Sound sheen is very commen in the world

languages

maqsood hasni

04-09-2010, 11:32 AM

After a deep, long, sensative thinking and

linguistic experiments of books and interviews

with the experts on languages that I have

mentioned four points in my writings:

a. languages alphabets of exercise are

insufficient to meet the streat talking

and some very personal conversations /

interviews.

b. This is a serious and hot need of this age

that linguistic experts must do their best to

invent and create some more alphabet

sounds.

c. Crunt alphabets of the languages have

more than one sound in speaking

or writing but they are not in record.

d. Languages experts should get sounds from

nature, streat talks or children talks. They

can easily convert these sounds into symbles

for alphabet.

These points are connected. Someone took

them serious, but their attempts turtle are

not sufficient to meet the needs of this age.

With the passage of time due circumtences

different lifestyles and preferences have been

totally changed. In every moment of life

challenges encountered strange horrible and

hard events. These are stand before men as a

policy and not as qualified engineer. Geting to

register for these events available alphabets

are not enough. Poets and writers events

paining people face a very uncomfortable.

They cover and to over come this deficiency

through the sounds made compounds. But

this attitude is incorrect and so low

standered by all means. These compounds

always create complications in prononciation.

For example, sheen sound is very commen in

the world languages. In eastren, specially

sub-continent languages have this sound

almost like a part of the sound alphabet. But

languages of the west have not this sound like

the sound of alphabet. They use more than six

compounds for this sound:

1- Ch cliche nietzoche, Fitche, charade,

chauvanism

2 - CE croce

3 CI facial precious

4 - Sh shift, sheet, shirt, shawal, shrink

5 - Si asia, malaysia

6 - Ti action, mention essential potential

residentional, confidentional

These compounds are also other sounds shine.

Reader feel difficulty to pronounce these

sounds to made up. What bad or wrong in

addtion of a sound on regular bases in

alphabet of the world's languages instead of

using many many different types of

compounds. S is available in the alphabets of

the westeren languages. After S shes sound

can be adapted. It can be demonstrated by a

second s under line or a line could be put on

it. It can be read shes. Do see this added

sound in English alphabet:

a ay an apple

b bi book

C ce cat

d de dog

e ee egg

f eff fan

g ge/gi girl

h eh hen

i ae inkwell

j jay jug

k kay kite

l el lemon

m em mango

n en nothing

o oo orange

p pe/pi pen

q ku

r ar rail

s es sachool

s shes sirt, screening, seet, sawal, srink,

korose, nietzose, Crose, Fasal,

presous, consous, asa, Malaysa, Menson,

essensal, potensal,

t te/ti tree

u yo umblrella

V vi van

w dablu whistle, west

x ex xrays

y wae year

z zee (zed Amercian)zoo

Certainly first time s (shes) will be appeared

as a stranger, but when it will become part

of the alphabet sound, people will not feel

strange with.

04-09-2010, 11:59 AM

Katy North Katy North

I took some linguistic classes back in the day

so I will attempt to dive into this one.

I commend you for posting on an english

speaking forum... your command of the

language is very good. I apologize if I do not

read your sentences as they were meant to

be written. I am not sure where you are from

but by your name I would guess an asian or

middle eastern country.

I lived in Japan for a few years, and I noticed

that unlike in american, their alphabet

correlates very closesly to the sounds they

make when they speak. they have a character

for "ma", "Tsu" and "a", and most of the time

when they speak it is a combination of these

sounds... it gives the Japanese a very

rhythmic sounding language which I really

enjoy.

On the other hand, the English language is

more difficult to deal with. You noticed that

we have only 26 letters in our alphabet, some

have multiple sounds in and of themselves

("C" can sound like either "C" or "S" for

example, as in either "Cat" or "Certainly"). In

addition, we combine our letters to create

multiple sounds.

(For the following, please excuse my linguistic

factoids if they are slightly off, it's been a

while since I took the classes)

This is because, unlike some languages, English

is not a phonetic language, instead, I believe

the word is that it is a representative

language... the letters represent sounds and

meanings, but don't translate accurately into

the sounds. This is why, despite its

widespread use, English can be very difficult

to learn. It's not that English would need

more sounds, but that English would need

more letters to represent the many diverse

sounds we have, some of which we native

speakers use without even noticing it. The

international Phonetic alphabet makes a

decent go at this, but it's not convenient to

reteach the millions of people who already

speak the English language, so right now it is

more the tool of linguists that anything else.

I hope that helps you out, if you have any

more questions, ask and I'll try and answer...

linguistics is fun!

Hope is that thing with feathers that perches

in the soul and sings the tune without the

words and never stops... at all. ~Emily

Dickinson

I ask not for a lighter burden, but for broader

shoulders. ~Jewish Proverb

04-10-2010, 05:20 AM

Wilde woman

grad school in upstate NY

Forgive me, but I don't understand you

completely. However, here are some

thoughts...

Quote Originally Posted by maqsood hasni

View Post

For example, sheen sound is very commen in

the world languages. In eastren, specially

sub-continent languages have this sound

almost like a part of the sound alphabet. But

languages of the west have not this sound like

the sound of alphabet. They use more than six

compounds for this sound:

1- Ch cliche nietzoche, Fitche, charade,

chauvanism

2 - CE croce

3 CI facial precious

4 - Sh shift, sheet, shirt, shawal, shrink

5 - Si asia, malaysia

6 - Ti action, mention essential potential

residentional, confidentional

It sounds like you are talking about two

separate phonemes: the voiced and unvoiced

alveolar fricatives ["ch" and "sh" respectively],

both of which have different symbols in the

IPA.

(By the way, your #2 example - "croce" is

not an English word. It's Italian. I'm fairly

sure the compound "ce" never is pronounced

"ch" or "sh" in English, unless it's borrowed

from another language.)

If everyone used the IPA as their written

alphabet, we wouldn't have the problems

you're describing. But you're talking about

representing all sounds consistently and

phonetically, which is unnatural in written

language.

Essentially, what you're describing are

differences between languages in orthography

(spelling) - which is not really something that

linguistics (or at least phonology) can resolve.

Since the visual representation (a letter or

character) of a sound oftentimes has no

similarity whatsoever to its oral expression,

people can conceivably invent many different

signs (or visual representations) for the same

phoneme. Even the IPA's symbols for

phonemes are arbitrary - some are based off

the Roman alphabet, while others are taken

from Greek, and so on.

For example: If you take any letter, say "s",

you could not look at that symbol and know

(inherently) how to pronounce it. There's

nothing in the shape of the letter to guide

your mouth into expressing the sound orally.

Hence, in linguistics, we have to describe this

sound, rather long-windedly, as the

"unvoiced alveolar fricative." And this is true

for all letters. (However, my linguistics

professors have said in lecture that Korean

characters are unique...some of them actually

do show you how to position your tongue to

pronounce that particular sound.)

This is a huge point in Saussure's work - that

the relationship between signifier (in this

case, the phoneme) and the signified (the

written representation) is arbitrary.

After S shes sound can be adapted. It can be

demonstrated by a second s under line or a

line could be put on it. It can be read shes.

I don't understand what you're saying. Can

you explain more?

Is this what you're talking about? If so, I

understand. In my intro linguistics class, I

described a similar phenomenon in Italian

(how the letter "c" is pronounced differently

according to the vowel which follows it). And

my instructor rather pompously told me that

I'd described a problem in orthography, not

linguistics.

Last edited by Wilde woman; 04-10-2010

at 06:01 AM. Reason: adding some thoughts

04-16-2010, 04:45 AM #4

maqsood hasni

I realized the actul problem

When I say sheen, kaaf or Chay; people living

in sub-continent, Arabic or Persian language

speaking, can easily understand that these

are their language alphabet sounds. But

people of the west or if these sounds are not

available in some languages of the world,

there people can not easily understand my

point of view. Firstly I will try to explain that

what is sheen, kaaf or chay. These are the

sounds of the alphabet (letters) in Urdu,

Punjabi, Barahvi, Balochi, Sindhi, Rajistani,

Mivati, Gojra, Haryana, Dakni, Pothohari,

Saraeki, Arbitrary, Farsi and many other

languages. There forms are as under:

sheen: sh ش It is alphabet sound of

subcontinet's language and also in used and

regular alphabet letter of Arabic and persian.

kaaf k, c, ch ک for geting this sound in

English often c (cat), k (kite) ch (school)

are used.)

chay: ch چ for taking this sound in English,

often the sound made by a compound ch

is used. For example, look over these words:

chest, cheep, peach, change, church

khay: kh خ This sound is pure Arabic sound,

but very common in many languages of the

sub-countinet and have much commentary in

Persian.

Second point is this that a germen even the

English can easily under that in these words:

standcliche nietzoche, Fitche, charade,

chauvanism

compound sound ch is providing sound sheen

(sh).

While croce (Atalian) there ce is pronounced

sheen (sh); Ka ro shay.

Some where ci is also providing sound sheen

(sh) for example have a friendly look over

these words:

facial precious

Sh, composed sound is very common and

very clear gloss sound letter. For reference see

these words:

shift, sheet, shirt, shawal, shrink sheep, shall

Some where si is used for letter sheen (sh). In

these words si is providing sound sheen (sh):

Asia, Malaysia

In many places composed gloss ti gives the

sound sheen (sh):

action, mention, essential, potential

residentional confidentional

Native speakers or even the english speaking

persons will not feel problem or difficulty to

pronounce these so many compound sounds

but same position is not with the

none-natives or those who are living in the

east or for east. They can read these

compound sounds very different way other

then the nativess. For example:

ch for chay chest

ce for si/ke cource, resource, force

Compound sound sh in sub-continent for

roman script is used for sheen (sh). For

example:

shak (doubt), sharbat (sweet drink), shadi

(marriage, happiness) etc.

si for si sick, silk, sink

ti for ti citi (city), socity/sociti (socity), beauti

(beauty), preti (pretty)

For the removal of these severe comlications, I

have suggested letter S (shes) which canbe

used for sound sheen (sh) insted of using

different componds for geting sound sheen

(sh).

Compound sound ch has also many

complications in pronounciation for none

natives. This compound sound needs special

attantion and care of language experts. It

almost provides five different sounds:

1- chay (ch)

chary che re, ch are

chaser cha sor

2- kaaf (k)

chasm ka zam

chemistry kai mist ri

3- sheen Sh/S

chassepot sha s po

chasseur sha suo

4- h (eh)

chasid ha sid

chasidic ha si dik

5- khay (kh)

munich, mu nikh

boch bokh

zolicha zo li kha

In various languages of east or for east, sh is

used in roman/romanji script for sound

sheen. For example see these words:

shak (doubt)

sharbat (sweet drink)

shadi (marriage, happiness)

shamil (included)

shola (flame)

si for si sick, silk, sink

ti for ti citi (city), socity/sociti (socity), beauti

(beauty)

For removal of these comlications I have

suggested letter S (shes) which canbe used for

sound sheen (sh)insted of using different

componds for geting sound sheen.

Compound sound ch has also many

complications in pronounciation. This

compound sound needs special attantion and

care of language experts. It almost provides

five sounds:

1- chay (ch)

chary che re, ch are

chaser cha sor

2- kaaf (k)

chasm ka zam

chemistry kai mist ri

3- sheen Sh/S

chassepot sha s po

chasseur sha suo

4- h (eh)

chasid ha sid

chasidic ha si dik

5- khay (kh)

munich, mu nikh

boch bokh

zolicha zo li kha

Let me know how a native speaker solve

these problems ruling? Linguists should be to

resolve the case arises because the sounds of

these compounds. They must provide letters

of the alphabet to the sounds made. So ch,

sh, ci, ti, si etc. are not only the sounds made

by compounds that have complications. The

next time I will try to discuss over some

compounds of other sounds.

04-16-2010, 06:36 AM

Katy North

hmmm, I'm still a little confused about what

you're trying to say... I'll ask some questions

and see if I can figure out what you mean

from your answers...

Are you suggesting a change in the English

language?

Are you suggesting replacing the phoneme

"sheen" with a unique character in the English

language?

It sounds like you put a lot of thought into

your discussion and I really wish I was able to

read your posts better.

Hope is that thing with feathers that perches

in the soul and sings the tune without the

words and never stops... at all. ~Emily

Dickinson

04-16-2010, 08:40 AM

WuWei

I'm not sure I understand all you're saying,

but you seem to forget that the evolution of

spoken and written language quite often take

two separate paths, or the same path at

different speed. Attempts to forcefully alter

the way a language is written are very

difficult unless there's a strong tradition

behind them (in France, for example, a

national "Academie" has quite often

intervened in these matters, to the point that

nowadays French is one of the languages in

which the difference between spoken and

written forms is bigger).

Virtually every language has multiple

phonemes associated to single letters in the

alphabet, as well as, sometimes, multiple

representation for the same phoneme. But

this is not due to poor organizational skills,

it's simply what happens when history takes

its course...

French:

sound /o/

beau [bo]

tôt [to]

faux [fo]

letter "e"

sound /e/: exposition [eksposisjõ]

sound /ε/: mer [mεr]

sound /ã/: vent [vã]

sound /ø/: ce [sø]

sound /ð/: vendredi [vãdRðdi]

no sound: père [pεr]

These are merely examples of something that

is extremely common. Italian has this as well

(though in italian the pronounciation is much

much closer to what is written than, say, in

French), as does English.

04-17-2010, 01:49 PM #7

maqsood hasni

Are you suggesting replacing the phoneme

"sheen" with a unique character in the English

language?

Yes, I suggest letter shes (s) rather than

combination sh maybe adjuested in english

alphabet because this combination has more

than 7 sounds that make confussion in

pronunciation, especially for none-natives.

04-18-2010, 02:12 PM

Languages are by the man and for the man

It's a common and open fact that every

language sounds and words are getting effect

from local and forigen languages . But each

language has its own style, word's culture,

language speaking, listening and writing

system, grammar, sentence requirements, the

speaker's attitude, flexsibility in form of

organs, its people's behaviour, needs of socity,

the economic situation and the circle and

social relations. These facts and and many

other references are most effective helper to

invent new sounds and words with the help

of imported words from other languages. If

these sounds and words will follow the rules

of that language then these words or sounds

will have got room in that language or tounge

otherwise they will not have space/place in

that language. During this process something

new take place in that language. For example:

1 - The worlds can not be written in Roman

characters with the za'ay Farsi (ژ).

To resolve this matter, compound/substitute

sounds j/g/y/ion will be used

i.e. mijgaan/miya/mijda/television/decsion

2 - Which language is governed other

languages spoken words can be converted

that

the language sounds available from its own

alphabet sounds rather than the

original speech sounds. For ready reference

please see these examples:

( ظ, ض, ز , ذ (Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Punjabi

Saraeki. Pothohari, Gojri etc.) reads:

zikr ذ ذکر

zaria ذریعہ

arzaan ز ارزاں

namaz نماز

zaeef ض ضعیف

arz عرض

zalim ظ ظالم

zarf ظرف

kamisan (wife) camizn insted of camisan

nozomi (Wish) nozomi, insted of nosomi

oozora (Heaven) oozora insted of oosora

3 - Where the sounds are not available there

substitute sounds can be used.

For reference check out these examples:

talwaar ت تلوار

tarbooz تربوز

aaru/aadu ڑ آڑو

rairi/raidi ریڑی

4 - Words get associated with that language.

See these examples:

a. advice advice laina, advice karna, advice

hona etc.

bound bound karna, bound hona, bound

nikalna etc.

care care karna, care hona, care daina etc.

b. vote votroon, votaan, votraan, votain etc.

sport spotraan, spotoon, spotain etc.

c. mintue mint'mar

5 - Sigular plural and sexual identity are lost:

* word media is used sigular in Urdu, Punjabi

saraeki, Gojra, Barahvi, Gujrati,

Pothohari, Pakhto etc.

* these words: hoor, ahwal, asami, oqaat are

prural in Arabic but are used singular in

many languages of the sub-continent.

* Firdoos is a Persian word. It is fimine in

Punjab, but oposist sex in Sarhad.

6 - In the new language the words often fail

to remain their meanings. ie. sex animal

glass, jaloos, etc. have not used in their

orignal meaning in Urdu, Punjabi etc.

As these examples I can present here

hundreds. These six examples are enough to

demonstrate that words and sounds can not

keep their forms and meanings in orignal in

other languages. Like many other languages,

English have taken hundreds of words and

sounds from other languages. English words

and sounds have not taken themself to

remain in the orignal sounds, forms or

meanings. After migration in this language

we can not identify their oriban. If the new

language to meet the sustitute sounds then

what need to deliver through composed

migirated sounds?!

Hundreds words started by ch and provide

sound kaaf (k). I think this is not fair because

ch is composed at a time many sounds. For

example:

ch sh ش sheen shes s nietzoche cliche, Fitch,

charade, chauvanism

Khay ch خ kh Munch, Zelicha (qibti)

Chay ch چ chest, chair, Chester

ch kaaf K ک chemical kemi kl

chemist ke mist

chiasma ki az'ma

chiasmus ki az'mas

chimeric ka merik

chlorophyl klo ra fil

chrismal kriz'ml

christ krist

chrome krom

chronic karonik

chromite kromit

chroma kroma

These words get start by compound ch and

are providing sound k. These words are

almost came from the greek. Here my goal is

depending on three things:

1 - The English alphabet has its own

registered alphabet letter k. What it need to

start these words by ch. While this thing was

decided that English is a language

with its own identity. Because to start

migrate words with their original style rules

and

linguistics established. The compound ch that

give sound k (kaaf) canbe written by

letter k.

2- chrismal kriz'ml

chiasmus ki az'mas

reason rezan

season seazan

treason treazan

prose proz

rose roz

pose poz

nose noz

hose hoz

lose loz

resume rezum

resist rezist

cosy cozi

misery mizeri

In many words sound s is giving sound z what

need to write it with s why not with z? Many

words are available in English, which are

providing their orignal sound s (س-seen).

Please see these words:

Dose dos

Loose loos

Noose noos

Goose goos

3 - The third point is that some words end

with e and this aditional e has no function

in a word. For example look at these words:

resume, Dose, loose, prose, pink, pose, nose,

hose, lose, chromium, chromite

I think after removing this extra e, no bad

effect can be seen at any stage.

Of course this argument can not easily

diagest and a book written logic that are

different from the language of the street.

My opion is that this place to get all the

writings in the books of the street and all the

writings are on the road but not above or

below ground.

04-18-2010, 09:06 PM

WuWei

What you are basically suggesting is to

artificially drag the written standard of a

language to the same level of its oral

standards. It can't be done. Written and

spoken language have differents diachronic

developments.

Written language DOES tend to slowly

change towards the current standards of

spoken language, but it takes A LOT of time.

There is no institution to decide this, at least

not for the English languague. It's just history

taking its course, as I said before. That is why

spelling thru instead of through will become

increasingly acceptable, but spelling kristmas

probably won't.

Also, you have to consider that the less

common a word is, the harder it is to modify

its spelling. Intellectual words which are

rarely used in spoken language tend to me

MUCH more conservative than common

words. That is why the words which come

from greek will probably take a lot of time to

change their spelling, if they ever do.

Chiasmus is simply not common enough to be

altered in everyday use. "Thru" is.

Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

04-18-2010, 09:32 PM #10

OrphanPip OrphanPip is offline

Dance Magic Dance

OrphanPip's Avatar Join Date

Oct 2009

Location

Kuala Lumpur but from Canada

Posts

4,063

Blog Entries

25

Send a message via MSN to OrphanPip

Not to mention dialectical differences in the

English language.

Like the different in pronunciation of vowels

before the letter "r" between Canadians and

Americans. e.g. for sorrow, Canadian "soro"

and American "saro."

It would be impossible to create a phonetic

English alphabet that addressed all English

language dialects.

Last edited by OrphanPip; 04-18-2010 at

09:40 PM.

"If the national mental illness of the United

States is megalomania, that of Canada is

paranoid schizophrenia."

- Margaret Atwood

Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

04-19-2010, 07:56 AM #11

Madame X Madame X is offline

Registered User

Join Date

Apr 2009

Location

The Netherlands

Posts

146

Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View

Post

Not to mention dialectical differences in the

English language.

Like the different in pronunciation of vowels

before the letter "r" between Canadians and

Americans. e.g. for sorrow, Canadian "soro"

and American "saro."

It would be impossible to create a phonetic

English alphabet that addressed all English

language dialects.

Nonetheless, both Benjamin Franklin and

George Bernard Shaw (through a decree in

his will at least), among others, made valiant

attempts to rectify this messy concatenation

of Latinate letters known as English. Through,

Bendhamin Franklinz fonetik alfabet, and

Shavian, respectively. Although I’m not sure

how necessary such proposed reforms are

since a great many -even educated- native

speakers seem to prefer their own particular

orthographic arrangements when writing

anyway. Just look at your average email.

04-19-2010, 04:05 PM #12

Wilde woman

Location

grad school in upstate NY

What you are basically suggesting is to

artificially drag the written standard of a

language to the same level of its oral

standards. It can't be done. Written and

spoken language have differents diachronic

developments.

Agreed.

You simply cannot change a language to

accommodate the needs of one segment of

the speaking population. Even France, with its

ultra-conservative Academie Francaise, has

not completely succeeded in keeping its

language "pure", because there is no such

thing. Through its contact with

English-speaking countries, French (like many

other languages) has become increasingly

Anglicanized.

Maybe the changes you describe will occur in

English if the US and England have

increasingly open contact with Middle

Eastern countries. But it is highly unlikely

because English simply does not have some of

the phonemes you describe. It's not natural

for English speakers to voice those sounds. So

even if English-speaking countries have

extended exposure to Middle Eastern

languages, it is more likely than not that the

language will reject assimilating those

phonemes which don't occur naturally in

English.

It's not unheard-of for people to try

systematically to change their languages. But

language has a mind of its own and it is

always a crapshoot to see whether or not the

majority of language speakers will accept a a

new word, much less a new spelling of an

established word.

I read something recently from Umberto Eco

which illustrates this point perfectly. He

speaks about the development of the Italian

language and different parties' efforts (and

failure) to forcefully and systematically effect

change in the language:

By definition language goes its own way; no

decree from on high, emanating either from

politicians or from the academy, can stop its

progress and divert it towards situations that

they claim are for the best. The Fascists tried

to make Italians say mescita instead of bar,

coda di gallo instead of cocktail, rete instead

of goal, auto pubblica instead of taxi, and our

language paid no attention. Then it suggested

a lexical monstrosity, an unacceptable

archaism like autista instead of chauffeur,

and the language accepted it. Maybe because

it avoided a sound unknown to Italian. It kept

taxi, but gradually, at least in the spoken

language, turned this into tassi.

He continues his discussion by talking about

at least one person who was successful in

transforming the Italian language - Dante -

but cautions that even his vernacular took

centuries to really take hold. Since then,

other attempts (the Fascists' and the

futurists') to change the Italian lexicon have

either failed or have had only piecemeal

success. The point is, you cannot predict,

much less control, how a language evolves.

I'll get off my soapbox now. Anyone for a

"coda di gallo"?

04-19-2010, 05:39 PM

WuWei

As an italian native speaker, I can assure you

that not one person in any given town in

Italy would understand "coda di gallo"

The sometimes ridiculous attempts at altering

the language made by the Fascists have been

made fun of over and over and they're a

pretty good example of how you simply

cannot tamper with the stuff people say

everyday.

But, while we are at it, it's also interesting to

say that some of the linguists who worked at

this bizarre project were nothing short of

geniuses and sometimes came up with pretty

inventive solutions that stuck with the

language (a spectacular example is the word

"tramezzino" which replaced "sandwich" in

everyday use and has become absolutely

common ever since).

Gabriele D'Annunzio himself was not

surprisingly involved in this and is responsible

for some of the most creative words which

were introduced into italian at the time.

A lot of italian intellectuals were in favor of

this "italianizations", since a movement called

"Purism" had existed in linguistics for

centuries, advocating a ban on all foreign

words. If you're interested in that debate,

there's a wonderful essay by Melchiorre

Cesarotti (poet, translator and essayist in the

late 18th century) about it.

04-20-2010, 12:36 PM

Annamariah Location

Helsinki, Finland

Haha. If only all languages were like Finnish

(written phonemically), then there would be

no use for this discussion. Even the differences

in our dialects can be spelled out - a text

written in "literary language" (as opposed to

colloquial language - Finnish has a standard

"literary language" that is used in formal

situations) is read aloud pretty much the

same by everyone. Our dialects differ from

each other mostly in vocabulary and

inflecting words, not in pronunciation per se.

04-20-2010,

Location

Kuala Lumpur but from Canada

Sometimes the government can succeed in

forcing the use of a couple words.

Here in Quebec they managed in a few years

to cast out the anglicizations computer and

email to replace them with ordinateur and

courriel.

The regis du langue francaise has legal power

to enforce word use in Quebec though You

can be fined for using English on signs.

"If the national mental illness of the United

States is megalomania, that of Canada is

paranoid schizophrenia."

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?52190-Sound-sheen-is-very-c

ommen-in-the-world-languages&s=ce6908b6e06f4c301ac84f97713b5469

An interesting talk over language sounds

maqsood hasni

Abuzar Barqi kutab'khana

Oct.2016