same things. Yet mark, that I am nor speaking for the moment about one world lingua, but one alph is just a necessity. I have seen that for a long time exists an International Phonetic Alph (IPA), but it is much more difficult than my proposition using only Lat Ls and going from one to another L. (not inventing some special chars for each possible Ph.), and it can not be published on many sites where I publish (even if I can type these Ls, what I can't do for the moment), and also, as you see, it is still not used worldwide but only in some special circles, so that the problem remains and my propositions are actual.      OK, we are moving to the specific langs. -0. Introduction to the main language part      For each of the langs, that I have used in my paper about the Democracy (all in all 17), will follow some small statistical part, preceded by an evaluation in chosen by me scale of … sharps (#), where to have less sharps is better, and then a pair of paragraphs about the most important for this lang in various aspects, but from my standpoint here of easiness. The statistical part will contain: length of the file in chars (with the spaces), but only the text from the title of section 0. and to before the date, a quotient to Bul file (for comparison), place according to this between the used here langs (where the smallest is the best); then number of Ws, average length of the word, quotient to Bul in sense of length, place between all langs; then number of chars in the used for the lang alph with the additions to the standard alph which the lang uses, again quotient to Bul, and again place between the langs; then used Phs except the basic Vs and Cs (this can sometimes not be very precise due to my lack of knowledge about the lang; here the sequence is: semi-Vs except 'j', mod-d Vs; elongations; mod-d Cs; diphthong (Dph. for short) Vs.; Dph Cs; minus if lacks smt basic), also quotient to Bul, also place in the arranged list; and this must suffice. These are quantitative measures that do not depend on the view point, they are unprejudiced, yet I do not think that the top place is always the best, the best must be smt to the top place, but not exactly, because there are langs (say, Esperanto) where this may be misleading (i.e. to be too perfect may have its drawbacks). In all cases I think that this statistics has to be very interesting and important, I have seen nothing of the kind, and my Democracy paper is quite big in order to give good representativeness for the general case.      Well, the estimation in sharps is not an objective thing and it is necessary to give more explanations about it. The disappointing thing for many of you may be the fact that I not only will not exceed 5 #s, but will even not fall below 2 #s, the best 1 # is smt like the paradise, I can't imagine it for the moment, but it is reserved as possible. More disappointing is also the distorted distribution, where it turns out that I have found only 1 lang deserving to have mark 2 and it is not natural lang, this is Esperanto, then there is also only 1 lang deserving the middle mark 3 (with some pluses), and this is my Bul, and all other langs have 4 or 5 sharps, that's it, alas. The only solace for some of you may be the moment that I have introduced also minuses and pluses, more or less equal to 0.2 of one sharp, i.e. up to 2, where to have minuses is better; but I also do not exceed the exact 5 #s, because this is upper limit.      Yeah, but what can I do, when I have to work here with multi-dimensional scale, and for exact estimation of the score one must have established good weights for each dimension (smt like the representation of a number in the usual positional system, where we have, say, for the number 123, 1 multiplied by 100, plus 2 multiplied by 10, plus 3 taken as it is). I haven't exact weights (this is not possible, nobody has done this), I can only think that a lang with (at least 4) cases nowadays is an anachronism, when there are many enough langs without cases then all langs can be made not to use cases, so that if a given lang uses cases I give it convinced 5 #s, probably only softened with a "-"; then if a given lang has many tenses (more then at least 10), or very difficult phonetics, or problems with the genders, I can't give it less then 4 #s; Bul lang is unique and even for it I can find some drawbacks, so that I do not come lower than 3 #s; that's it. But I felt bound to give some rough general mark, so that I have invented it.      Good, then will follow some information about the grammatical cases (if any), about the genders, smt about the reading, or the stressing, what I have found worth to mention. This now is subjective part, but in all reviews are given some expert estimations, so that here, too. I will try not to be pretty boring but can't promise this (because there are many peculiar moments, at least for a person with inquisitive mind). Mark, however, that the difficulty, let me repeat this, does not mean that the lang in question is bad and has to be abolished, no, it may be good for the people who use it, but it is bad in sense of communicating with the world, for the outsiders, because the vogue in the moment will always exists, but the easiness is the thing which, at least must be (if not directly is) of importance when one will decide to learn this or that lang; I think that this is pretty well seen today, when for about less than a century, chiefly only half of it, several langs have come down from the throne, namely, Fr, Ger, Rus, and I wouldn't have been surprised if in the next century modern will become Ar or Chi or Skr /Hin, smt like this. Because, as I have repeated this, the Eng will come down from the historical scene, this is only a question of time, I am convinced in this. So that each lang, especially the leading one in a certain class, has to make efforts to modernize and simplify itself, if it wants to be actual and sought in the future; even if the first foreign lang will remain the Eng, the question with the second or the third still remains open.      OK, as if this suffices, let us begin the main part here, the comparison. 01. German language      Mark: five sharps, #####. I wanted eagerly to give this lang at least 1 "-", because it has only 4 cases, while there are many langs with 6 and 7 cases, but, alas, I can't, because the Gers have very complicated W. ordering, chaos with the genders, probably 100 prepositions, relatively easy verbs but with many strong ones, difficult modalities, polite form in the absurd 3 pers. pl., so that I just can't lessen my top and worst estimation; I love this lang, but I can't do this (I am firstly scientist and only then human being)!      File length: whole length 45,053 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 1.047 , place1 = 16.      Pure length: 38,067 words 7,024, word length = 5.42 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.104 , place2 = 15.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 4 (ä, ö, ü, ß), Q3_to_Bul = 1.0 (30 : 30), place3 = 7.      Non-basic Phs: 14 ('h' as semi-V, it is joined with the next V.; 'io', 'iu'; 'ih', 'eh', 'ah', 'iuh'; 'ja', 'jo', 'ju'. 'aj' = "ei", 'oj' = "eu", 'au'; 'shp' = "sp", 'sht' = "st"; -1, lacks 'zh'), Q4_to_Bul = 1.75 (14 : 8), place4 = 4.      And now the prosaic part about Ger lang in my understanding. Like mentioned by the estimation in sharps this is very difficult lang, but I like it, chiefly because in phonetical aspect it is nearly a bijou. And really, nothing special, only that they have not the beautiful sound 'zh' (and in Slav langs on it begins the W. life, but in recompense of this they use the C. 'sh' practically to insanity, and this is also very nice sound (all Hebs for Hebrews like it). But as if with this the good things end, because, e.g.: in what lang all nouns are written with capitals, ah? This has never existed even in the Lat, but they, being known from ancient times as brethren or cousins of the Lats (because this is what germanus in Lat means), have decided to exceed them in their discipline in everything, what begins to look just silly. Like also this, to write every number till thousand as one word (or was it till million, could you believe it?), as well also to read all last two digits in inversed order (say, 67 they will pronounce as seven and sixty). Or to build enormously long Ws (say, Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaft was their former kolkhoze). Or not to be allowed to them to say in a subordinate clause "because I was not at home" but to say "because I not at home was" (what depends on the preposition, but the idea is clear). Or take this "sharpened"-s, it might have had some significance in the eyes of Gers in the times of middle ages, but nowadays it is fully redundant from the standpoint of a foreigner; they tried to better the situation, around the turn of the century, and substituted it in the majority of cases with "ss", but this only made the things more difficult, if you ask me, it has to be thrown away entirely.      Now, I can understand (but not excuse) them, this is because they, as chief Teu nation, feel obliged to defend the front and stick to the orders of their forefathers, but in this way the other Teus have gone ahead them, not only the Eng lang (for which it isn't obvious that it is Teu one) but the Northern Teus (say, the Swes for Swedes, who have only some remainder of genitive); this tendency can be seen also in Rus lang compared with more Southern langs (especially Bul), each empire begins to decay from the provinces, but there are cases where it must be on the contrary (say, on order to give analogous example, the slave or colonial systems were abolished by central instances, after some disturbances and revolutions, but, still, centrally). So that the Gers have to think about this, it is high time, because all nations around (and even they alone) have begun to look at the Ger lang like at an intermediate step to creating of the Eng, so that they have to begin to feel some shame some time; I will probably try to help them (after a pair of years) but they will not want to take heed to me. Anyway, I think this is enough for the first lang and there are many others waiting their turn, so that I am going further. 02. English language      Mark: four sharps, ####. In spite of my hate to this lang (what is not true, of course, I am joking), I can't give it more than, say ####+, because it is significantly simplified, in fact it is over-simplified, but they have managed — what seems impossible, although true — to use more then 20 additional Phs and this without even a single "chick" to the Ls, what no other Western lang has succeeded to do, what means that their lang has pretty difficult phonetics; yet I can't give them even a single "-" because of their over-simplification and lacking of "good manners" in comparison with many other langs; and when so there remain the exact 4 sharps. I can't say that I love it, but I am using it successfully a pair of decades.      File length: whole length 41,853 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 0.973 , place1 = 9.      Pure length: 34,391 , words 7,499 , word length 4.586 , Q2_to_Bul = 0.934 , place2 = 1.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 0 , Q3_to_Bul = 0.867 (26 : 30 — the Buls can freely do without 3 Ls but officially they are present), place3 = 1.      Non-basic Phs: 22 ('h' as semi-V., also 'vy' = "w"; 'ya' like in "but", 'ae' like in "man"; 'ih' like in "see", 'yh' like in "bird", 'ah' like in "far", 'uh' like in "soon", 'oh' like in "law", 'iuh' like in "music"; 'th' like in "theory", 'dh' like in "this", 'ne' = "ng" like in "long" or "-ing", this isn't exactly 'nj'; 'iy' like in "near", 'ej' like in "may", 'ey' like in "pear", 'aj' like in "nice", 'au' like in "now". 'uy' like in "poor", 'oj' like in "boy", 'ou' like in "know"; 'dzh' like in John; and I do not count the 3 triphthongs because take them for combinations of mentioned things), Q4_to_Bul = 2.75 (22 : 8), place4 = 11.      Ah, as you see, this lang looks good from some angles, but from others looks pretty ugly. It is shorter, even the shortest of all natural langs, the length of the Ws is exceedingly low, there is not a single chick above the 26 Lat chars, what is another 1-st place, but from the other side they use nearly a whole alph for additional non-basic Phs (22 Phs to 26 chars, but you can add also the 3-thongs). This is about the phonetics but this makes difficult to speak this lang, there are many nations who do not pronounce correctly the Ws (not only the Chis, who pronounce bad, I suppose, all other langs, but Russ, Negroes, Frs, Ars, etc., even the Gers have problems with Eng "w"; as if only the Buls have practically no problems with the Eng pronunciation, because of our V. 'y', I suppose, plus the Hindus plus the Japs for Japaneses); this lang is like a song, but singing is not speaking, these a different things! Also, if we take the tenses, they are practically brilliantly made, simple (even over-simplified) tables with verb forms, no haben or sein like in the Ger ("I have bought a book", and "I have gone to Egypt", f.ex.), and about a hundred strong verbs, but this is normal situation for the West. Also no problems with peculiar genders of the nouns because they have practically no genders, only for persons. No special order of the Ws, no strange or foolish names for the numbers (like the Frs, who can't say, e.g. 82, but will say 4 times 20 and 2), simple set of prepositions (where the Gers use about hundred), and other nice touches. Yeah, even no double negation, which exists practically everywhere for emphasizing purposes.      But then, dear God, this heaping of nouns instead of building of proper adjectives or other relations between the Ws, this is smt from the stone age, or then is Chi. Surely, what is this "glass junk" or "man clothes" and so on, the right way is to say glassjunk or "glassory junk", resp. manclothes or "masculine clothes", and so on, and one can't say also "genial thought" ("genius though" is, like it is said, pigeon Eng, or childish Eng — and mark, that I don't say exactly imbecilic Eng); or also one can't say recordly, and many similar occasions. In short, the Eng lacks clear definition of categories, there must exist difference at least between verb and noun, this is … street jargon, would I say! Or also not to have polite form at all, this is bad upbringing, people, you can't address in the same way your pal and your boss or director, so speak only uneducated urchins. I will (or at least want, if will live long enough) propose some simple remedies about the verbs, some endings for the different persons, also for other things (oh, there is not a single diminutive accepted in the Eng, and it exist in every other lang, I suppose), but I am so indignant about these things because the Engs, definitely, can do this, if they simply want (like they have rejected the double negation).      And, naturally, a nice suitable alph will be smt very good, and I propose here whole three variants (better using of the Lat one, at least for names, say in single quotes, or Bul alph., or one really good new, and for all nations in the world, alph), but who is to listen to me? 03. Italian language      Mark: four sharps, ####. This is quite deserved mark for this lang, to put it equal with the Eng, because it sounds pretty nice not having so many Phs like the Eng, and would have been better than it if had not have 14 tenses, with many many tables. For me it is better than Sp (for Spanish) and Por (for Portuguese), but this is subjective, and it is surely easier than Fr.      File length: whole length 43,317 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 1.007 , place1 = 12.      Pure length: 36,239 , words 7,114 , word length 5.094 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.037 , place2 = 11.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 2 (these are only 2 accents in both directions over the 5 Vs, but they are often used and necessary; to count them for 10 symbols I think isn't appropriate), Q3_to_Bul = 0.933 (28 : 30), place3 = 3.      Non-basic Phs: 19 (no semi-Vs; 'ie'; 'ih', 'eh', 'ah', 'uh', 'oh'; 'nj' = "gn", 'lj'= "gl"; 'je', 'ja', 'ju', 'jo', 'ui' like in Eng "we", 'ue', 'ua', 'uo'; 'dz', 'dzh', 'sk', 'sp', 'st'; -2, lacks 'y', 'zh'), Q4_to_Bul = 2.375 (19 : 8), place4 = 7.      Here are also pluses and minuses, and as mush I am indignant about the minuses, inasmuch I praise those people for their pluses. Let us take the Phs, they seem much, but this is so only formally, because their Phs are quite natural. Say, they write here and there "h" but pay no attention to it, this is just a decorative element (e.g., ho, hai, etc. is read only 'o', 'ai', etc., and in places where other nations use "h" they just ignore it and say, as example, Amburgo instead of the town Hamburg); then there are as if 2 'o'-s but the difference is too tiny that I have jumped over this; then the elongations ('ih', 'ah', etc.) are also natural, all Gypsies use them, this is hereditary from the old Lats, or 'nj' or 'lj', too, are widely used; and one can freely throw away 'sk', 'sp', etc., which I have included because they are often used, where in many cases where are several consecutive Cs, they prefer to use 1 doubled (say, they can't say, i.e. it is difficult for them to say, "fact", surely, so they say fatto, and so on). Then they do not have difficult chicks, only accents, and half of them can be eliminated if they will add 'h' for elongation; or it is better (i.e. more understandable) to write 'nj' instead of "gn", what from old Greek times is supposed to denote 'nj' because no normal person will pronounce it directly, but, look here, there are the Engs who pronounce it exactly how is written.      But on the other hand, these 14 tenses, people, if I have not seen even more than this in some other Lat langs, I would have said that this is the worst, but now I say only that this is very bad. They may not use them all frequently, but the bad thing is that they all have some tables for conjugation, this is awful (this is not like, e.g.: will, can, do, etc. — say, Bul 'shte' for building of future), and they also make difference between avere or essere in the perfect tenses; and other difficult moments. Well, put in two Ws, they are like little children (in many aspects, also in their Catholicism), they are very nice people, they do not begin world wars and do not throw atom bombs (like some other nations have done), but they are stubborn not where this is necessary — say, they continue to say il sistema, or la mano, what means that the 1-st is m. and the 2-nd is f., but the endings of the Ws are exactly opposite (and they have the choice, they can say either il sistemo or la sistema, surely, it's up to them). If I (the great Jotata) have had behind me some powerful monarch, and if they were in the realm of his governance, I would have made for a pair of decades from the It lang one right competitor for the palm of championship as easiest lang in the world, I would have proved that even without the most important 'y' V. the It lang may not only sound better than Bul, but be as nearly easy as the Bul. Yeah, only that I have not Pisistratuses to back me, alas (and because of this I can love and curse this lang in one and the same time). 04. Russian language      Mark: five sharps, #####. I have just no other choice, I can't give more than 5 (in accordance with my rules), and I can't put even a single "-" when they, in addition to their 6 cases, use this donkey sound 'yi', and long ("sophisticated") endings of adjectives (like: 'yij', oja', 'jaja', 'uju', 'yimi', etc.). Otherwise there everything seems thought through, and I have begun to like it (having lived there 5 years), but it is just very difficult, like practically all Slav langs (without the Bul).      File length: whole length 41,738 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 0.97 , place1 = 8.      Pure length: 35,304 , words 6,473 , word length 5.454 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.111 , place2 = 16.      No of Ls: stand. 30 + 2 ("ы" as 'yi', and "э" as pure 'e'), Q3_to_Bul = 1.067 (32 : 30), place3 = 13.      Non-basic Phs: 20 (no other semi-Vs; mod-d 'ie' = "е", 'yi' = "ы", 'ya' as unstressed "o"; no elongations, can be only doubled Vs; as mod-d Cs must be taken all softenings with the soft sign, namely: 'dj', 'tj', 'nj', 'rj', 'lj', 'zj', 'sj', 'chj', 'shj'; Dph. Vs are: 'ja', 'ju', 'jo', 'ij', 'ej', 'yij', 'aj', 'oj'; Dph. Cs is 'shch'; -1, lacks 'y'), Q4_to_Bul = 2.5 (20 : 8), place4 = 8.      Ah, the Phs here (like with the It) are not correctly counted, because there is nothing difficult, there are more difficult Ph in Ukr and Pol, but the point is that the Russ do a thing that is really a right one, they use our Slav soft sign to put it where they want, after practically each Cs (only after 'zh' it is not used because this sounds funny, after 'r' quite rarely but is used, while the Its use it only after — while writing "g" before — 'n' and 'l'). Also 'ja', 'jo', 'aj', 'oj', etc. are natural sounds; what they often use (but the Pols even oftener) is 'shch'; and they lack Bul 'y' using instead the donkey 'yi', thinking that this is more or less the same (but it isn't, basic V. is the Bul sound, I have spoken about this). And there, surely, can be many other mod-d Cs, if they will be taken for such, say 'kl', which exist in all langs because comes from old Greece, yet I listed here the exceptions, which are not like in other langs.      But the cases, ah, they are 6 (Nom for nominative, Gen for genitive, Dat for dative, Acc for accusative, Inst for instrumental, Prep for prepositional), and one has to think not only about the Ws but how has to change their endings, and even this is not so difficult, the difficulties (acc. to me, for a person not acquainted with these … perversities) come because there are some funny (at least) requirements to use specific cases in some special situations. Let me give some examples. Say, doing smt or ruling is an act of creation and therefore must be used Inst case; if smt is lacking then has to be used Gen in order to generate, to produce it, and even with the numbers, if smt is more than 1 it has to be put in Gen because this is part of the whole (of a category of things, hence this thing belongs to it); and not only this, but if the number ends on 2, 3, 4 then these are still small numbers and must be used sing. number, but ending on 5 and more (yet not on 1) must be used plural number! Or this funny, and coming from the Skr, difference between moving or standing forces the Russ to use Acc for moving and Prep case for standing (in Ger this is Dat because they haven't Prep case), and even in the time for small periods like days or week they use Acc (because the movement is seen in small portions of time — acc. to me), but for months and years must be used Prep case (because we as if stay on the same place), yeah, but "in my youth" although wide away from the current moment, must be again in Acc (because this time has past long ago)! And so on.      Or take also these endings of adjectives like 'yij', 'uju', aja', etc., this is smt Chi, as I said (in what there is nothing strange, because if you go far far to the East you will come after Russia to China), but not a single nice (and difficult) Eng or Fr mod-d V. or Dph. Having had the possibility to cast now a look in Ukr and other Slav langs I find Rus one quite good, there the endings of adjectives and nouns are in accordance, but this can as well be because I do not know these other langs (they might be right for their part). And there are also problems with the tenses, there are not strong verbs, it is only one auxiliary verb, to be, which is even often dropped in present tense because is obvious, but they have pretty simple past tense, they can't make differences there because do not use the verb to be (i.e. they use only the participle form of the verb). And there are many mutations of R. Vs or Cs, when one has cases, i.e. different endings, the things do not always go easy. So that, as I have said this also under my usual pen-name, the only salvation for the Russ and other Slavs is to take Bul lang as official or unofficial (like Eng is for the European Union) but one standard lang, yet, as said, nobody listens to me.      OK, this lang is difficult, but there are other Slav lang that are even more difficult, because here are only 3 declinations of nouns, but because there are some exceptional situations so let us take them for 4, yet hardly more, while in some other langs they are more than 10, and this is important. Anyway, let me go further. 05. French language      Mark: four sharps and a plus, ####+. As lang without cases the Fr. must have its 4 sharps, but I give it one plus in addition, because it is with nothing better than the It, yet is rather worse with its bad habit to read practically always one letter less (V. or C., this usually does not matter), and not only this, but to read or not the last C. according to the next W. (even if this next W. is joined with the current one); these people have managed to made relatively bad (I just can't say "good") system of rules for reading of the Ws without necessity (like the Engs) to give the pronunciation of each W., but if they can not read everything what have written then they, probably, must … study longer, let them begin to go to school at an age of 5 (would I propose).      File length: whole length 46,093 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 1.071 , place1 = 17.      Pure length: 38,519 , words 7,610 , word length 5.062 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.031 , place2 = 10.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 5 (both accents in different directions, angle above, 2 points, which can be put over various Vs, and ç, but this is true for both cases; œ and æ are usually not used now), Q3_to_Bul = 1.033 (31 : 30), place3 = 11.      Non-basic Phs: 28 ("h" is not read but they have some 'vy' and 'uy' in addition to 'j' = 'ii'; 'ye', 'ie', 'iu', 'ue', 'uo', 'oe', 'en', 'an', 'on'; 'ih', 'iuh', 'eh', 'enh', 'ah', 'anh', 'uh', 'ueh', 'uoh', 'oh', 'oeh', 'onh'; 'nj', 'rh'; 'je', 'ej', 'aj', 'ue', 'ua'; -2, lacks 'y', 'ch'), Q4_to_Bul = 3.5 (28 : 8), place4 = 16.      Ah, mon Dieu, I have thought over the only last sentence about the non-basic Phs for, hm, 2 days (comparing Eng, Rus, and Bul sources), and still am not sure, because there can be different views. There is said that are 3 semi-Vs: 'j' = 'ii', 'vi' (given usually as 'w' but I prefer not to use this L. here), and 'ui' (where the mod-n to can be whatever, it depends on the next V.), and they can be combined with all (what means about 10) Vs (including mod-d and nasals), but I think that it is crazy to add so much rarely used comb-ns, and have added a bit later only 'ue' and 'ua' as Dphs (at least 'ua' = "oi" and this must be well known), and 'ej' and 'aj' are massively used (like in all langs). Because I have already given about 10 elongated Vs, I decided that this is enough. But there can happen also 'ne' = "ng", the basic 'ch', or Ger semi-V. 'h', in foreign words. So that the Frs are as if ready to use all about 30 possible mod-d Vs from my worldwide alph, and will invent smt new, if necessary, to show their originality. This is what I call "back to the jungle" and probably for that reason this lang is used in many African countries. The crazy, sorry, Eng phonetics looks much more civilized compared with the Fr one.      But then comes the grammar with its tenses, and it is said that in Fr exist, respectively: 8 tenses in indicative mood, 4 in subjunctive, 2 in conditional, and 1 imperative, what makes 15, yet don't forget that for practically each of those tenses are necessary separate tables with endings, this has nothing to do with the Eng or Bul situations, and even Ger tenses look better, also all Slav, so that I am right in my scorning at this lang. And about the genders, well, 2 is less than 3, but with their (like also Eng) dumb "e" the endings say usually nothing about the gender. And they like to join several (at least 2) Ws and pronounce them as one and with one stressing, and some Cs in between don't matter much for them, they can pronounce some of them in some cases, but not pronounce other of them in other cases, they are free people, aren't they? And mark also that I have counted their non-standard Ls as 5, but they are, in fact, 14 and in 2 cases, and for the Ger I have counted their 2 points for 3 different Ls (because it is so on their keyboard, while to think about 14 new keys in Fr keyboard I have taken simply for impossible, they have to use 2 keystrokes to add the chick after the L.). Also they are ready to write "-eille" in order to read '-ej'; or write nasal 'a' in 4 different ways; or take their "ç" which is always read as 's' and they have this L. but do not use it; and other peculiarities. Yet, enough for the moment; they are already loosing their influence over the world, and this tendency will continue further. 06. Spanish language      Mark: four sharps, ####. This is the same mark like for the It, because this lang does not differ principally much from the other, it has a bit different phonetics, but the main drawback for the Lat langs, the tenses, remains; the differences in reading of some Ls are rather cosmetic.      File length: whole length 43,580 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 1.013 , place1 = 13.      Pure length: 36,288 , words 7,330 , word length 4.951 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.008 , place2 = 8.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 3 (the only new L. is ñ; it is used also stress or acute accent, from right to left, and it is compulsive in many cases, and also 2 points, usually over "u" for reading correction; there are, too, the 2 inversed signs "¡" and "¿", but these are not Ls), Q3_to_Bul = 0.967 (29 : 30), place3 = 5.      Non-basic Phs: 18 (as semi-V. can be counted 'vy' = 'w'; as if no mod-ns; also no elongations; have many mod-d Cs namely: 'bj', what is smt between "b" and "p". 'dj', 'gj', 'ni' = 'nj' = "ñ", 'ne' = "ng", 'lj' = "ll", 'rh' together with the usual 'r'; many Dph Vs namely: 'je', 'ja', 'jo', 'ju', 'ej', 'aj', 'oj', 'uj', 'eu', 'au', 'ue', 'ua', 'uo'; no Dph Cs, sometimes may be used 'dzh' but as dialect; -3, lacks 'y', 'zh', 'sh'), Q4_to_Bul = 2.25 (18 : 8), place4 = 5.      The Phs in this lang, according to me, turned to be 18, plus the standard 25 (or rather 26, with 'j' = 'ii'), what gives 43, and I have seen smw they to be given as 39, but this is relatively good correspondence because here everything is fuzzy. The good thing is that they have only 5 basic Vs, and nothing more than this, no mod-ns or elongations (of the Vs), but with the Cs is a little mess, because they have 2 'd'-s, 'b'-s, 'l'-s, and 'r'-s, and they usually as if are not marked as such in writing, everything is a matter more of feeling than of writing. Then having no mod-ns of Vs they, still, have more than 10 Dphs, chiefly with 'j' but not only. And in spite of their efforts to make their lang to sound softer, it sounds rather stranger but not nicer than the It, or at least this is my feeling. They have many people speaking it, nearly half a billion, but this is mainly because of Mr Columbus, not because so many people like this lang (and are ready to die but not to stop speaking it). The good news is also that they are not so crazy like the Frs, they change the good (but difficult) old Lat in the right direction, not in the wrong one (where these inverted signs have to be taken just as some extravagance, not really serious, they harm nobody, after all). The bad news is that they have not yet begun to think about the tenses.      Because the tenses, ah, this is again nightmare, they have even grown a bit becoming 16, and this, surely, without the passive voice or ways for expression of continuous activities. In one place I have seen that they give a bit over 50 different grammatical forms, yeah, but this for each and every verb, and they surely are more than a thousand. (And, just for comparison, in Bul must be only 11 such forms, because for past tense 2-nd and 3-rd person sing are the same, and we have also no infinitive — what makes 5 times less, i.e. the Bul lang, but in this aspect also the other Slav langs, is 5 times easier than the Sp one, ah?) I am sure that nearly nobody uses all possibilities which a given lang allows, there must have been used about 5 tenses, but in all cases this is much more than necessary (what is necessary because there is a precedent, rather several ones, the Eng, and all Teu langs, uses only two tenses with different forms in it, hence this is possible). What is reduced to this, that the Eng lang (despite my objections to it — because I insist that there exist better one), is much better that the Sp one (and even than all Lat langs taken together, if you'll allow me this pun). 07. Portuguese language      Mark: four sharps and a plus, ####+. The mark is like for the Fr because this lang is more Fr than Sp, what means that it has many additional Vs, but less such Cs, what makes it difficult to speak; and about the tenses nothing good is heard, but rather worse than in Sp.      File length: whole length 42,398 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 0.985 , place1 = 10.      Pure length: 35,306 , words 7,132 , word length 4.95 (practically like for Sp), Q2_to_Bul = 1.008 , place2 = 7.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 5 (the 2 kinds of accents, angle above or circumflex, tilde, and "ç" called cedilla), Q3_to_Bul = 1.033 (31 : 30), place3 = 10.      Non-basic Phs: 28 (as semi-V. except 'j' = 'ii' can be counted 'vy' = 'w'; then mod-d Vs are 'ie', 'ya', 'uo', and the nasals are: 'in', 'en', 'yan', 'un', on'; all 5 basic elongations: 'ih', 'eh', 'ah', 'uh', 'oh'; as if only 2 mod-d Cs: 'ni' = 'nj' usually written as "m", and 'lj' = "lh"; many Dph. Vs given shortest as: 'ivy', 'ej', 'enj', 'evy', 'aj', 'anj', 'avy', 'anvy', 'uj', 'unj', 'oj', 'onj', 'ovy', 'onvy'; rare use of 'dzh' as C. Dph.; -1, lacks 'ch'), Q4_to_Bul = 3.5 (28 : 8), place4 = 15.      The word Portuguese (which is 'Portugalia' in Slav) must mean "port of the Gauls" (like their eminent Gaulle, who has become general chiefly because of his name, I suppose), so that their basic core has to be Fr, but mutated to Sp because they were surrounded by Sps (roughly speaking). And it has to be more or less so looking at their lang, where are really many Vs (mod-d, nasals, Dphs), and less Cs than in the Sp. Because of this it sounds a bit better (at least to my ear) but is more difficult to learn to speak it than Sp. And (to be a bit more precise) the above given 14 only mod-d Dph. Vs have to be properly written in my notation (yet mentioning also the 'w' as IPA semi-V, like in Eng and in other langs) as whole 19 pieces (acc to one Internet source), namely: 'ivy' = 'iw', 'iej', 'ienj', 'ievy' = 'iew', 'ej', 'evy' = 'ew', 'yaj', 'yanj', 'yavy' = 'yaw', 'yanvy' = 'yanw', 'aj', 'avi' = 'aw', 'uj', 'unj', 'uoj'. 'uonj', 'uovy' = 'uow', 'uonvy' = 'uonw', 'oj'. I have done this little simplification because 'e' and 'ie' are very near, at least on the West, including the Eng (where, e.g.: "men" as pl. of "man", "pen", "ten", "then", etc. are given with "e", what is read as 'ie', where the normal 'e' is given with epsilon), and not only this, but I know pretty well what means real 'ie', this is the Rus usual Cyr "е" (equal with the Lat "e", like in their 'niet'-no, or 'lieto'-summer, etc); the same is true also about 'uo' and 'o'; so that, e.g. 'uovy' = 'uow' is practically the Dph. 'ou', what is much more simple.      And with so difficult Dphs there arise problems with my universal world alph because this 'ienj' means the necessity to use 2 Ms; what means that there, surely, can happen here and there some exceptions from my simple alph, might arise necessity to use lang specific notation, but, people, the IPA has more than 130 Phs, one more bizarre than the other, and it must all the time grow a bit, no normal, i.e. average, human will succeed to learn it, while my notation is much simpler and obvious. Then, if we return to the Por lang, they have sometimes 'ch' but it is rather't-sh' (as I have heard it); also they have an 'r' like the usual (for the Slavs) sonorous 'r', this is not additional thing for me, and the other case where there is written "r" they read it simply as 'h', so that I see nothing new here. Otherwise put, in this lang the Cs are about 20, but the Vs, it depends how one counts them, so they are at least 8 + 5 nasals + the natural elongations + a heap of V. Dphs. Ah, and they may write a nasal using the L. "m", but also putting this circumflex, and as to the "ç", they have still not learned to write "s" instead. And the stressing is as if more complicated than in the It.      But the tenses, ah, they do not become less, there are again given more than 50 different forms (i.e. endings) for each of the verbs, where for the irregular ones there are additional problems (although they should not be really many); on one place is said that the tenses in this lang are 20, but this time counting one continuous tense (what is not so difficult). On the other hand the number of people speaking this lang is said to be growing fast (probably due to Brazil), so that at least the native speakers are fond of it. After a pair of hundred years, if they will impose big fines (probably also a pair of years in … jail, if necessary) and in this way will reduce the number of tenses to below ten, this lang will begin to be spoken more massively also in Europe, because it sounds nice. Or then they will catch some … flu, and will be discovered that this is chiefly consequence of their nasals, so that they will decide unanimously to reject them (because, after all, there were nasals in many other langs, but they have been dropped with the time, as more complicated and not necessary). 08. Romanian language      Mark: four sharps and 2 pluses, ####++. Here I make exception from my practice not to give less than 5 #-s to a lang with cases because these people have 5 cases but they are equivalent to 3 (what means to 2, without Nom); also their Phs are many, especially the Dphs, but not difficult; and they are neighbours of Buls and I see there smt familiar, I must give them a bonification. Anyway, it is pretty mixed lang, so that with it everything is possible.      File length: whole length 43,965 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 1.022 , place1 = 15.      Pure length: 36,597 , words 7,405 , word length 4.942 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.007 , place2 = 6.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 5 (only 5 new Ls, not chicks that can be put above all Vs, namely: ă, â, î, ş, ț), Q3_to_Bul = 1.033 (31 : 30), place3 = 12.      Non-basic Phs: 20 (to the standard semi-V. 'j' = 'ii' is added 'w' = 'vy'; they have 'y' written as "ă", but is added 'yi' like in Rus, which is written as "î" or "â"; no mod-ns; no elongations; there are soft: 'kj', 'gj', 'lj', and as if others; as typical Dph. Vs are given 'ea' and 'oa', there can happen also 'eu' and 'eo', then they have a heap of Dphs with 'j' or 'w' in 1-st or 2-nd place, which are just unreasonably many to be given when we already have mentioned these semi-Vs, as well also many 3-thongs, which I will not give, in my usual habit, taking them for combinations of 2 Ss, like 'eaj' = 'e-aj' etc.; then comes 'dzh' as C. Dph.; and lacks nothing basic — all this gives 10, but I will show myself so generous to count them for whole 20, in order not to leave you to think that their lang is phonetically poor, and later will comment this again), Q4_to_Bul = 2.5 (20 : 8), place4 = 9.      Now you see that this lang is pretty simple according to the Ls, only 5 new and these are real Ls (which are even 4 because they use 2 ways for writing of one Ph.), not chicks above a ten of Vs in this direction and then in the other one, and "hats", etc.; also must be added that Rum can equally well be written with Cyr alph, using "ъ" for 'y', "ы" for 'yi', "ш" instead of "ş" = "sh", and "ц" instead of "ț" = "ts", what was done for some time and in some countries (say, in Moldova). And now to the Dph. Vs, here is list of those with falling sound by their pronunciation, namely: 'ij', 'iw', 'ej', 'ew', 'yj', 'yw', 'yij', 'yiw', 'aj'. 'aw', 'uj', 'uw', 'oj', 'ow' (I try to use my sequence of ordering of Vs, which is: 'ieyauo'); then follows list of those with rising sound, namely: 'je', 'ja', 'ju', 'jo', 'wy', 'wyi', 'we', 'wa'; this makes 14 + 8 = 22 more Dphs, i.e. 32 for the moment (or 4 times the Bul situation); and if you have a desire to add the 3-thongs they will account for 14 more, what, if you ask me, is crazy. This is crazy because they just like to pronounce consequent Vs as Dphs, but there is nothing difficult in this, and they use usual "i"-s and "u"-s, this is the simplest phonetics of all Rom langs, one has to confess this, and also of all Scan (for Scandinavian) langs, or Pol or Ukr, and others.      And now to the grammar cases. They are 5, but this is only formally so, because Nom is exactly equal to Acc and you know that in this case no endings are added (what is interesting here), then Gen = Dat, too, so that we have the 1-st case with endings, and then comes the 5-th case, but this is neither Inst no Prep case (like in the Slav langs), no, this is the Voc for vocative case, which is the simplest possible (that has meaning chiefly for persons, and there the f. names get at the end some 'e', where the m names get some 'o', smt like this), so that it turns out that they add usually only one ending to the nouns or adjectives or pronounces ("-ui" or the like). Well, it is not so simple, because they, like also the Buls, have definite articles appended (I prefer to say "glued") to the end of the Ws, and there are also the endings for pl. when used, so that there can happen more than one ending in some cases; then for the Acc they feel obliged to put the particle pe before the Ws (what turns to be necessary in some cases; you will see smt similar in Esp for Esperanto later), and other moments, but all this is much easier than the cases even in Ger, to say nothing about Rus etc. Slav langs. So that this lang deserves in no case 5 sharps, what I have taken in consideration.      Then let us move to the question with the tenses, which as if are like in all Lat langs but not exactly. I mean that they have the same moods but they are simplified as possible; I don't know this lang (and have found no exact number for them on the Internet), but the important thing are the different forms, which have to be about 25, I guess, what is twice less than in the other Lat langs (and, say, if one takes the only 14 tenses in It, and multiplies this by 6 for the persons and the numbers, this gives about 80, what is not so, because some forms repeat themselves, but this will always make not less than 50 pieces). What I have found about the tenses is that there are only 4 past tenses, then is said that there are only 5 tenses, including the present tense, but there are the other moods, so that the things are not so simple, yet, as I said, also not much difficult. Because — let me give some examples — they have 3 future tenses, but one is built using one auxiliary verb (to want, more or less like in the Eng), and one is built putting before just the W.-L. "o". Then one of the moods are built with a suffix, what is not so really difficult to learn. Then they do not use in own Ws the Ls: "k, q, w, y", what must make the alph a bit simpler. Then they have this donkey sound (how I call it) 'yi' but this is usually not in the end of the Ws but smw in the middle (like their Română or România), so that they don't use often exactly '-yij' like in the Rus).      And they have also a big amount of Ws of Slavic origin, 10-15 % (even their yes is 'da', like in the Slav langs), what resembles a bit the situation with Esp (as you will see further), so that this lang is: a Lat one, but more or less understandable by Slavs, simpler than all Lat langs in phonetical aspect, also than the Ger one concerning the cases, surely, and they are placed relatively in the middle of Europe (well, of Southern Europe), and even if their lang is more difficult than the Eng, it is, still, a suitable lang as 2-nd or 3-rd one. In short, this is a relatively good European lang (no matter that they are as if fifty - fifty with the Gypsies), and if there was not the bad Rus and of some other Slavs influence concerning the use of cases they would have dropped them long ago, like the other Lat nations. 09. Dutch language      Mark: four sharps and a plus, ####+. I give here 4 sharps because from 1940 this lang has no cases, but I give also one plus because of the bad influence of Fr phonetics. In a way this lang is like a mongrel, where the father is a Ger, because the basics, like grammar and words, are Teu, but the mother is Fr, because the appearances, sounding, initial "charm" of it is Fr. Probably after a pair of centuries it will come a bit down to plain 4 sharps.      File length: whole length 43,945 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 1.021 , place1 = 14.      Pure length: 36,636 , words 7,350 , word length 4.984 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.015 , place2 = 9.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 2 (the umlaut chiefly over "e", i.e. "ë", there can be also "ï" and "ö" but in this whole material there is not a single occurrence of them, and also "é"; there exists also the ligature "ij" but it happens rarely and can be given as separate Ls), Q3_to_Bul = 0.933 (28 : 30), place3 = 4.      Non-basic Phs: 22 ('h' and 'w' as semi-Vs; mod-d Vs are: 'io', 'iu' or 'oe', 'uy', 'oa'; elongations are: 'ih', 'eh', 'ah', 'iuh'; mod-d Cs are 'nn', 'gh'; Dph. Vs are: 'iy', 'iu', 'ej', 'eu', 'aj', 'auy', 'oau'; as Dph. Cs may be taken 'sh' for "sch", and 'hr' for "gr"; -2, lacks 'ch', 'zh' — this makes 19, but let them be 22 because there are many varieties), Q4_to_Bul = 2.75 (22 : 8), place4 = 13.      Ah, here exists a nightmare in the field of pronunciation, because, as I said a bit above, of the Fr "mother". (I suppose you know that when smt is exposed to two or more influences, or when a step between 2 levels is effectuated — like when my Bulgaria has moved from totalitarianism to democracy — is usually taken the worst part of each of the influences; this should not have been so, but we all are just humans, or "sinners".) So here this lang has not much bettered the Ger source (the "decapitalization" of nouns is not even a cosmetic thing, this is insignificant), but the Fr (of a nice neighbouring girl) influence has mudded everything. And really, the reading of Ws has become much more difficult (or sophisticated, if you prefer it so), there appeared up to 4 ways of writing of one and the same phoneme (like "au = auw = ou = ouw" = 'oau', and this isn't even the usual 'ou', this is just to register a new record; but also "ij" = "ej" is read as 'aj', i.e. in the Ger way). Plus that there appeared new and peculiar sounds lacking in the disciplined Ger lang, like this mod-n of either 'iu' or 'oe', this strange new short "a" which is smt like 'oa', this choking 'hh' or 'gh' instead of the common "g" (which is not the usual in Ukr, Pol, etc. 'h' as semi-V. or missing it at all, but a kind of "dying wheeze", especially in combination with 'r' like "gr" = 'hhr'), then this lacking of nice Ger "sch" = 'sh' and substituting it with 's-hh', yet at the same time not emerging of (also nice) Fr 'zh' as "j", no, lacking also of this warm C., and other disappearings of good things to be changed with worse ones!      But let me continue. They have, here and there (chiefly at the end of the Ws), this Bul 'y', what is good, yet they continue to read "v" as either 'v' or 'f', and have also "w", read in different ways (in the beginning or end of the Ws), they speak about open and closed Ss, what is not Ger term, where the open Ss means longer Vs, but sometimes they use single Vs for this purpose and sometimes double them, and the closed ones become usually Dphs (like "a" is read as open as 'oa' but if closed as 'ah', or "e" is resp. 'e' or 'ej', or "o" is 'o' or 'ou', etc.), then they have good (like by the Slavs) 'r', yet not like the Frs (nor like the Gers), and so on. Id est, the mixing is total, and it is even confessed that in different areas of Netherlands they speak in different ways, and that there is the Flemish lang used in Belgium, that is practically a dialect of this Dut or Nederlands, and that there were political conflicts because of the lang. What for me means that this lang is now in a moment of changing and after a century it may look better (or worse, after all).      Let us now move to the grammar. Here, like also in other Northern Teu langs, including the Eng, have appeared changes that I do not like much (yet nobody asks me), meaning that there have practically disappeared the genders, and there is, e.g., de man and de vrouw, and het as equivalent of "it"; similarly with the verb forms have disappeared practically all personal forms, like in the Eng, what surely simplifies the things, but does this in an overdone manner. Otherwise the Ger structure is preserved (to use both forms of the verbs, when there are 2, like in the past tense, as a kind of parentheses, so that if the one is in the beginning of the sentence then the other has to be in the end of it), this seems quite better than Fr. tenses, only that without pronouns nothing can be grasped, and I think that the Eng is better in this aspect, it is more liberal as to W. ordering (plus that is better sounding, I admit). On the other hand this lang has ways for building of diminutives, what for me is just a necessity, where the Eng lacks this, so that Dut is not to be thrown away, it has useful ideas, only that everything is spoiled because of the Fr. influence. 10. Swedish language      Mark: four sharps and a plus, ####+. The 4 sharps are natural for a lang without cases, bur I put here also a plus because its phonetics is pretty messed, does not sound better than the Eng or even Ger, the lang is even more oversimplified than Eng, and many things are not yet settled, plus that there are other peculiar moments.      File length: whole length 41,282 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 0.959 , place1 = 7.      Pure length: 34,329 , words 6,989 , word length 4.912 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.0 , place2 = 5.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 3 ("ä" for Lat "ae", "å" for "ao", "ö" for "oe"), Q3_to_Bul = 0.967 (29 : 30), place3 = 6.      Non-basic Phs: 20 (as if no semi-Vs; mod-d Vs are: as short: "io", 'yi' = "y" but practically indistinguishable from normal 'i', 'oe' as "ö"; then as long: 'ih', 'ieh', 'iuh', 'yih', 'aeh, 'uh', 'oeh', 'oah', 'ouh'; most Cs are mod-d for me, like: 'dj', 'tj', 'nj', 'lj,' 'sj, 'shj', 'ng'; no Dph. Vs officially; no Dph. Cs but there are pairs of Cs used in writing; - 3, there are no 'z', 'zh', ch' — this makes 16, but I will count them for 20 because there are dialects), Q4_to_Bul = 2.5 (20 : 8), place4 = 10.      To tell you the truth I have thought firstly that this lang is probably better than the Eng, but this was before I have looked at its phonetics. Because if you don't read the Ws (or read them how you like, in some Lat-Ger way) it looks nearly great, f.ex.: the file is not big, it is smaller not only than Ger variant but also than Bul and even Eng, it is the smallest till here; then the length of Ws is the same like in Bul, what is a bit more than in Eng; and then it has only 3 foreign Ls which are understandable for all Western people, because "ä" = Lat "ae", "å" = "ao" is smt Lat, too, because it exist in Por, and "ö" = "oe" here but as special L. it is present in Ger. Also, as I looked now, this lang is relatively old, it was made in the end of 15-th century (with cases and genders then, like in the Ger), but now it is second official Lang in Finland (because their lang is Ugro-Finnish, like the Hun for Hungarian, it is not understandable either on the East or on the West), and today's lang has no cases (excluding one possessive "-s" which is not counted for a case). Further, 2 genders is taken for better than 3 (although I have a bit different view on this question, I think that the point here is not in lessening of the genders, but in the easy guessing of them from the endings). And probably also other pluses.      Yeah, but when one takes a look in the Swe phonetics, then one begins to wonder whether this lang is better than the proverbial Fr or not. (And I think that I would have preferred the Fr, because I like this retour a la nature, or back to the jungle, some Mumbo-Jumbo tribe would die for their Ws, they sound nice, while Swe lang sounds like, I beg to be excused, … barking of a dog?) I can understand those people, because there … blow strong winds, it is quite cold, and one has to cry in order, both, to warm himself, and to be heard through the noise of the wind, this has to be so, but I can't excuse them, they could have, surely, found a better decision! So more concrete, it is said that they have 17 Vs and 18 Cs, but the bigger part of them is mod-ed, and this is what concerns me here. And their mod-ns are strange, they are neither Ger nor Fr or Lat at all, no, they are their own inventions (to be heard in the wind); but the point is that their sounds do not always sound loud, sometimes they are hardly heard even in room conditions, they have many soft Cs, they have some directly impossible 'shi' or the like Ph., several "r"-s, several "h"-s, 2 "n"-s, their 'yi' sounds quite different than the widely spread between the Slavs 'yi', they write one Ph. in half a dozen ways, they read some Ls in a pair of ways, ah, their reading is a bigger nightmare than that of Fr or even Eng. There are many examples, but I think it is better to skip them (probably only to mention that they do not drink beer, they drink … öl-'iohl', what had to be Eng "ale" — more or less in the way how the Russ pronounce Eng "girl" as 'gjorl').      Ah, but this is not everything, this is not enough for those people, so that they have invented also one pitch accent, which is not the usual accent but usually follows after it and is done with changing of the tone of speaking, yet it is marked with nothing, so that there exist W.-siblings (like anden, or tomten), which have entirely different meanings. Plus that there are some pretty unusual things like, e.g.: "sjok" read as 'huhk', "kjol" as 'shiuhlj', and other examples. Plus that there are many dialects, but really dialects, where the long Vs may turn to V. Dphs, e.g.: "ey', 'iuy', 'oy', or then to 'ij' or 'ej', and even "r" in some cases and places (in the very Stockholm) may be pronounced like 'zj' or the like! Plus that their simplifications in the tenses are more overdone than in the Eng (as much as this is possible) because they have only one form for each verb and in each tense — really a stone age, they have scratched out at least 5 thousand years of linguistical history of the nations (I suppose of all nations).      And in addition to this I suppose that they have not finished with their reforms, because they have now 2 genders, common and neuter, but they have to be memorized because may differ, about 3/4 of the nouns are common but there are no simple rules like in the Eng (say the bottle is de flaska and it is not neuter), so that I expect some changes in the next pair of centuries; plus this peculiarity that the definite articles (yet not indefinite) are glued to the end of the nouns (like in Bul), but if there are adjectives this is not so. And other funny (at least) moments, which make this lang a nightmare, despite of its initial simplicity and lack of cases and genders. I even suspect that the reading of the Ws before some centuries (say, in 18-th) was more simpler but it has with the time become more difficult because the people wanted to show off with smt, to be different (like I suspect this also for the Fr, and like it surely was with the old and new Gr). So that, to summarize, this lang is simpler than the Ger but is not nicer, at least for me, while the Eng (in spite of my cursing it) is nice, definitely. 11. Esperanto language      Mark: two sharps, ##. Ah, this is the lowest mark at all, and this would have been superb, would this lang have been natural one, but it isn't, it is, so to say, genetically modified lang, such wonders do not arise by themselves! What I can add to this is that the biggest drawback of it is that it … can't be bettered, it is the top!      File length: whole length 39,575 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 0.92 , place1 = 4.      Pure length: 32,772 , words 6,842 , word length 4.79 , Q2_to_Bul = 0.976 , place2 = 2.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 2 (there are 6 new Ls here, namely: "ĉ", "ĝ", "ĥ", "ĵ", "ŝ", "ŭ", but they do not use 4 Lat chars, namely: "q", "w", "x", "y", what gives, naturally, only 2 new chars), Q3_to_Bul = 0.933 (28 : 30), place3 = 2.      Non-basic Phs: 7 (to 'j' is added 1 more semi-V., 'vy' = 'w' written as "ŭ"; no mod-d Vs; also no elongations; no mod-d C. because 4 of the other new Ls. give old basic Cs acc. to me, namely: "ĉ" is 'ch', "ĥ" is usual Slav. 'h' or Ger "ch" = 'hh', "ĵ" is 'zh', "ŝ" is 'sh'; there are 6 Dph. Vs: 'ej', 'aj', 'uj', 'oj', 'ew', 'aw'; then there is 1 Dph. C., 'dzh' = "ĝ"; -1, lacks 'y'), Q4_to_Bul = 0.875 (7 : 8), what is formally better even than Bul, place4 = 1.      Now, this is impossible lang, it is very good, perfect in a way, but such langs do not exist, I have used it chiefly for comparative purposes. Because: could there be a lang where all, but really all, nouns end in -o, all adjectives in -a, and all adverbs in -e? This is just unnatural; yet the idea about this is brilliant! And it is pretty good practically in everything: the length of the file is the shortest till here or else 4-th; then the length of Ws isn't exactly the lowest but 2-nd, and the lower the number of Ws is the longer are usually the very Ws, what is not so good, while here the length of Ws is less than Bul and a bit above the Eng (with 4 %); then the number of Ls is 28, what is less than the best Cyr variant of alph, the Bul one (and I have also discovered that I have met no "ĥ" in this whole text in Esp, so that it is probably used very rarely); and as to the non-basic Phs then here the situation is better than even Bul (what is a bit formally, the Dph with 'j' in them are pretty natural, they must not be counted, but I have decided to count them as such because we have special Ls for 'ju' and 'ja').      A bit more about the idea of this, either Seed-court or Meeting-court, what the translation from Ger of the name of this clever Hebrew (Zamenhof) has to mean. Ah, he was even a bit more clever than the allowed, and because of this lang have arisen several times discontents between some nations, and it was taken for propaganda of Slav nations (chiefly Rus) or also of Heb lang, what is not exactly, it contains smt from everywhere, from Sp, Eng, Rus, Ger, and Heb only inasmuch as the Yiddish (their new lang, from around 12-th century) is in its core Ger. And this clever Hoff-man wanted to please everybody, and to raise the prestige of the Hebs, naturally, for he used about 15 % Slav roots, as if more than this Ger ones, also Eng ones (take at least this Eng 'w' semi-V.), also Sp grammar and pronunciation ideas (taking it for the true Lat lang), so that every unprejudiced person would have bitten at this proposition. Yeah, but where are these unprejudiced persons? They are big exceptions (like myself) while the majority of people boast exactly with their prejudiceness, if it can be said so in Eng. Although there can be another look at the matters, smb may object that for a language a bit more than a century is nothing, it is necessary at least a millennium, what isn't wrong objection, I'll tell you.      But let us go to the very Esp lang. As I said, here everything is thought trough, not only the nouns, adjectives, and adverbs, but also all verbs are utterly simplified, there is only one verb root-form and six ending, where 3 are for the tenses, and 3 for the moods, namely: -as is for present, -is is for past, and -os is for future, then conditional mood ends in -us, the infinitive ends in -i, and the so called jussive form (for wishes and commands) ends in -u. And you might have been remarked that I use no quotes here because the reading of Ls is straightforward, there must have been used single quotes but they can also be dropped. There is only one definite article, 'la', the word order is practically free, but it turned out that one grammar case is still necessary, to denote the object to which the action is applied or directed, yet this isn't exactly Acc, it might happen to be, say, Dat, and there are used the necessary prepositions, and the pl. is built adding an -j (what makes, resp. -oj, -aj, or –ej, all this read as in my Lat transliteration, i.e. just how is written), while this direct object is marked with adding of '-n'. Say, if there were such Ws there as 'najsa tingo' for I think it is clear what, then if they are many we will have 'najsaj tingoj', when in object case sing 'najsan tingon', and if there are many such object nice things, then 'najsajn tingojn'. Brilliant, really, I can't better anything, unless to add new Ws, what can be done in each lang; and probably there must not always be used negation of some quality to indicate the opposite, say 'bona knabo' and 'malbona knabo', but probably also 'sleĥta' or the like.      So that this lang is the top, if one goes in this direction, what does not mean that there can't be proposed some other variant, probably not deserving the mark 2 sharps, but then 3 is good enough, this is the best mark for natural langs, and this is the Bul one, to which we are little by little moving. 12. Ukrainian language      Mark: five sharps, #####. Here the things are easy, I can't give more than 5 sharps, because have set myself this upper limit, but with 7 cases and such difficult phonetics, I cant think about even a single minus. And not knowing the language the endings in different cases don't seem to me well related with the other Ws. In any case this lang is a bit (not much, but, still) difficult than the Rus one, which I know and can sign that it is quite difficult.      File length: whole length 39,804 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 0.925 , place1 = 5.      Pure length: 33,392 , words 6,449 , word length 5.178 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.055 , place2 = 14.      No of Ls: stand. 30 + 3 (new Ls to Bul Cyr are: "і", "ї", "є", "ґ", but they have not 'y' = "ъ", what gives 33; they use also the apostrophe instead of Rus usage of Bul "ъ", but this is not a L. and is used also in other langs, besides, in the whole text of my paper there is not a single occurrence of their "ґ" = 'g', so that this number is correct for me even if smo wants to count the "'" as L.), Q3_to_Bul = 1.1 (33 : 30), place3 = 15.      Non-basic Phs: 23 (to 'j' is added the semi-V. 'vy' = 'w' = "в", and also 'h' = "г" as in Ger; mod-d V. is 'yi' = "и"; no elongations, can be only doubled Vs or Cs; mod-d Cs are: 'dj', 'tj', 'nj', 'rj', 'lj', 'cj', 'zj', 'sj'; Dph. Vs are: 'ji' = "ї", 'je' = "є", 'ja' = "я", 'ju' = "ю", 'jo', 'ij', 'ej', 'yij', 'aj', 'oj'; Dph.Cs are: 'shch', 'dzh', 'dz'; -1, lacks 'y'= "ъ"), Q4_to_Bul = 2.875 (23 : 8), place4 = 14.      I don't intend to go into details here (and because of this I may speak about other things, ah?), this lang is not exactly worse than the Rus, it is just different, yet to me it sounds worse, but has better amount of Ws, including some old Eastern Rs. (It is so also with the very Ukrs, they have pluses and minuses, meaning that they are in some cases worse than us, the Buls, who are unquestioned outsider in the whole Europe and known everywhere as the top … barbarous nation, but in spite of this the Ukrs can't make even a simple … electric bulb, really, their bulbs last on the average 3 times less than ours, and also they have stolen Rus petrol, there were such occasions and I believe in this; but on the other hand they eat hot pepper like us and are merry companions meaning that they like to sing often songs. Yet this was said for little refreshment, because this material becomes pretty long.) So, f.ex., they have rejected Rus donkey L. "ы" = 'yi', also their reversed "e" ("э") which was the real 'e' according to me, have changed all Rus "е"-s to their (and Lat) "i"-s, have simplified a bit some long or "sophisticated" endings (say, Rus 'reshenie'-decision, which was read there as 'rieshieniie' has become 'rishennja', what is with 1 S. shorter; also instead of Rus 'eta'-this they say 'cja', or also the Russ have longer suffixes for adjectives, like 'takticheskoe', where the Ukr. say 'taktichne', i.e. with 3 Ls less, and similar examples), what is a step forward. Yes, but …      But they have done this not in order to simplify smt, but just to differ with smt, and have introduced more difficulties in other ways! Because they have begun, f.ex., to read all Rus "и" = 'i'-s as the same donkey sound "ы" = 'yi', have seen that there are not 2 'i'-s in the Cyr alph and have taken that from the Lat one (but which code differs, the Ukr is "і" and the Lat is "i" and they only look equal but for the computers are not such — exactly how the Sers have taken one "j" which is not the just cited), have changed (as said) all Rus "е"-s (or the bigger part of them) to Lat "i"-s, have introduced also the funny L. "ї" with 2 points, and exactly over the shortest (horizontally) L. in the world, for to mean 'ji'; yes, but I am a clever guy and have made the effort to count the occurrences of these Ls in the Rus and Ukr texts — what was a boring work, but what only sacrifices I do not make when in the interest of the whole world —, truly, only in the 0-th section, what does not give really representative sample, but pretty near to this, as you will see. And the results were: in the Rus chapter 0 there were 133 "и"-s (which must have in their main quantity been replaced in the Ukr with "ы"-s),  33 "ы"-s (which might have been partially disappeared in the Ukr), and 180 "е"-s (which must have been changed to "і"-s in the Ukr), what gives in its sum 346 Ls; and then in the Ukr chapter 0 I have counted 105 "и"-s (i.e. "ы" = 'yi'-s, probably chiefly from the Rus "и"-s yet not every such L., a bit less), 110 "і"-s as real 'i'-s (chiefly from the Rus "е"-s, but as it's seen these are roughly the half of them), 102 "е"-s (from the Rus "е"-s or "э"-s, or somehow else), and 13 2-pointed "ї"-s that contain the L. 'i' (from here and there), what gives in its sum 330, what are with about 5 % precision less than the Rus's initial Ls; so that I am hardly mistaken, the increase of the donkey sound in direction of Rus to Ukr is about 3 times (105 : 33 = 3.18)!      Yeah, but they differ, surely, and can spit against the nasty Russ, who have forbidden them to use their own lang in schools, and this when being a part of one big imperial state, because it was so in the totalitarian times. But it was always done in this way, till this moment, and when I propose the lang of one insignificant Balkan country, the Bul one, to be used as some official lang for all the Slavs (say, as second one, but as official) no one pays really attention to me (not exactly under this name, but under my usual pen-name I have been spoken about this for more than 5 years, rather for 10, because it was then when I first have begun to speak about one world alph based on Bul Cyr). So that the things are usually done in a wrong way, but when they can be done in the right one, they are not done — for the reason that we are used to be forced to do smt, in order to be able to complain after this — sure, such are the people!      But let me add smt more about the Ukr lang. One thing is that they also have no definite articles, like the Russ, what might have been understandable if they have appended the articles to the nouns and adjectives (like in the Bul), because of the conflict with the case-endings, but they could have as well used the Western model of separate articles (smt like: 'tot', 'ta', 'to' for the 3 genders), so that these people (all Slavs, if we forget about the Buls) just don't care about articles. As to the number of declinations of nouns is given that they have only 4 types, what is practically like by the Russ (yet much better than by some other Slavs). Then they have 2 'h' Cs, the one is instead of their 'g' = "г" what is just leaving the air out, and the other one is the Cyr 'h' = "х", which is pronounced as 'hh'. But why they have introduced this funny "ґ" = 'g' when they practically do not use it I just can't grasp (unless again to show off with smt), because in my text with 33 K pure Ls I have met it not a single time; I mean that if they use some L., say, once in 50 thousand times, they can write it somehow using 2 Ls (like "гх" or "гк" or even "гг"). Then they read sometimes, yet not always, the L. "в" = 'v' as semi-V., what does not exist in the Rus., but in other cases it is pronounced as 'v'. They also have many doubled Cs, as if 10, which become not only twice longer, but also softened, what isn't a bad idea. But in any case their Phs include all Rus ones, what means that their phonetics is (a bit) more complicated.      And one more moment, which is this time good: their lang is more economical, the length of the file is record short, nearly like by Esp, and also the word-length is shorter at least than Ger or Rus, what means that they have some good intentions (which they can throw on the way to hell, ah?); for this reason, probably, the number of Vs in the above counting of the 'yi'-s is with 5 percent less then in Rus, as well also their additional char above the Rus may have its influence. As to the Voc case, than this is not a problem, it is just adding of a V. or changing of the existent one when we have to call smb, this is the easiest case and it exists — I don't know why — chiefly on the South (even in Bul it is used sometimes). And after this, so to say Cyr Pol, we are moving to the real one. 13. Polish language      Mark: five sharps, #####. Unquestionably, because this lang is counted for the most difficult at least between the Slavs, what means in the whole world (unless Chi or Swahili turn to be even more difficult). Here are difficult not only the phonetics and the 7 cases, but they have smt more in the grammar that makes the things more difficult than, say, in Ukr.      File length: whole length 40,813 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 0.949 , place1 = 6.      Pure length: 34,578 , words 6,274 , word length 5.511 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.122 , place2 = 17.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 6 (there are 9 new Ls to Lat alph: "ę", "ą", "ó", "ć", "ł", "ń", "ś", "ż", "ź", but they do not use 3 Lat Ls: "x", "q", "v", so that they have in total 32 Ls, like in Rus), Q3_to_Bul = 1.067 (32 : 30), place3 = 14.      Non-basic Phs: 32 (to 'j' is added the semi-V. 'vy' = 'w' written in the most strange way as "ł"; mod-d V. is 'yi' = "y" which sometimes is pronounced even as 'yu', but there are also 2 nasals 'eu' = "ę", and 'ou' = "ą", pronounced as if in this way, mod-d to 'w' instead of in the Fr way; no elongations; many mod-d Cs which are written in different ways, firstly these: 'nj' = "ń" = "ni", 'chi' = "ć" = "ci", 'zhi' = "ź" = "zi", 'shi' = "ś" = "si", and then all possible Cs if followed by "i" or "j", namely: 'bj', 'pj', 'vj', 'fj', 'dj', 'tj', 'mj', 'rj', 'gj', 'kj', 'hj', 'zj', 'cj', 'sj'; Dph. Vs must be at least: 'je', 'ja', 'jo', 'ej', 'yj', 'aj', 'oj'; Dph. Cs are: 'shch' or rather 'shichi' = "ść", 'dzh', 'dz', 'dzhi'; -1, lacks 'y'= "ъ" — there are also 'ng', possible nasals with the other Vs, and surely also smt, but let us say that 32 is enough), Q4_to_Bul = 4.0 (32 : 8), place4 = 17.      Now, I think that such langs have to be forbidden by UNESCO and people speaking them have to be sent on another planet; after some millennium this could be possible, and what is a millennium for a mind like mine? OK, I can allow them to speak it till — mark what a nice number I have chosen — 2222 year, so that they have enough time to change the situation, e.g., they can accept Bul as their official Lang, after all. Because really, what is this for a lang where can exist Ws like "źdźbło" = 'zhidzhibvyo' what means a stem (what is 'steblo' in Rus)? The Sers try to compete with them, but I think that the Pols are leaders. But there are other examples, surely, like to find the difference between their "miś" = 'mishi' as bear, and "mysz" = 'myish' as mouse, and there is quite a big difference between a bear and a mouse, I'll tell you (where for them the bear is even more softened); or to learn the pl. of "wąż" = 'vauzh' as snake, where the very nasal sound is changed and gives "węże" = 'veuzhe' for snakes (what is somehow in Ger way, using umlaut for pl.). And if they have taken the Slav alph — before more than 10 centuries, but now it is also right time for this — they wouldn't have been forced to write "szcz" = 'shch' because in Rus there is one only L. for this, "щ".      Now a bit more concrete about the phonetics. As Slavs they have all warm Cs ('zh', 'ch', 'sh'), only that write them in a bit crazy way, used by other nations around, adding "z" instead of "h" (for the last 2 Ls), and for 'zh' use even "rz" = "ż", what might be swallowed, but if from time to time, and not as adjacent, yet the Pols use quite often even "ść" and feel in no cases ashamed because of this. Then "l" is practically always = 'lj', but this does not add new sound because they just have no usual "l". Then I do not add 'ng' because for me this isn't Slav sound, this is just combination of 2 adjacent Cs (like in the "bank"). And this mod-ns with "i" or "j" work practically like Rus soft sign ("ь"), and it makes no big difference whether we will count "nie" as 'nje' or as 'nie' with Dph. 'ie'; also let me add that I use sometimes "i" and sometimes "j" to mark this, because according to my Lat transliteration there are only 2 Ms, "j" for softening and "h" for hardening of the preceding C., but from the standpoint of my universal worldwide alph mod-n with "i" is the first possible. Also this donkey sound may vary in its pronunciation even to some strange 'yu' (I have heard it).      Further, there are 2 nasals, but the others are also not excluded, and there are also dialects, so that there are always other possibilities. And they not only write one Ph. (say, "ć" = "ci" meaning 'chi' and not 'ci') in different ways (what is strange for the Slavs), but sometimes read one and the same things in different ways (say, "rz" is usually 'zh' but may become also 's', and looking at it has to be taken for 'rzh'); they write also 'u' as "u" or "ó" (because there was some difference before a pair of centuries); and also pronounced 'h' (or 'hh') can be written both as "h" or "ch". Also their crossed "l" ("ł" = 'w') is super soft, so soft that the "l" can't be recognized; then these 3 ways of one L., "z", seem too much for me, they could have found some other way (say, to write 'zh' exactly so — they would have hardly sprained their wrists doing this —, and because "h" can be pronounced as separate C., for this reason exists the way of its writing as "ch", or 'hh' then). And that "r" is pronounced so that to be heard, not in the Eng manner, then this is normal for the Slavs; like also that "c" is like in Caesar. The only good thing in their writing is that they do not use "x" and "q", but if they have not looked to the Gers from time to time they could have thrown away the "w", not the "v" (because the Lat Ls "q", "x" and "w" are entirely redundant, the last 2 are misunderstood borrowings from the Grs, and the first has also appeared because of the triple 'g-k-h'). And, after all, with their nasals as single Slavic nation that still has preserved them they surely set a record.      Now let us move to the grammar. The 7-th case isn't a problem, it is the easiest, but there are more problems than in Rus or Ukr, because they use quite difficult endings, theoretically similar, yet these nasals make the things worse. There is also absent the soft sign and because of this the gender for some Ws is not easy to be guessed, they have to be learned, too. Then I see (on some Internet sites) several tables for each gender, and with the difficult phonetics everything seems about twice more complicated than in Ukr or Rus. The adjectives and the pronouns seem a bit easier than the nouns, but they are also with nasals. Then the verbs are surely also more difficult in whatever Slav lang; f.ex., in one place I saw 11 groups for conjugation of the verbs. And so on, how one Rus proverb says: even the devil will break his leg. This lang is as if pretty archaic, it is on the level of, say, Rus, from before a pair or more centuries (where the very Rus is on the level of Bul from before a pair of centuries).      And when I now think as to why the Poles are glad with their lang and don't want to better it much, I can reach to only one conclusion: because they want to be … cleverer, to pose before themselves more difficult everyday problems than the other nations. Because, joking or not, but it is true (or at least I defend this opinion) that the more langs one knows the cleverer he /she becomes, and they have decided to do this with one only lang, with their own, making it to count for two or more langs. (And they have seen that this is so because they have many … Hebs there, maybe a quarter of their population, who knows, and they have decided to beat the Hebs. Because, really, the Hebs know at least 2 langs, the Yiddish, and that of the country where they are living, but many of them know also the Heb, which is from thousands of years and is said to be much difficult, and surely also at least one more lang as foreign, so that I am not exaggerating.) Yeah, but one only lang cannot do the trick, this must only make their everyday life more difficult, where different langs give, so to say, a stereo look at the reality. Well I am joking about the Hebs (because there can happen also silly Hebs, can't this happen?), but I am not joking about the necessity of easy langs; after all, this is the contemporary tendency and it is from at least centuries, but looking at the Rom langs it is from millenniums.      OK, enough, and let us go to the next, and a bit less difficult lang, the Czech one. 14. Czech language      Mark: five sharps, #####. Regretfully, no other choice, taking into account the 7 cases, the crazy number of chars (that can not be placed on the keyboard), and other moments, although the new Phs are much less than in the Pol.      File length: whole length 37,925 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 0.881 , place1 = 1.      Pure length: 31,735 , words 6,225 , word length 5.098 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.038 , place2 = 12.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 11 (this is a funny moment with 15 new Ls, which are not only accents and which they insist to use, namely: "á", "č", "ď", "é", "ě", "í", "ň", "ó", "ř", "š", "ť", "ú", "ů", "ý", "ž", but I will remove 2 of them, "ď" and "ť", which can be typed using the apostrophe, they are rather decorative, plus 2 more which they do not use, "q" and "w", which I have met not once in the whole text, but 37 Ls already is a record for the moment), Q3_to_Bul = 1.233 (37 : 30), place3 = 16.      Non-basic Phs: 18 (to the usual 'j' can be added 'h' as semi-Vs used only separately; no mod-d Vs, they write "y" as if as 'yi', but read it practically as usual 'i'; 5 elongations, exactly to each of their Vs, namely: 'ih' = "í" = "ý", 'eh' = "é", 'ah' = "á", 'uh" = "ú" = "ů", 'oh'= "ó"; mod-d Cs are: 'dj' = "ď", 'tj' = "ť", 'nj' = "ň", and as if these are all; Dph. Vs are at least: 'ji', 'je' = "ě", 'ja', 'ij', 'ej', 'aj', plus 'ou', 'au', 'eu'; then 'rzh' = "ř", and no other Dph. Cs in own Ws; -1, lacks 'y'= "ъ" — there can be also smt but I think that these are the major Phs), Q4_to_Bul = 2.25 (18 : 8), place4 = 6.      Ah, there are good news if one compares even with the Ukr (to say nothing about the Pol), yet there are, if not bad, then at least funny things, I mean in the phonetics firstly. Because, what is this to have 42 Ls in the alph (they count also "ch" as new L.), while the Its can do well with exactly the half of them (for they use 21 Ls)? Now, I will write them all for you using my Lat transliteration, namely: "á" = 'ah', "č" = 'ch' or 'tsh' (because of the conflict with "ch" but they can write the latter quietly as "hh"), "ď" = dj', "é" = 'eh', "ě" = 'je', "í" = 'ih', "ň" = 'nj', "ó" = 'oh', "ř" = 'rzh', "š" = 'sh', "ť" = 'tj', "ú" = "ů" = 'uh', "ý" = 'ih' when they make no difference, "ž" = 'zh', and that's all; or then they could have used "cz" (like in their name in Eng) for "č" as 'ch', "sz" = "š" = 'sh', and "zz" = "ž" = 'zh'. Well, it is true that thanks to this trick (if using twice more Ls than the It as the most Lat lang can be called trick and not … boldness) they have got the shortest file length at all (with 1/8 less than the nice Bul and shorter than even Esp), but this is not correct; after all, they could have used smt like Chi alph and using, say, 1001 Ls they could have reduced the length up to about 2 K chars. And let us not forget that using the sign for stress as sign for elongation is, I would say, a bad (probably Fr.) taste. But I am good enough and have cut 4 Ls from their alphabeeeet.      Further, this using of chick over "e" to mean softening of the previous C. is also not correct, but let us say that in this way it was more suitable for them (and they save a heap of "j"-s for the Cs; because of this I give very few soft Cs for them, not about 10 more. And also why I have cut their alph? Ah, because I have looked at one Cze keyboard and there were missing "ó", "ď", "ť", "ň", which I don't know how they type, but this shows that they see that have exaggerated the things (but can't fight with their wish for originality). Ah, they speak about soft ('ť, ď, ň, ř, š, č, ž'), hard ('h, ch, k, r, d, t, n'), and neutral Cs (more or less the left), but this only complicates more the matters (and an "ě" after 'n, v, b, p' and others softens them). Then this "ř" = 'rzh' isn't some 8-th wonder of the world, but I can't see why they continue to use "ú" and "ů", or "y" together with "i" when they are equal, the langs must be actualized from time to time. But enough with phonetical questions.      Yet I do not intend to dwell on grammatical matters much because with 7 cases there can be no discussions, this is atavism nowadays. And I don't know what they have to do (even if they are ready to do smt in this direction), because partial diminishing of the cases, in all appearances (judging by the Lat and Teu nations), can not be introduced, and for total rejection of the cases the Slav nations (excluding Bulgarians-barbarians of course) are not ready, not "baked" enough, probably after a pair of centuries (or millenniums). Partial simplification will be very hard because, logically looking, firstly have to be taken away the Inst and Prep cases, but in Prep case are put the nouns when smt is standing on its place, as well also for longer intervals of time (I judge by the Rus, naturally, but the cases are similar), and then looking at the Gers must follow that this Prep case must move to Dat, but why the hell must those people near or bring together 2 entirely different cases, they can think about moving to Acc. Yes, but in Acc is the moving, not the standing, so that they must reject this coming from Skr dynamics at all, for what they are not ready; especially if they use for "in Monday" Acc and for "in this month" Prep, which has to become Dat. Also to forget to put things that are lacking in Gen (in order to produce them, with the help of dear God); or also. like I have seen this now in Cze, too, when the number ends on 1 to use Nom, when it ends on 2, 3, 4 to use Gen in sing, but if otherwise then Gen in pl (a peculiarity which I almost surely explain here in my Jotolmach in Bul, or else under another pen-name).      So that the situation is difficult and there is no remedy except choosing of some other lang. Ah, it is said that they have 14 types of declination of nouns what does not seem simpler than in Rus for me. Then their stress is always on the first S., and later alternates on each second S., what in some cases may sound funny, this is unnatural. And other moment which do not simplify much the things. The one good thing that I can mention (in my efforts for finding of simpler langs) is that when speaking Cze one must not torture his or her face, it is spoken without efforts, like, say in It or Sp or Bul, this is important thing but it does not suffice, especially on the background of the cases. There is smt to be added also about their name, what is entirely my guess, but it seems that I must add one section about the names of the nations, too, for wholeness of this observation. But let us go further to the South, where the things must become a bit better. 15. Slovak language      Mark: five sharps, #####. This lang differs from the Cze but not much, so that there are no reasons to give better mark than the worst.      File length: whole length 38,915 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 0.904 , place1 = 3.      Pure length: 32,609 , words 6,346 , word length 5.139 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.047 , place2 = 13.      No of Ls: stand. 26 + 13 (here the things are similar to the Cze, even a bit worse because there are 2 more Ls, so that this gives in total 39, but they alone give them as 43, plus 3 Ls written with 2 chars, "ch", "dz", "dž"; all new Ls are 17, namely: "á", "ä", "č". "ď", "é", "í". "ľ", "ĺ", "ň", "ó", "ô", "ŕ", "š", "ť", "ú", "ý", "ž"; I have not met in the whole text: "ĺ", "ŕ", + standard "q", "w"; this is a new record, but I am not guilty that they do not want to simplify the things as I have explained this in Cze lang section), Q3_to_Bul = 1.30 (39 : 30), place3 = 17.      Non-basic Phs: 22 (the new semi-Vs is again 'h'; 1 mod-d V., "ä" = 'ae', if it is not pronounced as usual 'e', they write again "y" as if as 'yi', but read it always as usual 'i'; 5 elongations, exactly to each of the Vs, namely: 'ih' = "í" = "ý", 'eh' = "é", 'ah' = "á", 'uh" = "ú", 'oh'= "ó"; mod-d Cs are: 'dj' = "ď", 'tj' = "ť", 'nj' = "ň", 'lj' = "ľ"; and 2 elongated Cs, 'rh' = "ŕ", 'lh' = "ĺ"; as Dph. Vs are given only 4: 'je', 'ja', 'ju', 'uo' = "ô", but I have found also another 4: 'ej', 'aj', 'uj', 'oj'; then "dz", "dzh", and no other Dph. Cs in own Ws; -1, lacks 'y'= "ъ", although they pronounce it in reading the alph), Q4_to_Bul = 2.75 (22 : 8), place4 = 12.      Well, looking at the above statistical part it is not seen that the Slk lang is easier than the Cze one, and it isn't much different from the latter, their uniting in one state was not at all bad decision, but they insisted on the splitting because the Slks are Catholics (and such people, I suppose, read the Holy Script for half an hour even before … making sex, or then, after, ah?). In spite of this it sounds to me as if a bit more understandable, in the sense of vocabulary, more Southern (what for a Slav lang must be the same as better, near to the core of Slavdom). So they have a pair of different Ls on the place of some others, have soft "l" and not 'rzh' but long "r" as 'ŕ', what is explained with (or proves) their efforts to make 2 new Vs out or 2 old Cs! This may seem strange but in the same way has appeared the Eng "w", and even in the old Lat times were spoken about V. "v" (or C. "u") and was necessary introduction also of "w". Yeah, but in all those efforts is hidden some … hypocrisy, so to say, some faking of fine phonetical feelings not wanting to use this 6-th and most important for me V., which I mark here as 'y'! Surely, because such is the case with the "w" (as I explained this here smw before the real beginning), and so this (at least) "ŕ" is not only 'rr' but rather 'ryr' or 'yrr', for what I may cite their "vŕba" as a willow tree, which in Bul is exactly 'vyrba'; or take also their 'krk' as a neck (which I don't know why is given with usual "r" but it also reverberates, it is not like in the Eng), and you have to understand that a S., more so a whole W., must have smt sonorous in itself, you can't pronounce only Cs. With the "ĺ" = 'll' the situation is similar because is given their "mĺkvy" as preferring to stay silent, and in Bul this is 'mylchaliv', but in the whole text I have not met neither "ĺ" nor "ŕ", and neither usual Lat "q" or "w".      A bit more about the phonetics. So they have again 'y' and 'ý' but read them always as usual 'i', and I think that they go a little bit behind the time, they need some actualization of the Ls. Then the "ä" is quite natural but also very rarely used and sometimes read as usual 'e'. Then they have again 2 "h"-s, one as Ger, one as Bul, so to say; and the whole number of Cs is given as 27, what means with 8 more than in my standard alph, and I gave above 4 softened, 2 elongated, and 'dz' and 'dzh' so that everything is correct. As to the Dph. Vs I added another 4 because they exist practically also in Bul; and 'uo' is as if Western influence, or then inverted Cze 'ou'.      Further, the stress is also on the 1-st S., what I already commented before, and we are going to the grammar. But there is nothing new here, the cases have dropped a bit to 6 but Voc is not a real case, it is just modification of the ending of the names when calling smb. It is said that they have 12 types of declination of nouns (what is a bit less than 14 by the Czes yet not big diminishing), but they still use to say, e.g., 4 muži, 5 mužov when counting men. So that this is pretty decent Slav lang, yet far away from the Bul, so that we continue to the next and last but one lang. 16. Serbian language      Mark: five sharps, #####. Alas, but I can't give to this lang even one "-", it gets again the worst mark, although it has many advantages, like: perfect correspondence of the written with the read, parallel usage of Lat and Cyr alph, really Southern lang and quite similar to the Bul in many aspects, a bit better than Rus in some places, but this not using of the best V. 'y' leads to accumulating of 5 (if not more) Cs, like in "srpski", so that I am sorry. And the cases are 7, naturally, so that I am just.      File length: whole length 38,737 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 0.90 , place1 = 2.      Pure length: 32,160 , words 6,615 , word length 4.862 , Q2_to_Bul = 0.99 , place2 = 3.      No of Ls: stand. 30 + 0 (here the point is that they have again 30 Ls, like in Bul Cyr, but they add 6 new Ls and discard 6 old Ls, where the new Ls are: "ђ" = 'dzhj', "ј" = 'j',  "љ" = 'lj', "њ" = 'nj', "ћ" = 'chj', "џ" = 'dzh', and the discarded are: "й" = 'j', "щ" = 'sht', the hard sign "ъ" = 'y', the soft sign "ь" = 'j', "ю" = 'ju', "я" = 'ja'; on the other hand they use in parallel with the Cyr also Lat alph, and then they have 4 new Ls, namely: "č" = 'ch' instead of "ч", "đ" = 'dzhj' instead of "Cyr" "ђ", "š" = 'sh' instead of "ш", "ž" = 'zh' instead of "ж", and in addition use 2 Ls for the next 3 Slav Ls: "dž" = 'dzh' for "џ", "lj" ='lj' for "љ", "nj" ='nj' for "њ" — so that in all cases they use 30 Ls), Q3_to_Bul = 1.0 (30 : 30), place3 = 9.      Non-basic Phs: 12 (here everything is read how is written and v.v. and they have no semi-Vs except "ј" = 'j'; no mod-d Vs, no elongations; mod-d Cs are: "љ" = 'lj', "њ" = 'nj', "ћ" = 'chj'; Dph. Vs are: "ји" = 'ji', "је" = 'je', "ја" = 'ja', "ју" = 'ju', "јо" = 'jo', "ај" = 'aj', "ој" = 'oj'; Dph. Cs are "џ" = 'dzh', "ђ" = 'dzhj', "шт" = 'sht'; -1, lacks 'y'= "ъ"), Q4_to_Bul = 1.5 (12 : 8), place4 = 3.      Now, my readers, I like the Sers — when they do not call us 'bugari', hinting that we are … doing it like bugs (if you see what I mean) —, they are neighbours of Buls and have many nice and piquant Ws which we often use as jargons, but they are again bigots in not using the hard sigh even as L. and this spoils many good intentions. Because, let us look more carefully: the length of the file is significantly shorter than Bul variant and this using exactly as much Ls as Buls, the length of words is exactly like the Bul (1 only % difference is in the limits of possible error), the number of Ls is exactly like by us, in both alphs, and I think that they have done it so in order to use 30 chars (because they could have as well used, say: "лј" as "љ" = 'lj', or "чј" as "ћ" = 'chj', etc.), and the number of additional Phs is second after Bul; and this brilliant usage of 2 alphs is worthy of all praises! Surely, I am objective. Then the tables for noun declinations are like in the Rus, 3 yet might be taken for 4, while even the Slks give 12 such types. And I like their Ws, they are not only Slav but also Lat (they are nearer to Italy) and old, coming from the Orient. And other pluses (say, the nice grill and wines etc., although this is from another opera).      Yeah, but, the grammar cases are still 7, and they still say, using the previous example by the Slks, 4 мушкарца, 5 мушкараца when counting men, and it turns out that they can use whole 4 types of stresses, when is necessary, although I have met not a single in the text. So that, all in all, I can't see other salvation for them except also to begin to use Bul lang; but I, for my part, may try to use their example in writing also in Lat for Bul lang, in some of my further experiments (this is easy, and we will do with only 27 Ls, without "щ" = 'sht', "ю" = 'ju', and "я" = 'ja').      So, and now to the last here and the best (of all) Bul lang. 17. Bulgarian language      Mark: three sharps and two pluses, ###++. This lang seems to me the best of all natural ones, what at least for the Slav ones is obvious, but also compared with the Ger and all Lat ones, and then the Scan langs have bad phonetics and the Eng uses utterly unsuitable alph, so that the Bul deserves the mark 3 sharps. The reasons why I put here 2 "+" is that I have found one big cluster of nouns with m. endings but of f. gender which must be corrected, and there are our definite articles glued to the end of the nouns and adjectives, what seems as if strange for the foreigners, so that I intend to make here some experiments in the near future, which have to bring it to 3 sharps one plus; but better than this is not possible to require from it at the moment due to some difficulties with the tenses where new reforms are necessary.      File length: whole length 43,027 chars, Q1_to_Bul = 1.0 , place1 = 11.      Pure length: 35,777 , words 7,286 , word length 4.91 , Q2_to_Bul = 1.0 , place2 = 4.      No of Ls: stand. 30 + 0 (our variant of Slav alph is the shortest, with no Lat inclusions, and can even be shortened to 27 Ls; here I give them again, where the 6 Vs are: "и" = 'i', "е" = 'e', "ъ" = 'y', "а" = 'a', "у" = 'u', "о" = 'o', then the 19 Cs are: "б" = 'b', "п" = 'p', "в" = 'v', "ф" = 'f', "д" = 'd', "т" = 't', "м" = 'm', "н" = 'n', "р" = 'r', "л" = 'l', "г" = 'g', "к" = 'k', "х" = 'h', "з" = 'z', "ц" = 'c', "с" = 's', "ж" = 'zh', "ч" = 'ch', "ш" = 'sh', then the semi-V. "й" = 'j', then the soft sign "ь" = 'j' used chiefly after Cs, and then also 3 Dph. Ls that can be omitted: "щ" = 'sht', "ю" = 'ju', "я" = 'ja'), Q3_to_Bul = 1.0 (30 : 30), place3 = 8.      Non-basic Phs: 8 (here everything is simple because we have not other semi-Vs except "й" = 'j'; then no mod-d Vs at all; no elongations of Vs; no mod-d Cs; the Dph. Vs are chiefly 7: 'ja' = "я" , 'ju' = "ю", 'jo' = "йо", 'ij', 'ej', 'aj', 'oj'; then 'sht' = "щ" is the only Dph. C.; and we lack nothing because have the 'y' = "ъ"), Q4_to_Bul = 1.0 (8 : 8), place4 = 2.      So you can see, judging by the quotients to Bul being always 1.0 — right? — that here everything is tip-top. But if more seriously our Phs are the simplest possible and even Esp can't beat us much (-1 if I have not made some error), where the first after us is with 4 more, and the usual number is from 2 to 3 (and more) times more, and this, surely, counts, we do not risk to have aches of the face muscles after speaking for a long time (while other nations surely have, I suppose). Do not forget that even softening of Cs is mod-n of them, these are new sounds; like also elongation if this is necessary (be it as a kind of stress or just for to make some difference), this makes the Ws more complicated. And we have also this important sound marked by me with 'y' (which, I don't know why, is usually called schwa), which, as explained long long ago, is used on the East and on the West, only that, so to say, illegally. But let me not repeat again that "easier" does not necessarily mean better sounding, no, it means just what is said, yet the fact that it is spoken by about 10 mln people (we are now diminishing in our number but we are just moving, little by little, abroad, though smw in 1985-th we were practically 9 mln, so that now surely must be 10 mln) speaks well for the usefulness of this lang; i.e. the very precedent of existence of Bul lang is the best proof that langs with simple phonetics can exist, and the other nations must take them in wider use!      As to the length of the file and the Ws we are more or less in the middle, what is good, I think. On the other hand it is clear that we must have shorter Ws than in langs with cases (like Rus, Ukr, Ger, etc.) or improper alphs (like Pol), but why we have such long length of the whole text (11-th place) I can't explain very good. Here the one reason can be of subjective character, it is that in Bul, this being my mother lang, I have been more detailed in some places (what I have avoided to do, but who knows?), and the other is that we like to use many not really necessary prepositions (what is true, but can this account for such significant moving back from the leading position I can't say). See, I suspect that if we discard all Ws with 1 and 2 chars (as obvious prepositions) from the Bul text then we will go back also in the average length, but now our prepositions simply lessen the average length of the Ws, what probably is so, and in langs with cases there are much lesser number of prepositions, so that this is understandable although does not speak in favour of Bul lang, yet this is not directly related with the easiness but with the correctness of expression. And there are not only the small Ws on which one must pay attention but also the suffixes, and here we, again in order to make the things more correct, use probably a bit longer suffixes; let me give as example Eng demo-/ -cratic (where I take on purpose only the end part of the W.), compared in several Slav langs, like: in Rus it is ‘-kraticheskij', in Bul is ‘-kratichen', and in Ser is ‘-kratski', where our decision is in the middle (in number of Ss) and is both nice sounding and well qualified. Yet these are details.      Then let us move to the grammar. We have no cases (except from time to time using of Voc endings for the names of persons when calling them) and this is obvious, while the only other Slav lang that has also no cases is the Mac for Macedonian. Yeah, but do not, please, come to the conclusion that we can be shoved away from our place by the Macs because: they are only about 2-3 mln, have a bit more complicated Cs than we, they do not officially use the 'y' sound, they have as 2-nd auxiliary verb "to have" where as if no other Slavs have such beastly (for us) thing, they use 3 kinds of definite articles for the nouns according to the nearness of the object to the speaker (namely: '-ot, -ov, -on' for m., '-ta, -va, -na' for f., and so on), also 3 kinds of pl, and probably other peculiarities. So that they look like our siblings but by closer observation their lang turns to be more difficult, what means that what concerns the phonetics and cases we can not be beaten by any other Slavs.      But let me continue with the genders of nouns. We are "orthodox" human beings and take for justified to have 3 genders, m., f., n., where the easiness is expressed in the ability to guess rightly the gender by the ending of the noun, what is so for us in, let me say, 90 % of the cases, yet there are exception (and about 10 % exceptions for me is much). These exceptions have occurred because of the Rus soft sign at the end, which has remained there but has disappeared in Bul, and which, being soft, is as if suitable for women, yet there can be also some exceptions in the Rus, but for us (as well also for the Pols, Czes, etc.) the problem remains (e.g.: 'mosht' is 'moshchj' in Rus and means power and is f. but with m. ending, also 'neobhodimost'-necessity, 'kost'-bone, 'smelost'-courage, and many others, but 'most'-bridge is m., so that here smt has to be done, methinks). This is the reason for my second "+" in the mark. Well, and our appended definite articles also irritate all other Slavs because they all (as said, without the Macs) have no definite articles at all; but our articles are not difficult, they are '-yt /-a' for m., '-ta' for f., '-to' for n., and '-te' for pl.; and this appending after the nouns is not really a wonder because the same is the situation with the Rums and the Swes. Yet, I have a thought in my head to experiment to move the definitive articles in front of the Ws, like everywhere on the West, and to see what will happen.      On the other hand we have only short endings for the adjectives, not like by the Russ, and have simplified our lang about 1945, so that we have not a single dubious L. which can be read in this or another way, we have only not really necessary 3 Ls, 'sht', 'ju', ja', and if we substitute them with 2 Ls this will diminish the Ls with 10 % and hopefully not increase the length of texts with as much percents. Then the plurals are built with different endings, but I don't think that this is more difficult than, say, in Ger (and just adding of one -s like in the Eng sounds too prosaic). Also let us not forget that we have quite good ways for building of diminutives (usually with '-chka', '-che', or '-ence'), and can be beaten as if only by the Its, who have bigger variety of suffixes (also in case of worsening or enlargement of the things), why, f.ex., the Engs have never thought about this.      And now we come to the tenses, where the Buls are both, better and worse, better than the Rom nations, but little worse than some other Slavs, say the Russ, yet in recompense of this with ability for more nuances and modalities; also, when it goes about standard common lang for official use these aspects may easily be omitted, or then — and I will appraise such efforts — this can lead to further simplification of this simplest Slav lang. More precisely, we have 2 types of verbs, perfective or finished or 'svyrsheni' and the contrary of this or imperfective /unfinished /'nesvyrsheni', what is a thing that all Slavs have, yet we have smt more what the other Slavs have not. Perfective / 'svyrsheni' verbs are, e.g.: 'da kazha' as to say, 'da slozha' as to put, 'da vidja' as to see, etc., or also 'da otgovorja' as to answer, 'da naucha' as to learn, 'da procheta' as to read, etc., and they express some complete action, to do smt, and this 'da' is equivalent of Eng "to", so that till here everything is clear, right? And then imperfective / 'nesvyrsheni' verbs are, e.g.: 'kazvam' as to say or rather as I am saying, 'slagam' as I am putting, 'vizhdam' as I am seeing, etc., or also 'otgovarjam' as I am answering, 'nauchavam' as I am learning, 'prochitam' as I am reading, etc., and they express some uncompleted action, i.e. in progress, smt is performed, and here is no necessity of 'da' before, so that now the things begin to go confused a little.      Yeah, but now the mess begins to grow bigger, yet let me first introduce the shortenings svyr for 'svyrsheni' or perfective, and nesvyr for the other ones, and say a pair of Ws about this perfectness of the verbs, because the right understanding here requires some ideas from the far away … Skr, really. Perfect as a W. means smt on the surface, perfunctory, but also smt that is finished and determining about the object /subject, due to the fact that the person has died or the object is built and unchanged, and the surface determines the characteristics of the thing, what does not necessary require that the thing is really perfect, just that it is now unchangeable. And Bul W. svyrshen as finished has to tell us the same, because it is sibling with syvyrshen, what now means perfect. OK, so there can be built nesvyr verbs from svyr and v.v., and there can be second nesvyr verbs, like: 'ucha – da naucha – nauchavam', where the svyr is in the middle, but it can be recognized chiefly by this 'da', i.e. if you are feeling that can't say the verb form without 'da' then this is svyr type of verb and you have practically learned Bul, that's it. Well, also the second nesvyr verbs are a bit longer with some suffix which usually is '-(a)va' but not always, and if the form is longer than the action has to continue, it is not finished (this is the mnemonic rule).      But you can begin also from svyr and build the other type, like: 'slozha - slagam' both as to put, but the latter is continuing, where the first can be used either as infinitive or for future tense, yet both can be conjugated, although in different ways! And to make the mess full I will tell you that for each of both types can be made past tense as imperfect and perfect, so that there can be svyr type of verb in past nesvyr tense, or on the contrary, nesvyr verb in svyr past tense and this is a thing that the Russ have not, and because of this confusion in the terms in Eng is used the term aorist past tense for svyr tense, where this time this strange (at least for me) W. has to say to us smt like a+ur (where the latter is Ger and Lat W. or S.) as very ur-old, and long ago finished.      Now, this sounds difficult, and if I were grammarian I would have used other difficult terms (in order to make the things as if more exact, but practically to show how important I and my science are), but the point is that I insist that in Bul: we have practically only 2 tables, for the present tense and for the imperfect (i.e. past nesvyr); then the archaic aorist (i.e. past svyr) is pretty similar to the imperfect where the main differences are in the R. V.; it is used often (I don't say that it isn't), but when is so difficult it can be thrown away after all (i.e. I have given my permission, right?); the perfect (or present perfect) is built with the auxiliary verb 'sym'-to-be so that there is nothing new (only that we make difference acc. to the gender, but this is expressed in adding of: nothing, 'a', 'o', or 'i' resp. for m., f., n., pl.); the plusquamperfect (or past perfect) is similar to the last, only that is taken the past tense of 'sym' which is 'bjah'; and the future is built with the particle 'shte' and the verb forms for present tense (i.e. in the same manner like with "will" in the Eng). There are 3 more tenses for the future but they are built with more particles and can be taken for conditional or modal forms (like: I would /could have read the book etc.), so that I skip them. Officially are given 9 tenses in the Bul, but the used are about 5 and with tables are only 2 (if we forget about the aorist or past svyr, what I suppose will happen if this lang will get wider use in the world). There remain the 2 types of verbs, and a heap of prepositions and suffixes, but this happens in practically all langs.      Naturally this was about the indicative mood, but the imperative has only 2 forms, for 2-nd person sing and pl., the conditional is built with some particles, there are no tables there, the subjunctive mood we do not use (i.e. we use the particle 'da' as "to (do)", but this is not real mood), and this is all if we look at the classical situation. Well, we are not like the regular people, so that here we make the next exception, we have one, so called narrative or inferential mood, which is widely used when we are not sure about smt, we have heard it to be so but can't vouch for it, it is applied chiefly to 3-rd person, and is built also with using of some variations of 'sym', chiefly 'bil' instead of 'bjah' in past tense. Ah, and we have also 3 types or conjugations, as having the so called thematic (not R. one) V. as follows: -e, -i, -a/ja, e.g.: from the first are, say, 'cheta, chetesh, …' as to read, 'peja, pejesh, …' as to sing, 'igraja, igraesh, …' as to play, etc., from the 2-nd are: 'govorja, govorish, …' as to speak, 'stoja, stoish, …' as to stay, 'mylcha, mylchish, …' as to be silent, etc., and from the 3-rd are: 'iskam, iskash, …' as to want, 'bjagam, bjagash, …' as to run, etc., where is not new thematic V., it is from the stem, and this latter is not present in the Rus; otherwise the very endings are simple, but there can often happen mutation of the Cs in order to make the verbs nicely sounding. But on the other hand there are no irregular verbs at all.      So that, to summarize, my Bul lang is really the easiest, but it is pretty untraditional, so that the Slavs take it for more difficult than their own langs, what surely is not true, and the Western nations just don't want to be taught by some outsider Slavs. Yet the things can change with the time, because it is not right for the whole world to speak one utterly unqualified lang with impossible notation of Ws like the Eng, and the other "great" nations like Frs and Gers have significantly more difficult grammar than the (bad) Eng. The right thing is to have by one good representative lang from each group of langs (say: Slav, Rom, Teu, plus the Eng and even it bettered a bit), which will be used as official lang in all other similarly speaking countries, to the solving of which problem I intend to make my contribution further, and at least to sketch the things in the next plus-sections. +0. Common statistics      In this section I will give all possible statistics that I have made, yet I must excuse myself that I have tried to make them as formal as possible in order to hide my subjectiveness, but also as much subjective as necessary in order not to allow the formality to lead me to paradoxes! Have you got it? Id est I am making possible compromises in both directions, because this is slimy field, these are not exact sciences, and one can easily slip and be carried away of the goal. I suppose that it is always so in such matters (and for this reason often are applied expert estimations), but the authors are usually not honest enough and defend their own positions. F.ex., even in the most objective cases, when it goes about counting of the length of file, it depends whether one uses Lat or Cyr alph, and which Cyr one (or also Lat with some chicks etc.), because this changes the number of chars; also I count sometimes the additional chicks as accents and so on independently on the mod-d Ls, but sometimes I count each mod-d L. separately; or sometimes I have added or taken a pair of chars; and similar things (and I have looked from time to time on the keyboard for the given lang, in order to make the right decision — which can be questioned).      OK, there are 4 parameters which I have calculated (given usually as bold), but at the end I have decided to calculate one more thing, and they will be given in separate subsections. Also I will not use table form, because this causes problems when converting in different file types, what I must often do, because each website has its own rules and file formats, but I will write the name of the lang and use usual consecutive lists, so that everything will be clear. Ah, when the adjacent values are equal I apply, inevitably, my personal preferences.      0) Let me give first the ordering according to the estimated by me sharps as marks, where the lower value is better, namely:      Mark: Esp ## , Bul ###++ , Eng #### , It #### , Sp #### , Por ####+ , Fr ####+ , Swe ####+ , Dut ####+ , Rum ####++ , Ger ##### , Rus ##### , Ser ##### , Ukr ##### , Slk ##### , Cze #####  , Pol ##### ,      place0: Esp 1. , Bul 2. , Eng 3. , It 4. , Sp 5. , Por 6 , Fr 7. , Swe 8. , Dut 9. , Rum 10. , Ger 11. , Rus 12. , Ser 13 , Ukr 14. , Slk 15. , Cze 16. , Pol 17. ,      Look carefully at this ordering, because I have though much about it and think that it is justified, so that after Esp and Bul follow Western langs, in order of decreasing easiness (not niceness, because, f.ex., Fr sounds to me better than Sp but it is more difficult), then the Scan ones (not because I like them or had whatever idea about them before performing of these tiring translations, but because of the real situation), then the Rum, then the Ger, and only then the Slav lang because of the cases, but first of them is the Rus, then the Ser, then the Ukr, and so on.      1) Then comes the whole length of the file, namely:      File length: Cze 37,925 , Ser 38,737 , Slk 38,915 , Esp 39,575 , Ukr 39,804 , Pol 40,813 , Swe 41,282 , Rus 41,738 , Eng 41,853 , Por 42,398 , Bul 43,027 , It 43,317 , Sp 43,580 , Dut 43,945 , Rum 43,965 , Ger 45,053 , Fr 46,093 ,      Q1_to_Bul: Cze 0.881 , Ser 0.90 , Slk 0.904 , Esp 0.92 , Ukr 0.925 , Pol 0.949 , Swe 0.959 , Rus 0.970 , Eng 0.973 , Por 0.985 , Bul 1.0 , It 1.007 , Sp 1.013 , Dut 1.021 , Rum 1.022 , Ger 1.047 , Fr 1.071 ,      place1: Cze 1. , Ser 2. , Slk 3. , Esp 4. , Ukr 5. , Pol 6. , Swe 7. , Rus 8. , Eng 9. , Por 10. , Bul 11. , It 12. , Sp 13. , Dut 14. , Rum 15. , Ger 16. , Fr 17. ,      Here it seems utterly unjustified to have the Cze and Slk langs as leading, but it turns so because they use quite big alphs, and because of this I have come to the idea to make one more statistics, the 5-th. Then the Ser is probably really so short, yet it will come at least after Esp, if in some way they begin to use 28 Ls (like Esp) instead of 30. Then the Ukr and Pol have a bit more Ls than the Swe; and so on, let us not dig too deep in this matter, because there are lang specific elements. The langs that are significantly longer are Ger and Fr, what is justified because the Gers like to be very precise (and also use whole 3 Ls for the L. 'sh', which they use very often), and the Frs use normally by 2 chars for 1 Ph. but quite often more (because the Lat alph is utterly unsuitable also for them, like for the Engs). The comparison is correct smw from Esp and to Rum including, but do not miss the fact that the Eng text must increase with at least 5 % (probably 10) if it will be correctly qualified (i.e. if it was not said, e.g., "men cloths" but "masculine cloths" — not to mention the phrase "hot dog", which is brilliant invention, and because of this used all around the world, but is absolutely incorrect).      2) Then is computed the average length of the Ws, namely:      Pure length: Cze 31,735 , Ser 32,160 , Slk 32,609 , Esp 32,772 , Ukr 33,392 , Swe 34,329 , Eng 34,391 , Pol 34,578 , Rus 35,304 , Por 35,306 , Bul 35,777 , It 36,239 , Sp 36,288 , Rum 36,597 , Dut 36,636 , Ger 38,067 , Fr 38,519 ,      words: Cze 6,225 , Pol 6,274 , Slk 6,346 , Ukr 6,449 , Rus 6,473 , Ser 6,615 , Esp 6,842 , Swe 6,989 , Ger 7,024 , It 7,114 , Por 7,132 , Bul 7,286 , Sp 7,330 , Dut 7,350 , Rum 7,405 , Eng 7,499 , Fr 7,610 ,      word length: Eng 4.586 , Esp 4.79 , Ser 4.862 , Bul 4.91 , Swe 4.912 , Rum 4.942 , Por 4.95 , Sp 4.951 , Dut 4.984 , Fr 5.062 , It 5.094 , Cze 5.098 , Slk 5.139 , Ukr 5.178 , Ger 5.42 , Rus 5.454 , Pol 5.511 ,      Q2_to_Bul: Eng 0.934 , Esp 0.976 , Ser 0.99 , Bul 1.0 , Swe 1.0 , Rum 1.007 , Por 1.008 , Sp 1.008 , Dut 1.015 , Fr 1.031 , It 1.037 , Cze 1.038 , Slk 1.047 , Ukr 1.055 , Ger 1.104 , Rus 1.111 , Pol 1.122 ,      place2: Eng 1. , Esp 2. , Ser 3. , Bul 4. , Swe 5. , Rum 6. , Por 7. , Sp 8. , Dut 9. , Fr 10. , It 11. , Cze 12. , Slk 13. , Ukr 14. , Ger 15. , Rus 16. , Pol 17. ,      Here the results are more natural, and there is not big difference from Ser to Dut including (what are 7 langs with +/- 1% around Bul), then the figures are also clustered from Fr to Cze, and then come at the end really big Ws in Ger, Rus, and Pol (which are easily explainable), so that it remains to say smt only about the Eng. Yeah, but if we increase the W. length with 7 % this will move this lang to Ser, Bul, and Swe, which immediately follow after Esp in less than 1 % distance, and if one begins to think about making of some distinction in the Eng also between nouns and verbs (adding smt in the one or the other or both cases), in addition to the said in the previous subsection (about "men cloths") I am sure that we will come smw to about 10 % increase. So that here everything is practically obvious.      3) Now comes the statistics about the number of used Ls in the alph.      No of Ls: Eng 26, Esp 28, It 28, Dut 28 , Sp 29, Swe 29, Ger 30, Bul 30, Ser 30, Por 31, Fr 31, Rum 31 , Rus 32, Pol 32, Ukr 33, Cze 37, Slk 39 ,      Q3_to_Bul: Eng 0.867 , Esp 0.933 , It 0.933 , Dut 0.933 , Sp 0.967 , Swe 0.967 , Ger 1.0 , Bul 1.0 , Ser 1.0 , Por 1.033 , Fr 1.033 , Rum 1.033 , Rus 1.067 , Pol 1.067 , Ukr 1.1 , Cze 1.233 , Slk 1.30 ,      place3: Eng 1. , Esp 2. , It 3. , Dut 4. , Sp 5. , Swe 6. , Ger 7. , Bul 8. , Ser 9. , Por 10. , Fr 11. , Rum 12. , Rus 13. , Pol 14. , Ukr 15. , Cze 16. , Slk 17. ,      I have already said that the number of Ls I have counted, not directly like I wanted, but have taken for Ls either all new composed chars, or only the mod-ing chicks above, so that some subjectivism is inevitably present. In all cases the bad or good Eng here deserves praises that has succeeded to use only the Lat chars (but then, don't forget, that I myself also deserve praises for proposing at least my Lat transliteration which does the same with all langs, relatively acceptable). The really bad langs here are the Cze and Slk because they alone insist to use so many Ls, while even the Pols can do well with 32 Ls, like the Russ. This is a formal characteristics, but it is just indecent to use more than 32 Ls (as 2^5), and even 30 is enough (while, f.ex., less than 25 is also indecent, this means that they lack smt, like the Grs, whose alph has 24 Ls, but they can freely omit a pair of them); at the same time the good according to this classification Its also use 2 kinds of stresses, only that I am so good not to pay much attention to this, like also the placed in the middle Frs, who can, after all, not write their chicks above the Ls (what they probably also do in informal letters, or read the text again and just then put the accents and whatever else).      4) Now comes the most difficult for me part of the work in this paper, the counting of the number of non-basic Phs, because this required some, at least passable, acquaintance with each lang, so good that to be able to translate the given by the grammarians explanations in my view of the matters, i.e. going out of only the basic Vs and Cs and forming of mod-ns and Dphs and other combinations of sounds. But I have done this because I continue to think that this is the basic pillar of easiness of a given lang, difficult phonetics is abhorrent to me in this sense, I may like some such langs, but they are unsuitable as international standard (though used as such, surely, we are not really thinking animals, as I think I have mentioned here or there).      Non-basic Phs: Esp 7 , Bul 8 , Ser 12 , Ger 14 , Sp 18 , Cze 18 , It 19 , Rus 20 , Rum 20 , Swe 20 , Eng 22 , Slk 22 , Dut 22 , Ukr 23 , Por 28 , Fr 28 , Pol 32 ,      Q4_to_Bul: Esp 0.875 , Bul 1.0 , Ser 1.5 , Ger 1.75 , Sp 2.25 , Cze 2.25 , It 2.375 , Rus 2.5 , Rum 2.5 , Swe 2.5 , Eng 2.75 , Slk 2.75 , Dut 2.75 , Ukr 2.875 , Por 3.5 , Fr 3.5 , Pol 4.0 ,      place4: Esp 1. , Bul 2. , Ser 3. , Ger 4. , Sp 5. , Cze 6. , It 7. , Rus 8. , Rum 9. , Swe 10. , Eng 11. , Slk 12. , Dut 13. , Ukr 14. , Por 15. , Fr 16. , Pol 17. ,      Here the small number of leading langs till Ger including are really easy, they are spoken without straining, and are quite good to be used everywhere, if there are no other drawbacks, naturally. Then the langs that have roughly from 2 to 3 times the number of Bul basic Phs are still not very difficult in phonetical aspect, they can be mastered somehow, but those like the last 3 have to be forbidden and the people speaking them to be sent to some other planet, or at least to Australia and New Zealand (probably including Antarctica, I have to ponder about). Right? So this is what has to be done, but in a way of exception they can be left in peace for a pair of centuries, hoping that will alone succeed to better their langs till that time.      5) And now follows the new statistics that searches the average occurrence or repeatance (repeatability) of a L., or the average informativeness of a L., and taking that the text is one and the same, this can be used as measure for the usage of the alph. Yeah but it depends on the model of judgment, because can be said that the more each L. is used the better or more economical is the alph (what I prefer to think), but it can also be taken that the less the occurrence of each L. is the less Ls in general are used (what I do not assume, defending the thesis that the text is one and the same, and hence it has to be divided by the number of Ls in the alph). What is dubious and requires some moderation and comparing with the other statistics, i.e. this is additional thing, it should not be used alone. (In a way, this is like the question when is good to buy company shares on the market, when they rise in their price, hopping that they will continue to rise, or when they fall, hopping that they will stop to fall.) Anyway, good or bad, here follows this statistics, where I compute again the quotient to Bul, in order to have some measure independent from the length of file, but give this in reversed order, so that the first places to be taken by these langs, that have higher usage of the Ls.      Pure length: Cze 31,735 , Ser 32,160 , Slk 32,609 , Esp 32,772 , Ukr 33,392 , Swe 34,329 , Eng 34,391 , Pol 34,578 , Rus 35,304 , Por 35,306 , Bul 35,777 , It 36,239 , Sp 36,288 , Rum 36,597 , Dut 36,636 , Ger 38,067 , Fr 38,519 ,      No of Ls: Eng 26, Esp 28, It 28, Dut 28 , Sp 29, Swe 29, Ger 30, Bul 30, Ser 30, Por 31, Fr 31, Rum 31 , Rus 32, Pol 32, Ukr 33, Cze 37, Slk 39 ,      Repeat. of L.: Slk 836 , Cze 858 , Ukr 1,012 , Ser 1,072 , Pol 1,081 , Rus 1,103 , Por 1,139 , Esp 1,170 , Rum 1,181 , Swe 1,184 , Bul 1,193, Fr 1,243 , Sp 1,251 , Ger 1,269 , It 1,294 , Dut 1,308 , Eng 1,323 ,      Q5_to_Bul in rev. ord.: Eng 1.109 , Dut 1.096 , It 1.085 , Ger 1.064 , Sp 1.049 , Fr 1.042 , Bul 1.0 , Swe 0.992 , Rum 0.99 , Esp 0.981 , Por 0.955 , Rus 0.925 , Pol 0.906 , Ser 0.899 , Ukr 0.848 , Cze 0.719 , Slk 0.701 ,      place5: Eng 1. , Dut 2. , It 3. , Ger 4. , Sp 5. , Fr 6. , Bul 7. , Swe 8. , Rum 9. , Esp 10. , Por 11. , Rus 12. , Pol 13. , Ser 14. , Ukr 15. , Cze 16. , Slk 17. ,      Well, as a matter of fact, my goal here was to show that the Cze and Slk langs can happen to go to the end if some different look at the things is cast, and it happened exactly so, and even Ser lang has gone fare back (because when the file is pretty short then the Ls of the lang can't be used good). OK, let us say that this is enough as compulsory general statistics. +1. About the names of the nations      Ah, this is unexpected even for me section, but knowing the ideas for many of the names (because have thought about such things before about a quarter of a century) and having now seen occasionally on some places what blur explanations are given (i.e. etymologically — what I will shorten to etym-ly, and also similar Ws with the same beginning — probably exact, but lacking the basic idea, which has to be simple, for the people to accept it and coin the word), I have decided to add also this chunk to this already becoming exceedingly long material (in order not to leave smt important aside and to be forced to return to it some time later). The guesses are entirely mine, but when these are guesses, not smt well known in the etym-al circles, and I will follow the order of translation, and also try to be maximally succinct, not to go into details, just mentioning some Ws from this or that lang, and citing from my memory without checking in this moment (where the things were long ago put in one big multilingual dictionary under my usual pseudonym, or smt probably also here in the mentioned Jotolmach yet in Bul).      First are the Gers and they have several names. The Slavs call them 'nemcyi' (in Rus), what means … dumb, i.e. they do not speak our langs (what is understandable because there are many Slavs in Europe whose langs are understandable for us, but only one Gers, who neither we understand, nor they us). The very name Germans comes from Lat times and means smb related with us, i.e. the Lats, smt like brother or brethren, because germanus or the like was of brother (of the same germ, would I say), due to the fact that the Gers in those times, but also nowadays, are very disciplined (like the old Lats, what is seen in their lang, too). Then Fr. allemande means around the river Maine (Main in Ger), what is not occasional because this river is as if their (mein-mine), and it is their main Fluss-river. Then in It this lang is lingua tedesca, what is from the Teutons, where is also the name Deutsch, as well the Dutch too, and this R. is explained as coming from deuten-'dojten' as to explain, to show the Zeichen-tokens, i.e. they are thoughtful and clever people, what can be so, etym-ly. Yes, but I have simpler explanation, or rather relation with the … Theos /Deo as God or Gott, and from here the Gothic, i.e. they believe to be religious people, what they are, after all; and the good things are related with the God, surely.      Then the name English obviously (for me) has to be related with the … angles, and  from here with the … angels! Yeah, but why this is so nobody says, so that I can only guess. First of all angle – angel are unquestionably related because this is so in many langs (I have checked this) and the angel has some angles, his wings, they are pictured as angles. Yes, but there are no reasons for the Engs to be taken for (or to think that they are) angels, so that here possibly is meant rather the … fishing angle, but still not that they are big fishers (what they can be, yet this is weak for me); I suppose that here is meant the … picture of England on the geographical map, it looks a bit like such angle, it is curved! But still this is not enough for me, I suppose that here is involved Ger eng as narrow, adjacent, because this country is not the continent, they are in some distance from it. So that England is placed eng to Europe, and this seems a good guess for me.      Then comes the Italy, which country (I will spit the gist at once) has a narrow taille in Fr (or 'talija' in Bul), what is a waist! Because: has it not? And it is smw about Rome, and leading V. is an exception for a W., practically all Ws begin with Cs, and if with V. then this is meant as some exclamation. Where one has to know that the Eng waist is the place where smt is … wasted; then the taille is the place where the body is divided in Teil-s in Ger (read 'tajl'), what is not the Eng tail but parts, yet the tail is some part, and Italy is then some kind of tail (which is usually likened with a high boot). But there is more to this, I suppose (yet I have seen this nowhere) that the Southern Europe, the part around Mediterranean Sea, has looked for the ancient people, like — listen carefully — the palm of a right hand turned down and with the inner side to the observer, and then Spain is the thumb, the islands Sardinia and Corsica stay on the place of the 2-nd finger, then Italy is the 3-rd finger (and I suppose that you make the same associations like myself hearing about the middle finger), then comes that part of Greece with the peninsula Peloponnese that forms the 4-th finger, and the last finger (or the pinky) is built from the islands from Athens and below. So that's it Italy, and remember the given just now explanations about the left hand because I will return to them soon.      Now to the name of the Russ, but this is easy, they are simply 'rusi' in Bul what means blond. And why the people living on the North must have blond (like a straw) hairs I can't tell you exactly, but this must be a matter of pigmentation; in all cases the Russ, the Gers, and also the Finns are known as blond, while the Southern nations, Armenians, Turks, Arabs, Negroes, and so on, have dark hairs. Ah, usually is given that this is not the colour of the straw but of Rost-rust, what I don't found for well grounded, the rust gives the 'rizh'-rouge colour which is like the red one, and the Russ have, surely, not red heads.      Now to the French. Here I will not be very precise, because there are well known things, and from old Lat times was spoken about lingua franca as some non-standard lang, smt oversimplified, spoken by uneducated masses in the provinces; I personally make the obvious relation with the frankness, i.e. openness, and take also Fr Franc, frei-free, and so on. And these people usually are known as open, unprejudiced, knowing the life, exceptional, etc.; or, on the other hand, as cocks, or etym-ly rather as galls, meaning the old Gauls, which like to boast with smt of their own, no matter is this right or not — and take their lang, the impossible phonetics, and other moments —, so that they are rather uneducated Lats, than really Lat people.      Now comes the Sp nation, where everything is easy, after I have made you acquainted with the idea about the right hand. Can you guess it? Can this thumb "ring some bells" in your heads? Well, I have no time to wait for you to come to some conclusion, and it will most probably be wrong, so that I will tell it. The point is that this country is on a … span distance from Europe, ergo it is Spain! That's it, what does not forbid you to make associations with spades or spikes, you can do this, yet this is too weak as argument, where Spain obviously sticks out from Europe, like the thumb does from the palm of the hand.      And Portuguese, which country is usually called Portugal (also in Bul), is even more easy, this is just "Port of the Gauls"; why they have needed this I don't know, but probably it is easier in this way, to have a stop on the way to Africa. (There is one funny moment here, but it is in Bul, because this ending '-geze' is pretty near to our 'gyz' meaning not exactly ass but rather arse, yet they must not be ashamed — ha-ha —, because everybody has it, hasn't he or she?)      Then it is Romanian on the order, what is again easy, they are Romas, what, if you ask me, means Gypsies. But these Tzigeuners or Tziganos etc. have come through the eternal city Rome, they are Lats, and their lang proves this, while for our Gypsies to want to be called also Romas is not right, yet this is another question.      Next is the Dutch or Netherlandish (resp. Niederland or Holland), what means either some Teutonic tribe or (in the other name) lowland, because they live on dams. There is also the Danish, which, being also Teu lang, has to be derived from -djut /-tjut R. as teilen-divide (here is also the Eng "thin"), but I am not sure about this. Yes, but I have thought about all Scan countries and relate (or this is the official etym-gy — I have forgotten) this name with Lat scandula /It scandola as a roof, or rather roof shingle (Schindel in Ger), so that the ancient people, in spite of their primitive geographical knowledges, have had good imagination; to these Ws I can add also the scandal (probably as eaves-dropping, or as such big noise that is heard even to the roofs), like also Slav 'oskudnyij' (in Rus) as poor, in need (in a way, skating down) — so that it turns out that those people are very scandalous, what may as well be true, because their langs are quite "barking", I would say.      And the Swedes, even if smb threatens to … quarter me if I will not change my opinion, are for me people who like very much the sweeties, or are then just sweet people (in some sense)! This relation with the sweet is so strong for me that it shades all other possible explanations (which may be that they: are very hard working, and often sweat, or that there blow strong winds saying 'swii', what may as well be true, or with Ger schwer-hard, etc.). On the other hand these sweet things may be also nice and beautiful, because there is Slav 'sviden' (in Bul) as dear, cherished, so that they may be really such people, and if there was not the Eng lang, then there can as well be wider spread their Swe lang (not that I like much their Phs, but their grammar is significantly simpler than the Ger one).      The second ten in the langs begins with the Esperanto, which, undoubtedly, has to means that this is the hope of the humanity, the esperanza, this to what all aspire (or must do this), like the … aspirin, I suppose. That it has not succeeded till the moment to fulfill the hopes of his creator is due only to the fact that the people are quite silly, as I have already said or at least hinted.      Then comes the Ukrainian, and I am sorry if will disappoint my possible readers that can't give here some more or less interesting explanation, but such are the facts: this name means pure and simple people on the … border, because this is what 'okraina' means in Rus. I can agree that to be called "deep province" is not very exhilarating, yet they alone are guilty for this, because could have long ago chosen some other name, right? If they can't come to a suitable name then I can help them, surely. Let me think … Ah, here are some rough propositions: 'Chjornorusyi', what means "black-haired Russians", or also 'Dneprovjane', what is good neutral name and means "living around the river Dnepr", very suitable, if you ask me, or also 'Percoljubyi', i.e. people who like … hot pepper, like the Buls, while the Russ will sooner die than try to eat this nasty mini-pepper pods. Surely. Solution can always be found, if one approaches the things with more brains.      Now to the Poles. But this is also easy, this means that these people live in low terrains, in 'pole'-s in Rus etc., what is a field, cultivated land, which is more appropriate to be in low places than in mountains. Still, there is some interesting moment here, which is the following: why for the Slavs 'pole' is low flat thing but for the West this is smt contrary, high stick, pol-e /-us? Ah, I have thought about this before roughly a quarter of a century, and have come to the conclusion that on the 'pole'-field usually grows wheat, and it is a kind of grass with long stems, like some poles, i.e. the plant joins the plane with some axis! Because it is so, if you have an axis you can rotate smt around it and this gives a plain perpendicular to the axis; or v.v., if you have a plain, you (i.e. the mathematicians) define it also with its axis. These are dual notions, they go hand in hand, so that the Slavs have taken the plane on which the wheat plant grows, while the West has taken the stem as pole of this plant; a bit complicated, but the ancient people were philosophers, they tried to find explanations for everything around them, for the whole nature, while nowadays we are just a mob of moronized individuals, who, knowing so many things (after the influx of quantitative methods in the sciences, instead of contemplative and qualitative ones from the deep antiquity), are doing everything in our abilities in order to reject any efforts for thinking, in the name of the never-ceasing fun in the times of ubiquitous affluence. Ah, that's how it is, and I beg to be excused for my philosophizing.      OK, it is the turn of the Czechs, and here I have what to say, smt. quite unexpected, yet wholly grounded for me. I relate their name, the old čeština, with Slav 'chesatj' (in Rus or 'chesha se' in Bul) meaning to scratch, but also to comb (the hairs, or smt else), then there is also our (say, Bul) 'chesyn' as garlik, i.e. it splits easily in parts, also with Tur 'cheshit' as strange, peculiar guy, and then there are also other Slav Ws like 'chest'-honour, 'chist'-pure, old Bul 'chitav'-healthy, 'chestit'-blessed, 'cheta'-read, and others. So did you get it? Ah, this means that these people have meant themselves as chosen in some way, as the best, and I think that this fits here, they are Slavs, yet quite capable in many aspects, in sense of economics. But everybody can try to disprove this, proposing smt more suitable.      Then come the Slks, and their name, like also that of the Slovenians, is variation of the common (or collective) name Slavish, Slavic, or Slavonic, and I can't miss the opportunity to say that this is not related with the slaves, how as if everybody on the West is inclined to think, but with our 'slava' what is a glory, no matter that the etym-ists on the West can doubt in this! More precisely, this 'sla-' R. surely speaks about some sliding (like the slash sign), but this must not be taken as slavish (from the slave) behaviour, but rather of some moderation, what is a kind of bigger wisdom, not to fight just for the sake of fighting, because of silly and misunderstood pride, but only when they are invaded and must defend themselves. And, if one tries to think and recalls the history, he will see that there were not the Russ (or other Slavs) who have invaded France, f.ex., but on the contrary, some Napoleon and not Ivan has went with his army to the East, or earlier, in the times of Alexander Macedonian, not Rus troops have tried to conquer Egypt or whatever country, not Russ have fought wars to build a thousand years lasting kingdom of light raised up on the corpses of Hebs and other nations but some Adolf, what is not Slav name, not Russ have thrown atom bombs on the left and on the right to "teach" some nations, or began wars, be it in Vietnam, be it in Persian Golf, be it elsewhere, or have built aircraft carriers in order to invade, surely, not to defend themselves. No, the Slavs are not slaves, but they are also not invaders, practically all Eastern nations, Hindus, Chis, are much more peaceful than the Western ones. Yet I will not go into details here, but I am convinced that the thing that the Western people take for prowess, to lead unnecessary fights out of pure pride, what the West has inherited from the old Greeks, was outmoded even in those times, in the times of Christ, to say nothing about our current days; also the 'slava'-glory is smt that remains after us, it is near to the ground, this is some trail after us ('sleda' in Bul), these are not war cries or the like, but smt shining and luminous, this must be related rather with Lat ave, or hallelujah; also changing of 'l' to 'r' and v.v. is not in the habits of the Slavs (because our 'r' is real 'r', not weak imitation)!      Then come the last but one, the Sers, and here I will tell you first the simplest and funniest relation, and at the end smt more ancient and probable. The Easiest way is to derive the name of the Sers from Bul verb 'syrbja'-to-itch, with the simile or allegory or believing that if smb feels itching in the hands then he wants to … fight with smb! And don't tell me, please, that this is not true, because before about just 30 years, after the falling of Berlin wall, there was war in former Yugoslavia (which now is only Serboslavia, like we like to say), such war in practically peaceful times only because these people wanted to fight and kill — you bet it — and there was necessary for UN troops, what in those times meant chiefly from USA, to intervene. And as far as I remember the Word war one has begun because of a killing of some Austrian Prince in Beograd or thereabout. Now, they have fought chiefly with Croatians, who are called 'hyrvati' in Bul, and this name is some … dying wheeze, so that probably not only the Sers were guilty, but, anyway, these are the Sers; and there was also the Second Balkan war in 1913 which broke chiefly because of not honest behaviour of the Sers. So that I am not inventing, and the other former Yugoslavian nations can also confirm the bossy, at least, attitude of the Serbs in all years of their ruling. But well, if more seriously, then their name is surely related with our common Slav 'serp / syrp' what is a sickle, and this is not only utensil for cutting of wheat plants but also a weapon, the curved sword is known from ancient times, where I can site at least the Malayan kris and some Skr krpanas as sword (what is not at all strange because there is Bul jargon 'kryc' or even 'hryc-kryc' as cutting away, say, the head).      OK, and here is the last nation and lang, the Bul, where the R., surely, is bulg- or bolg-, because -ar in some langs is used as ending for pl. But bul- /bol- is practically obvious, this is smt big, like a 'bik' in Bul what is exactly a bull, so that, probably, the Buls are bulls, in some sense, but nobody tells us in what one. In this case there are many Ws here, all around the world, like: ball, boulevard, Rus and Slav 'bolvan' as simpleton, what has to be meant as with pumpkin head, because this W. means also big round stone, then the Balkans, the bulk of smt, the block, the bank, the bunker, and other voluminous or sticking out (bulging) things. Yet there can be meaning also of smt shredded or crumbled, like our 'bulgur' as cracked wheat grains (it is Tur –Ar bulghur), or as smt mixed like our 'bulamach' as tasteless mess for eating (it has to be also Tur), or also to go to the Gr understanding of the matters, what is seen by their calling us 'vulgaros', i.e. these are the vulgar things, which are characterized with fast proliferating, like the birds (I mean Lat vulga as more or less the same as volva /vulva as some membrane, most often that of f. uterus). And if one asks: why should one small nation boast with smt big or crushing or fast dispersing etc., with being like bulls, then I will answer that exactly because we are not a big nation but eagerly want to be such (like the Hebs, who are boasting on the left and on the right that they are strong like 'lev'-lion-s), so that the things fit, only that the very big thing is not clear.      Yeah, but when I was writing my mentioned Jotolmach I have quite occasionally, and in the body of one of my several incarnations there, come to the idea that this big thing, rather things, are the … balls of Bul men! Put in an open text this means that the Buls are known, and this from ancient times, as men with big, probably the biggest in the world, balls, which go, naturally, together with a long prick, so to say. (And I am convinced in this by my own experience, because my balls are not really big, just about a pound or so each, but in my old years this is additional weight, and I am walking for some years slightly bent forward because of them, no joking.) And then this -g at the end of the R. is simply some exclamation of fear, 'gr' or the like, or else is some guttural sound as sign of little choking when a girl … takes it in the mouth, you must understand.      Well, I'm sorry if this sounds a bit bold on my part, but such are the realities, and I, as honest to the muse of sciences as any true lover, can't allow myself to hide the truth for the sake of some ideas for decency. And also mark that these ideas are not entirely ungrounded, because as consequence of such timid fears is given the appearance of the W. … panic, as coming from the godlike Satyr Pan, who had such big member etc. that all people ran away from him; only his constant girly-companions, the fairies, were used to it and liked it, as well liked to play on his duduk (in Ar, Tur, Armenian, and so on, what is a kind of flute yet here used in figurative meaning), like he alone liked to play on his flute called siring. Ah, and one more thing about the Buls: our old predecessors, the proto-Buls, were used to wave their flags in form of, pure and simple, horse tail, and what is a tail if not some sticking out whipping thing (Schwanz in Ger is a tail but is used also for the "tail" in front of each man), so that this might as well be meant as horse's member, or of a bull, which goes together with the balls, i.e. "run after the headman with the biggest prick (and balls, but they are fast decaying, one can not tie them to a long stick and wave around)". (And, frankly speaking, I think that this my hypothesis can be disproved only with the help of a … time machine, so that till that time it has to be taken for God's truth, I suppose.)      So this is all about the etym-gy of the used here names of nations, in my understanding of the things, and I can add smt even about the very W. nation. It is Lat and there nato /nascere was to give birth, which W. is derived from our Slav 'nesti /snasjam' as lay eggs, what is done in some nest called 'gnezdo' in Bul. This idea about eggs and cracking of their shells is so strong that from here — obviously for me — comes the W. populus /population as popping of some bubbles (together with the poplar tree, because it grows very high, and probably fast). That's it, and if smw I have spoken not very seriously, than this is because I am, as said in the very beginning, not real professional, so that I may allow this, while the serious etym-sts can't, their work is dull and boring, but I, writing for the people, wanted to give them also some fun. +2. Conclusion before the end      Here I will basically not say smt new, but I may turn the things from a new angle, what will provide new ideas. So I have said before that I am aiming at two goals with this enormous series of translations: to educate the masses about the biggest cheating in the social area, the democracy (not because the rulers are so bad in their hearts but rather because the common people just want to be deluded), and also to compare practically all contemporary (European) langs in order to find (and to prove this somehow) the simplest lang that can be used as standard worldwide lang, even stating that this is Bul one. Together with this I have given 2 propositions for new alphs suitable for all langs, the Lat one used in my way (where the basic moments are to make the right choice about the Ls "y" and "j", and to introduce one more, 6-th basic V.), and also one better elaborated proposition for worldwide alph yet based also on the Bul one. Plus that I have added one chapter about the names of the used nations, which I think is very interesting and useful, and have inserted where only I could funny remarks and observations, for which, nevertheless, I pretend to be generally true. And not only this, but I will continue for some more time, in order to say smt about my plans in this direction in the future.      Yet there always stays hidden a third reason for my hurriedly publication of what I only can, and this is the natural wish to make myself known in the world, but not how the majority of people want this in order to win, either money, or glory, or both, but in order to … show my co-citizen in bad light, to make them feel ashamed, especially those on top of the power. This is necessary because our barbarity, as I have surely mentioned this several times, is very nice one, we pose no dangers for the other nations, we harm only our own people, but everything in the allowed measure, not so that to be notorious all over the world, even for things that we will never do, but just so, by default (being already barbarians)! I feel pretty uncomfortable with this delicate task, but the exposing to derisions is one of the main weapons of the weaker person, and I am a little man, like the L. "j", I can not use the media in order to educate the masses and engage their attention to what I am saying, but I am saying right things, I think not about myself but about my nation, so that if in this important job not exactly all means are allowed, then at least to mock and laugh at smb must always be allowed, because this causes no serious harms, this is only imaginable. So that I am doing this, what our authorities have left to me, I have no other choice (and if they have thought that with their bossy and arrogant behaviour to the common person they will make me fear some punishment — say, to lose my pension at all, because everything began with it, if you look at the notorious Open Letter —, then they have just taken me for smb else, this is their fault, after all).      OK, if I return to the Bul lang, I think that, all in all, I have proved my thesis, it is the simplest in many aspects, chiefly in phonetical and grammatical ones, meaning the absence of cases and the well guessed genders, yet it has appeared that in the area of tenses there are some difficult moments, which are not present in the Slav langs (excluding my Bul and the similar Mac). The other Slavs, where I will speak about the Russ, turn to have even no table for the past tenses, due to simplifications but also to some trick, namely: they use no auxiliary verb to be (what habit comes from old Lat times, if I am not mistaken), and as a result of this by perfect and p-perfect (for plusquamperfect) tense they do not, and can not, make difference, plus that they have no imperfect! What, in my view, is incorrect behaviour, this is oversimplification on some places, while on others and more difficult ones (with the cases) they have not moved even a finger in the right direction (but the Rums, f.ex., have stepped a bit forward). Because the tradition requires that there was imperfect, as well also perfect and p-perfect, so that the difficulties with the Bul in this aspect are just necessary, and, after all, only the imperfect needs some forms of the verbs, the other 2 tenses are built easily using only one participle form. What is reduced to the statement that the Russ and other Slavs will gain smt more from Bul lang: an easier way to the West through the Bul, chiefly as phonetics, but now I saw that also in grammatical aspect in the past tenses, and not to forget the definite articles (no matter where they are put), which they do not have at all!      And now some more Ws about this aorist or past svyr or perfective tense, which has disappeared even on the West: if you don't like it then not use it, after all, but it is similar to the imperfect. F.ex., the endings for imperfect are: '-eh, -eshe, -eshe; -ehme, -ehte, -eha' (this is for the 1-st conjugation, for the 2-nd they are '-ah, -ashe, …'), while for the aorist-svyr they are: '-eh, —, —; -ehme, -ehte, -eha', only that the R. V. usually is also changed. And, people, this my idea to use the lang of one not only not hegemonic state but even tiny and barbaric and so on, is really unexpected, but it has its advantages, the other countries can make with this lang what they want, they can simplify it further, while with their own one they will not dare because of some emotional ties, this is important! So that in this way the aorist can be sooner thrown away if necessary, or then be found useful (like we think). But as to the alph only, there are no hindrances at all, it can be at once taken by all Western countries and they will surely gain (there are the additional warm Cs 'zh, ch, sh' — let me remind you about the Ser lang that uses equally well both alphs).      Then about this IPA alph: it is very good, it is like the periodic table of chemical elements of Mendeleev, 2-D model, useful in many aspects, only that it is very difficult, people, don't forget this! It is used only in special literature, and there are still used several chars for one and the same sound, plus that it has 130 (so they say, I have not counted them) chars. While my usage of basic Lat chars plus only one other commonly met V. (the 'y' here) is understandable for preschool children (no labial, or velar or front-middle, or approximants or schwa, or other terms; only 6 Vs, 19 Cs, and some Ms). And do you know smt, do you know why nobody else has come to my simple idea to use 2 Vs (or also Cs) to build new mod-d such Phs? Ah, I will tell you, this is because my proposition is unprofessional — no IPA, no list of sources, no very good use for all possible cases, and so on —, and the professionals run away from unprofessionality like the devil from incense, that's it why! But it is useful, it is heuristic (what means that it works in the majority of cases pretty good, though some not exactness or errors are not entirely excluded on general basis, without applying lang specific approach), it is easy, and it is also in a way 2-D, regarding the mod-ns (from one V. or C. to another one). And smt similar is necessary for a long time, to write in easily readable form the personal names, the geographic names, the chemical elements, all new Ws that appear incessantly (like handy, spam, etc.). So that I am very glad that have written this long series of materials, and will continue for a pair of more plus-sections giving some rough idea about my further plans (because, when one is over 70, one never knows for how long he will continue to exist; but on the other hand, I have to stop with this material and change the work, to move to my usual pen-name, where my readers wait for me). +3. My further plans in this direction      My future plans are to propose several improved langs, not only the Bul (because people may not like it), so that there existed a choice, but all this, naturally, in accordance with my understandings for easiness! About one of the concrete langs there will be another following plus-sections, yet I will say here a W. or two about the main principles of the task. I will proceed in the used here order, and after this will add smt more about the universal world alph.      First is the Ger and here the problems will be more than for the other langs, but after I have seen that the Scan langs have done this, i.e. have rejected the genders and have also thrown away all grammatical cases, I just must be able to perform this operation over the "body" of dear Ger lang, with its quite good and simple phonetics. See, I think that I have hinted this, but the variety of different concrete implementations has this advantage that each exemplar has the right to make smt different from the others, and the far away from the center are placed these other exemplars, in one or other "province", the freer they feel themselves to make smt different from the core, or, put in other Ws, to behave vulgarly, to vulgarize the nice ideals and ideas of the empire.      It was so in old times, when from this vulgarization of the good (but very difficult) old Lat have arisen Fr., It., etc. langs, it was so later with the Teu langs, when the Eng one has arisen, where I may say the this latter lang has two mothers, the real Ger one, and the foster Fr (and Lat) one, it happens the same in the last 2 centuries with all Scan langs, which are trying to run away from their Ger "parent" (like also, to give another example, all former communist countries still run away from Russia), and relatively so has happened sometime (I don't know exactly when) with my Bul lang, when he has begun to differ from all other Slav langs (dropping first the cases). In brief, the vulgarizing (or also barbarizing — thinking about my country and the habits there and about our official authorities) is not so bad a thing, this process is in the matter of the things, such is the dialectics. So that I must strain myself sometime to do this with the nice Ger lang, because the Gers alone are not able to do it, they are emotionally tied with their lang. Yet a bit more detailed I will speak about this lang in the next section.      Then comes the Eng and here my directives are not to simplifying but to making it a bit more complex, in order to become qualified enough (because, I have said, this: I work, you work, etc. is for me street jargon). Also there should not exist several adjacent nouns, where the first n in number (or sometimes even not the first ones) are subjugated to the last, make it more qualified; there can be adjectives used as nouns (i.e. substantivated ones), but there should not be nouns used as adjectives, is what I think; the simplest in such cases is to use either hyphen, or to make somehow adjective (say, instead of man clothes to say masculine ones, or instead of glass junk to say glazory junk). Then about the pronoun "you": there must be difference, say, "du" for sing. and "you" for pl., and then if smb likes not to be polite enough (calling this democratization) he may use "du" in both cases, but the possibility to make difference must exist.      And then there just must be different forms for the verbs, not really many (say, more than 50, like in the Rom langs), but not only a pair of them, so that here I can propose, say for the verb "work", smt simple, f.ex.: yo (instead of "I") worko (read 'wyhko'), du workey ('wyhki'), he, she, it (and, probably, also "et" for living things of unknown or not interesting gender) work(a)s, and then we workom, you workis ('-is'), they workar ('-ah'), smt like this, and the infinitive must be workow ('-ou'). Or also for the verb beow, we will have: yo bo, du bey, he bas, we bom, you bis, they bar; or for imperfect: wo, wey, was, wom, wis, war. (Or maybe there must be: you workit, or bit /wit, but this will not sound good for the weak verbs in imperfect, say, workedit, studiedit, aimedit, etc., I have not yet taken the last decision.) Not really difficult things, but, still, smt in the right, not in the wrong direction. And I have to invent some useful ways for making of diminutives; also for making of f. and m., where I think to use, say: studenton and studentess (while student may be used for both genders).      Ah, then comes It lang and about it I will never propose improvements, for the simple reason that this is my 4-th foreign lang, which I have begun to learn when I was about 55 or a bit later, and do not know good enough for to make propositions. Yet, ha-ha, I can't help to say smt, to give some general directives. Its phonetics is good, let it remain, but these accents above the Ls have to be eliminated (say, there may be added "h" for little elongation what for them plays the role of stress, or just occasionally can be used real stressing, which I think that has to be from left to right). Then some genders (which are a priory about 10 %) just must be changed (like il sistema — to either la sistema or il sistemo, let them decide). Then the verb forms must be drastically diminished, to less than 20, surely, otherwise this will not be an easy lang.      For this purpose their subjunctive mood must be discarded, like also the conditional, these things can be done with some particles, like in the other langs, also their future must be made, like in Eng, Ger, Bul, etc., with adding of some particle or verb form (say, I may propose "scio" = 'sho' + the forms from present tense), and from the past tenses 2 must be discarded, there suffice imperfect, perfect, and p-perfect. And I would add (also for the other Lat langs) that there should not be exceedingly short verbs where the R. is reduced to one only L. (like their so, sai, sa, … for to know, where the R. comes to be just s-). Ah, and polite forms must not be made using 3-rd pers. pl., this is at least funny, where the 2-nd pers. pl. suffices to make the distinction and to be easily built. It is a pity that such beautifully sounding lang can't be used by nearly everyone (I, f.ex., would have liked to speak in It with my dog, if I have had a dog, s'intende).      Ah, and now comes the Rus lang for which I …, well, I just am in doubt that will succeed to do the job, because I like it, I will feel remorses to mutilate it, this is disfiguring, let the specialists think how to do this. I can propose only cosmetic changes, like: to remove the soft sign from 2-nd pers. sing. (say, 'rabotaeshj' to become 'rabotaesh') when this is not infinitive, to write the endings '-ogo' how they are read (i.e. '-ovo'), to write 'jo' instead of their "ё", to forget about the reversed 'e' ('э') when it is so rarely used and they prefer to use 'ie' instead of 'e', to use short variants of all adjectives whenever they can, because they are not conjugated, to cease making difference between numbers ending on a digit less than 5 but to use always the pl, and some other minor moments (like, probably, to begin to use also the verb to be and as consequence of this to have some real past tenses, i.e. to be able to distinguish between perfect and p-perfect). But the serious cases with the cases (their throwing away entirely) is very difficult to be introduced, because this lang is not like the Ger. It is not such because in the Ger the case endings are added to definite articles and not to the very nouns; they are added also to the adjectives, but even then this is simpler than in Rus (or Ukr, Cze, etc.), and they have 4 instead of 6 or 7 cases.      I don't know how the "vulgar" inhabitants of old Roman empire had dared to do their truncating of all case endings (because the Rus and other Slav langs are like the Lat, this is hardly believable but it is a fact, the Slav langs, excluding the Bul, have no articles and drop the verb to be like the very Lat lang), but probably in those times the tyranny was really big, or the masses were more uneducated and vulgar, yet they have succeeded to perform this operation, while in today's times, this is much more difficult, the people have not strong enough stimuli to do this and continue to use outmoded langs. So that I do not intend to improve the Rus lang, excusing myself with the explanation that there exists the Bul one, let them use it.      OK, and as to the Bul, there are not much things that can be done, but there are some. Firstly there must be corrected the endings of those nouns which gender contradicts to the common rules, where the major cluster here is of those ending in '-st' or '-sht', which in the Rus have soft sign on the end. Here I, after long pondering over the matter, have come to the conclusion to use one as if old Gr suffix, '-ija'! This is unmistakably f., but the bad thing is that these are 2 more Ss, yet the usual suffix '-ka /-chka', which is used for making diminutives of f. gender, just does not sound good (say, 'mosht'-power, which in Rus is 'moshchj', will become 'moshtija', because 'moshtka' is not good). There are many such Ws, like: 'vyzmozhnost+ija' as a possibility, 'stojnost+ija' as a value, 'korist+ija" as self-interest, 'pryst+ija' as an earth, ground, also 'nosht' as night, which W. will sound better as 'nochka', what is exactly Rus, and many others; yet there are also some single Ws like 'gryd' what is breast but not only as f., also as m., and in the last case I suppose that it will be better to say 'gyrnon' (again in a Gr. manner). There may be some other Ws and in each case smt must be done, retaining the gender, but changing the ending (because otherwise, changing the gender, will be more unusual and people will not like this — this is like the case with il sistema).      Then about the past svyr tense or aorist. This is quite used tense but in the name of simplicity we can … forget about it, this is the simplest way out (providing our lang will be taken in massive use by other nations, otherwise not, because it gives a nice touch), where, say, instead of "I 'hodich'-went once to him etc.", can be said "I 'hodech'-went once to him etc.", what is not correct, for us this means that I have done this many times (it has to be "'hodech' often"), but we can pretend that see nothing wrong in this (if with adding of a necessary qualifying W. — as "'hodich' often"). Anyway, I can not find other better solution. And also, as I mentioned before, I have the idea to use Lat alph in order to be able to compare comparable things, written in one alph, but also to give the readers possibility to see that there is nothing strange in our lang, because here what is read is how it is written, not a single exception, so that you will be able to hear in your heads the text, if will try to read some morsel from it; and also I, surely, must "translate" the whole text about the democracy (like with the other renovated langs) in this new lang. Ah, and in addition to this I will "detach" all Bul definite articles from the end of the Ws and move them in front of the adjectives and nouns, using 'yt' for m., 'ta' for f., 'to' for n., and 'te' for pl. (say, instead of worn out phrase about the deserts of the party and government under the totalitarianism, what sounded as "zaslugite na partijata i pravitelstvoto' I will give "te zaslugi na ta partija i to pravitelstvo"). At least this will be an interesting experiment, which no other author (especially professional etym-st) will find necessary to do, this will be a joke for him, but your Jotata likes jokes.      OK, and as to the new worldwide alph I can make the pictures of the Ls, but I am not pretty sure that will do this because, for one thing, this is a work for a painter or designer, and for some commission, there must be several propositions between which to make the choice, and for another thing, I work with pretty primitive computer equipment and for the moment can't even make a photo of smt, I must use the mouse for drawing and this will look ugly. But I have given enough directives, the chars go in pairs and triples, there must be some easy remembering of them on the basis of the correspondence between the pictures of the pair or triple. And this must be done in, say, 5 pixels horizontally by 7 vertically for the main part of the L., then the part for 1-st mod-ors is explained in details, there remains only the implementation, then the 2-nd mod-ors are also explained, together with the vertical lines for different ways of underlinings, also for the capital Ls, everything is said (and if smt is not, then look at the Bul text in the middle of the Jotolmach). So that I will hardly come to this, this will be wasting of my (precious) time, there are not new ideas here. +4. Ideas about improved German language (Ger+)      Ah, this here improvement must be very large, because I must first of all devise new definite articles and then modify significant part of the nouns in order to make them to correspond well with the genders, and just then drop down all grammatical cases, what will be a bit easier, I suppose; yet even before this must be made some cosmetic changes in the used Ls, what can be done practically automatically. What I means by the latter are the following changes: all scharfes s-es ("ß") must be changed to "ss", all "ch" to "hh", like also "ck" to "kk" (this is the correct approach), then "tsch" to "ch" and "sch" to "sh", also "sp" to "shp" and "st" to "sht" (yet not everywhere but only in the beginning of the Ws), also "ei" to "aj" (when they insist to read this Dph in this way, in order to differ from the … Hebs, I will say, who say 'ejn' etc.), and similarly "eu" to "oj"), then "ä" to "e" (or "ae" but they make no difference in the reading), "ö" to "io" (as mod-d 'io'), "ü" to "iu" (as 'iu'), and also all "v" to "f" (again checking each W. because there can be exceptions), followed by "w" to "v" (and after this the L. "w" must be met nowhere), and as if this is all, not forgetting to "de-capitalize" each noun. In this way we will have one easy reading of all Ws in a nearly Lat way, where only "c" will be practically missing in own Ger Ws, but "z" will be read usually as 'c' (like "zu, zehn, zershtjoren" etc.), yet also in some foreign Ws as 'z' (I think "zoo, zygote"), so that probably all "z" must become "c" no matter what is the next L. ('cu' or 'cehn'), and one must look here and there for exceptions (like "äu" to be changed to 'oj'). It is important to have perfect correspondence of the written with the read when this is easily maintainable.      But this was the easier part. As to the genders I have though (but maybe smt will again be changed later) and decided to make the definite articles differ, in order not to come to confusions of the new things with the old ones, yet to retain, naturally, the classical 3 genders (m., f., n.). So the new articles will be: "der" (and I suppose reading it as 'dy') for m., "de" for f., "do" for n., "dih" (it is better to use always "h" for elongation of the Vs like it is in "ihr", "ahnen", "ohr" or "ohne", "uhr", and others) for pl. Then the indefinite articles will be: 'ajn, ajne, ajno; ajni' (yet they can as well be: 'un, une, uno; uni'). Yes, but this is still wide away from everything, because all nouns must change, when necessary, their endings, in order to ensure that: all m. nouns end on a C., all f. ones end on 'e' (in fact by such nicely made lang it does not matter whether I will use single or double quotes), or maybe sometimes on 'a', all n. nouns end on 'o' (or probably also on 'u'), and the plural is made usually with adding to the end of '-en'. There are many nouns ending on "-schaft" (from where comes the Eng "-ship") which are f., so that they must become '-shafte', similarly also these on "-in" must become '-ine'; those on "-chen / -lein", though, which were n., must become '-hheno, -lajno'.      I think also to allow making of nouns of whatever gender, if one wishes to do this (like it is in Bul, but I may cite also It il giorno as a day, where one can say also la giornata meaning the same), and there can be established that the suffix '-on' makes m. nouns (like, f.ex., 'professoron', what emphasizes that the professor is he), and '-ine' (instead of old "-in") for f. ones (like 'professorine'). Also one may want to say that smt or smo m. is not really so and will make it n. adding '-o' (say, instead of 'der mann' can be said 'do manno'), or also for f. gender, instead of old "frau" as woman or wife, which has to be now 'fraue' or 'frauve' or 'frove' (and if this sounds a bit like Swe, then I am not guilty because I, in a way, imitate the Swes) to make 'do frovo' as not really feminine wife (say, a … scientific worker, ah?). Or then v.v., one wants to make from 'do hundo'-dog (which was "hund" as m. but this is not much correct, there probably can be used also 'der hund' but 'do hundo' is the right choice) one animal of definite gender, because you know it, so in this case you must say either 'der hundon' or else 'de hundine' (what can be useful in many cases, especially when it goes about … "die schabe" as cockroach, which "animal" is f. but must now become 'do shabo', yet if you can somehow guess her gender — what I never can, honestly — then you may use 'der shabon' or 'de shabe').      Also there must be thought about diminutives, and if possible about the opposite (expanders or enlargers or how you call them, I don't know because this does not exist in the Eng), where I can propose the suffix '-elino' (resp. '-elin /-eline') for diminutives (f.ex.: from 'der tish' as a table — 'der tishelin', from 'der shtudent(on)' — 'der shtudent(on)elin', or if f. then from 'de shtudentine' — 'de shtudentineline', but also 'do tishelino' what for me is more correct. Corresponding with this may be used also enlarging suffix '-elano' (say, for the above examples: 'der tishelan' as big table, 'der shtudent(on)elan' if m., or if f. then 'de shtudentinelane', but also 'do tishelano'). There can be even smt with disgusting nuance what is again in It manner, and will be done with the suffix '-elacho'. So that I would advise the Gers to change alone the genders of all nouns, for which they do not insist that they must have definite gender, to n., yet this depends on them, I will stick to the old genders and say, e.g.: 'der mann, de frove, do kindo, der lioffel, de gabele, der baum, de krone, de wurcele, der veg, de arbajte, do amto, do exempelo, do feldo', and so on, with little exceptions (like, say, 'de Europe, de monde' and probably others). The pl. for f. is naturally to become '-en' ('dih froven, kronen, professorinen'), for m. is not always naturally but so is easier ('dih mannen, lioffelen, baumen, vegen, student(on)en'), and for n. the last 'o' is removed and then '-en' is added (dih kinden, amten, exempelen, felden). This may seem now a bit difficult, but this is because we (me often including) do not know the right genders, yet otherwise it is simple, especially the pl.      Now about the adjectives, but here will be nothing difficult, they will have the endings of indefinite articles, or also of definite ones, it is the same, no matter that there will be some repetition of the endings. Like: 'der shjoner mann, de flajsige arbajterine, do ungeduldigo hundo, dih demokratishen staaten', where the situation will be the same if without definite articles, e.g.: 'shjoner mann, flajsige arbajterine, ungeduldigo hundo, demokratishen staaten'. But if these are adverbs, then with shorter endings, e.g.: 'es ist shjon, er /sih ist flajsig, es ist ungeduldig, sih sind demokratish'. Smt of the kind, but I will see, it may happen that some things will be made anew (what will be a nasty trick for such diligent author like myself).      As to the tenses, I will retain this not much necessary difference in the conjugation with haben or with sajn, this is not so really difficult after all, if you can have direct object then this is with haben, else it is with sajn, or you have made an excusable (if you ask me) error; yet it is surely better if they will follow the example of the Engs, where the verb to be is used only in passive voice. But the long Ws, ah, all Ws longer then, say, 20 chars must be split, or else you could be imposed to fines in the extent from 1 daily minimal salary to one monthly such, is my proposition, but let me not give examples. The grammatical cases are to be removed and forgotten all of them, just that possessive case can be used when necessary with adding of one '-s' (what will not be ending for pl., so that there must be no problems with this). And as if this is in general, but will this work good or not I will see after a pair of years, when I will do it. And in this case this new or improved Ger lang, Ger+, will deserve #### mark, not more. +5. Bye-bye      Ah, as I looked now at my first Open Letter (in Eng) it has 205,820 chars, and this material, including the next 3 paragraphs, will come up to 212,480 chars, so that I have, again, violated the norms of decency in writing enormously big papers, but the excuse is the same, I wanted to say everything (worth saying) in one material. In any case, for this only Comparison I am going to spend practically 2 whole months (not less than 55 days with the final reading), working as long as I can (about 6 hours daily and no holidays), but I think that this was necessary, I have not lost my time. Because, I may spit at my co-citizens that they are barbarians, but I am also trying to advertise Bul lang, and the ideas lying in its fundament, which I have used for creating of my new worldwide alph, and I have compared practically all contemporary langs on a quite big chunk of text (naturally my own, but the texts which are not my own are not worth mentioning, right?), so that I have provided enough proofs for my statement. In brief, this means that I deserve many state medals and monuments erected to me, sometime in the future, really!      And I intend also to finish writing more political materials, only these 3 planned improved langs (Ger+, Eng-+, because I will use the old Ls, but there lies the core of the evil with it, and Bul+), and probably smt funny about the politics or smt else, yet just a pair of things and this is all, so that this is a kind of farewell material (and because of this longer than the first Letter). After all, I will exceed the number of 50 with my works, and this is now pretty decent. This shows to the whole world that I am really quite intelligent person, one of, say, a pair of hundreds people, and in spite of this, all our official authorities don't really give a damn about me, answer to me with total silence, confirming in this way that all I deserve is a pension of the amount of 1/7-th of the average Bul monthly salary, which is about 1/7-th of the average European monthly salary, i.e., roughly speaking, 50 times less money than I deserve! Not that I need this money, really, but a pair of times more than this would have been proper. And only this is quite eloquent proof of our barbarity, yet there are many others.      Anyway, I am really thankful to my good for nothing higher state officials, because, as I have said this several times, this mobilizes me to show them, and to the whole world via the Internet, that I am who is right, not they (despite of their big number and high salaries, or exactly because of this, because this is to what the corruption is usually reduced). OK, and here is my farewell verse:      With this I'm saying "Bye" to you right now,      Yet I'll return to you some time — and how?      Ah, with some pearls, but for the moment "Ciao"!      Oct, 2021

 

 

---