Montreux ‚wefunk|¬radio‘ Grundge BX critical systemtheo Riad & Ba‘th as socialist concept …

||*))]`¬đ ‚now all have incorporated on an idea without steel and concepts out of recovery an ideologichaal on Rawal the pre-1989 Heroin trade routes income upwards by ski-routhines through institutions and all the concurrence of Hebrew versus an ideal of white man conceptio zion enligthen stock etylmological a name on trade foreignity into accomp ‚lies‘ of mass slaugther daily bread elusiveness by the concept on conservatism Sophie at Istan Irfahaan blue Neo-NS-Luth envy male only hierarchicals sameness only available of performa arts and facts on culture ‚Kurdistan‘ as concept toilet a paper interpretation Nawas Shareef S|o|S surgico and Berlin-West ‚Humanbio|animo ‘ all foreign realm as animals of ‚zucht|pedo go lick‘ shoes object abuse.

How blind someone must be, -Boutrous only- Ban klux Moonkey UN-Mallala ‚Wunder‘ in effort free breath and bass/Ism against that unity of oppression prior Roman lawsuitz network documents insurances credits only,..a bubble click off,…represent only a male saucer of dump down one drop on ‚Deutschland-Hauptstadt‘ – fucking without ‚darüber redet Mann nicht‘, know Ludwigshaven-BKA|so called Mafia represents.-

First and last state on Arab lingual frankly interest in dia bia bio..ante.-cos nos.-sell out

Hieroglyphics as a pure utility of language
Analphabeta Khaalie on medics and donor surgic it to see what kind of reaction it might get. Now there are many other examples which I will indic go could utilize to represent a pure utility of language such as the whistling language of Gomera, Sign Language, and Morse Code but this serves an objective I wish to make. Hieroglyphics and other forms of pictoral communication are extremely profound and powerful in my opinion because they allow us direct access to the matter of our sense experience.

This direct access is posited in correlation with a non-literal format of language namely the form of the object. I don‘t believe we can make use of the form of the object without representing it with logical constructs. These logical constructs are designed or given shape by mental processes which attempt to posit a meaning which already exists in the form of the object. My theory is that the more advanced the language the more abstract, neutral, and diverse the arrangements of logical symbols can be used to represent the form of an object.

Hieroglyphics attempt to represent the form of the objects in our environment in a literal way that is it uses one logical symbol which appears like the object it is representing to represent it. The question I want to ponder on given these statements is there an imperative difference between Hieroglyphics and say the language I am utilizing here and if so is it due to an inherent limit in language or to the fact that without using language this inherent limit has no meaning? Also could you say that hieroglyphics prove that man in his primitiveness is more affected by pictures in the context of communication.

These marks are rarely seen in real life, so you should not count much on them.

The three long vowels will be Romanized as: aa , ee , oo .

Long vowels are denoted in writing with the letters: و ، ي ، ا respectively.

But we already know that these three letters are the three consonants: ‘ , y, w .

Therefore, these three letters can denote both the consonants and long vowels. This is why they are called the „weak letters“ حُرُوْفُ الْعِلَّةِ .


…and thank you NY||cc filth for negotiating my Visa application on political bodice through Islamabad Melbourne-know your enemy Organized crime sameness Suisse…-----widow AX|Dow.-