Fantasy In Ety Mol (on theme of genders and sexes)


(on theme of genders and sexes)

Chris MYRSKI, 2018

This is belletristic work, and rather etymological essay, but it, still, can be taken as libretto for a musical piece with one introductory and 5 other movements, namely:

0. adagio, lento, asessuale;
1. andante assai cantabile;
2. rondo mirabilmente giocoso;
3. allegro vivace e sessuale;
4. larghetto pensoso e melodioso;
5. finale burlescamente furioso.

     [ Remark: Because on this site is impossible to perform more complicated formating of the text I use ↑i for upper index (and for powers) and ↓i for lower (e.g. A↓1↑2), what isn′t very beautiful but can be read. ]


     This is an etymological and educational paper, but written in a frivolous and funny manner, discussing the grammatical genders, some forms related with them, the sexes, the very sexual organs and other similar notions, as well also some philosophical observations about the sexes, interesting ideas which various nations keep in their heads related with the sexes. It was intended to be relatively moderate in its volume, but turned to be decently big, because of the wholeness of the nature, and uses quite indecent words, because such is the life.

0. Introductory remarks

     There is nothing new under the Sun, except the form of the old things, and here and there some new details, you know this, I suppose. Still, the form can be something pretty catching (the eye) sometimes, and the details quite often make the dance. With what I mean that I have explained almost everything in my enormous "Urrh" (cum commentis), then I have for a second time given expression of my unique — you bet it — ideas in my "Letters" (to the posterity), but the good thing of well designed work is that when new ideas arise they fit well in the picture, they don′t reject the core but enrich it — and my ideas are thought through, I at least am convinced in this. Besides, nobody reads me thorough, and new details really arise by me (on the border between dream and reality, when I am awakening but not entirely). So that I thought there will be nothing bad if I write a kind of essay on the theme of genders and sexes.
     The plan of narration will be roughly the following. In this beginning "movement" I will provide you with some basics for the further points making you familiar with the way I will give all foreign words, because the English language is nearly the worst of all other langs (and I will begin also to make some shortenings of often repeated words). I have begun to give a thought or two to the way for writing of all words (in all langs) in the way how they are to be pronounced before more than a decade; I will give this pronunciation in single quotes (when there are, anyway, two kinds of quotes) and the double ones will mean literal quoting, how something is written. Yet my early ideas concerned a world-wide alphabet, while here I will use one later idea of mine, the so named "Myrski′s English Transliteration" (METr), for using the old Lat. (for Latin; like also, say, Fr. for French, Eng. for English, Sl. for Slavonic, Bul. for Bulgarian, Skr. for Sanskrit, etc.) alph. (for alphabet), and surely not only for the Eng. lang.
     Then in the second movement, which has number 1, I will dwell about the grammatical genders, what is good and bad in them, and how they have to be used if we want to approach the things logically. These are pretty interesting observations, especially on the background of Eng. lang., which has tried to make a good step forward but has done a pair of wrong ones backward. In the next movement I will add smt. (for something, I, at least, use this word pretty often) about the fem. and masc. (obvious shortenings) beings, which theme I will treat in more details in the part number 4; here will be focused chiefly on the pronouns, diminutives and some words for fem. professions, which reveal unexpected funny (not to say cynical) ideas. In the part number 3 I will explain (again, yeah, after my cited above books) the various sexual organs in various (several) langs, where are hidden quite interesting ideas, which are piquant enough to be mentioned again, having in mind that are mostly unknown (being chiefly my guesses). In the fifth movement (with number 4) I will make some philosophical observations about both sexes, which are, for one thing, too simple to be subject of deep scientific researches, but, for another thing, too important to be known by everybody, what they are not. And in the last part I will share with you my recent guesses in the old man- root (or syl. for syllable) where appear some funny moment, suitable for the final accords of this my Fantasy, which will make you not to forget this "music" and want to hear /read it from time to time again.
     Now, what is the basic idea in the cited METr? Well, I am from Bulgaria, and I have in mind our perfect — I explain this ideas in the small folder "For the Arabs" (Dear reader, its for you Arab, Chinese, or Hindu!, what I can name here as FAr) — Bul. lang., but my ideas are usually universal. So what I mean is that there are exactly 6 basic vowels (V.), namely: ′a′, ′e′, ′i′, ′o′, ′u′, "y", where the latter is pronounced like in Eng. "girl" (or "bird", but not "but", where the sound is similar yet not the same)! You see, this is very old sound, present in all ancient and East. langs, in Skr., Per., (or Av. for Avestan), Tur., etc., also (as I have just given example with the Eng.) in the West. ones (in Ger., too, they pronounce, e.g., der Lehrer-teacher as ′lehry′), it exists as char. in Sl. alph., but only the Bul-ns write it and read it properly. Because of this it is better to consider the ′y′ sound as Bul. "i" (or i-Bul) like "y" is the Gr. "i" (or i-Greko). So maybe this is the "cap-stone" of this my proposition.
     There has to be added that C. is a consonant, M. is a modifier, what means that this modifies the previous (and only the previous and only one) letter (like "h" in the traditional "sh" read as ′sh′ — if you make the difference, because the Ger-s use "sch" to read ′sh′, and also "tsch" to read ′ch′, what in Eng. is again "ch" ). Then there has to be said that there are (according to me, that′s it) 3 kinds of Vs or Cs, namely: basic, modified (like the traditional "ae" from Lat. times, like in "man", what in Ger. is done with the use of umlaut, 2 points above the letter), and combined (what are chiefly the diphthongs, ′ai′, Fr. ′uo′, Eng. ′iy′, etc.). There is a difference between M. Vs or diphthongs but without using indexing it can′t be seen, yet it is expected that this is clear from the lang. This sounds difficult (and it is, I alone forget smt. sometimes) but you will not need much precision in order to read relatively good the given words, you′ll see this, yet for greater exactness I copy below some paragraphs from this METr (which will chiefly repeat the more important moment that I have just explained, but this repetition is not unwished).
     Firstly the Latin (Lat. for short) alphabet is purified using each letter for only one sound, what means that "c" becomes ′c′ and ′k′, "g" becomes ′g′ and ′zh′, "y" is freed (with using of the "i"), as also "q" (substituted with the ′k′), "x" (changed to ′ks′), and "w" (it isn′t used in the Lat.). In addition are introduced "h" and "j" as modifiers (M. /Ms), where "h" is M. for the vowels (Vs), used for prolongation (to 1.5 sounds approximately), and also for consonants (Cs), used to harden their sounding (like ′th′, ′gh′, etc.), and "j" is M. for Vs, used to build diphthongs (shorten to diph., usually written as "ai" or "io" etc.), and of Cs, used for softening of their sounding (like in the Sp. for Spanish canon); when there is a necessity to write "h" as readable char then ′hh′ is to be used (if in the given lang. for language may arise confusion). As you have seen, the double quotes are used for direct quotation of chars, and the single ones for this new transliteration, and in this manner it also shows how the chars are to be pronounced.
     Then is introduced one new basic V., in addition to the usual "a", "e", "i", "o", and "u", which is coded with "y" and sounds like in Eng. (for English) "girl". In addition to the basic Vs we may have also Md (for modified) what means that one begins to tell one sound but ends with saying another one; examples for this are: the Lat. "ae" (like in "back") and "oe" (used mainly in the Fr. for French), but also many others, like: ′ya′ as in "but", "yi" (this is Rus. for Russian eri, as in myi-we etc.), Fr. ′uo′, ′io′, Fr. and Rus. etc. ′ie′, and whatever you want; mark though that here can′t be used "j" bc. it isn′t V. Then there can be also diphs, mainly with "j", like ′jo′, ′ja′, aj′, uj′, etc. (the examples are obvious and in other langs they are usually written using "i"), but also how one wishes, like in: ′iy′ (as in ′niy′-near), ′aey′ (as in ′paey′-pear), ′ou′, ′au′, etc.; there can be triphthongs, too, like ′auy′ (as in ′tauy′-tower), ′aiy′, etc., but they are better to be thought as two syllables (like in Ger. for German ′bau|y′-Bauer). As the basic, so also the Md Vs, as well as the diphs, can be prolonged adding "h" after them (like in ′gyhl′-girl, ′fah′-far, ′suhn′-soon, ′mjuhzik′-music′, etc.). If one wants to make the way of combining the Vs indisputable one has to use subscripts for the Md Vs (like in ′by↓at′-but, ′bla↓ek′-black, ′my↓i′-Rus.-we, ′pa↓ey′-pear, etc.), and /or superscripts for the diphs (like in ′bo↑j′-boy, Ger. name ′↑Johanes′, ′gr↑ou′-grow, ′t↑aun′-town, ′t↑auy′-tower, etc.), and /or put between the Cs "|" or "-" to signify that they are not to be joined (say, like in Lat. pi|ano), but usually this is rarely necessary because every lang. permits, either simple combining of Vs read separately, or modifying or making of diphs.
     As to the Cs, there are used all usual ones, with the following remarks: ′c′ is like in Caesar, or Ger. Zahn-toot), "h" is written like ′hh′ when read (with exception of beginning but still somehow read "h" like in Ger. ′haben′-haben-have), "k" is ′k′, hence "ck" is ′kk′, "q" is written with ′k′, "r" may be sometimes given as ′rh′ or even ′rj′ (but if it is equally read in the given lang. only ′r′ suffices), "v" is ′v′ (so Ger. "w" is changed to ′v′), the Eng. "w" is written as ′vh′, "x" is ′ks′, ′z′ is like in "zero", then ′sh′ is like in "shop", ′ch′ is like in "church, ′zh′ is like in "measure" or Fr. jour-day, ′th′ and ′dh′ are the same like in the Eng., "ph" is not used in new langs and changed to ′f′, in some langs may be met also ′bh′, ′gh′, etc., the Eng. "j" is ′dzh′, and is added usage of "j" as softening sign after the Cs (like in Sp. ′kanj|on′).
     So that is it. Don′t forget that this is method for writing of the words how they are read, so that if there are several ways for writing of one phoneme then confusions may happen, the responsibility for which take the very lang. It is lang. specific, but except of this it is still universal for every lang., and the Lat. alphabet is well known. Well, use it better, that is what I propose here.

1. What tell us the genders?

     Now let us change the leitmotiv and give a thought to the genders, because they are necessary, one should not take the Eng. example as right, when it isn′t. The Eng. lang., I am sorry to tell this to people having spoken it from the very cradle, an uneducated mixture of Ger. and Fr., by which the Ger. was simplified somehow (and because of this the Ger-ns speak pretty decent Eng., they have nearly no problems with it, only the C. "w" is for them a bit difficult to master), but from the Fr. they have taken the worst, and have even worsened it (and because of this the Fr. people can′t speak good Eng., like also vice versa). The genders are necessary because in this way can be used pronouns, what quite often simplifies the expressions, and the worst thing is when they, the genders, can′t be guessed and are not obvious (not like, say, that Sl. ′papa′-father, or Roman pope, is masc., what everybody understands). And they have to be 3, not 2, how all Lat. people (i.e. Fr-ns, It-ns, etc.) now think, because there are a heap of neutral things; more than this, I would propose the existence of 4 (four) genders (what I have hinted in my FAr, in the paper "Down with the English (lang.)") namely: m. and f. (this shortening is even shorter, right?), n. (for unanimated neutrum), and, let us mark this new gender as l., for living things, but when the gender is not important or not known (say, of a moth).
     Continuing in this mode I can propose you new definite articles, a bit a la Italian manner, but not entirely — because in a fantasy everything is possible —, namely: il (man), la (madam), lo (tree, land, food, etc., for which words is not necessary to have genders), le (bug, or dog if the sex is unknown, or person or baby or chick, but when the sex is not important), and then also li for plural in all cases. Such genders does not exist (because in It. lo is also for m., and in Ger. they have their der for m., die for f., and das for n.), then the Rus-ns have no articles at all (!), and in Bul. the situation is pretty simplified, and there can be other variants, but this proposition of mine may turn to be much useful here (and generally), especially the forms il, la, lo (and the letter "l" is more suitable to use than "t" or "d").
     So the genders give some "colour" to the objects, they express the way we accept the world and the things around us; this can be obsolete now, but if the gender can be easily guessed this is a good thing. And the situation is such in the Bul., surely, where what noun ends on C. is m., what ends on –a (generally) is f., and on –o or –e is n., with very few exceptions. This is so also in the Rus. but up to some point, there is their soft sign, marked here in the ends of the words with "j", which sometimes — I would rather shorten this too, to smm. — is m., but smm. is f. (when meant as smt. soft); for this reason there exist one quite extraordinary exception in Bul. with the word ′vecher′-evening (I have unexpectedly come to this), which is usually f. (when we say, e.g., that this is a nice evening), but when we wish somebody to have a nice evening it turns out to be m.! And I am telling you this not because you have to know Bul. lang. (though it is worth a try, I′ll tell you — if you find time you better cast a look at this folder about the Arabs, FAr), but because it is not clear of what gender it has to be, i.e. there are reasons for m. and for f., where the right way must have been n., yet it isn′t. The evening is when the Sun comes down, it as if lies to sleep, and we also lie (not only to sleep but to do some things that are done in the nights, though there′s nothing bad if you do it also in the morning, providing you have with whom to do it), and it is somehow subordinate to the day, and it is so in It. (la sera), but in Ger. it is m. (der Abend), no matter that the night is she (die Nacht), also in It. (la notte — what is so, if you ask me, because it is smt. no, negation of the day).
     The ideas hidden behind the words as nouns are almost irradicable and often interesting. And there are, roughly speaking, two ways to treating the genders, either to guess them from the end of the noun — what is so, as a rule, also in It, there masc. nouns end usually on –o ( il cielo-sky, il ragazzo-boy, etc), and in pl. the end is changed to –i, and the fem. words end on –a (la palla-ball, la tavola-table, etc.), and in pl. the end becomes –e —, or to keep in your head some picture for every noun, which smm. turns to be pretty twisted. Here I usually give as example Ger. il-der Loffel-spoon (and "o" has to be read modified as ′o↓e′, i.e. ′lo↓effel′, though you can as well read it as diphthong, ′l↑joffel′) and la-die Gabel-fork (f.), but the ending is simply one and the same. In Bul. (here similarly also in Rus.) they are ′lyzhica′ & ′vilica′ and are both fem. Now, this is interesting, because I would have thought that the spoon has to be she because it is a kind of hole, orifice, and the fork has spikes, this is masc. attribute, but the Ger-ns think otherwise. And it turns out that the same approach have the It-ns, for whom the spoon is il cucchiaio ′kukkia↑jo′, while the fork is la forca (rather forchetta, ′forketta′), so that what can be the idea, here, ah?
     You see, with this parallel also in It., it has to be clear that the fork is smt. nice, elegant (their word is even diminutive derivative, on -etta), while the spoon is smt. curved, wrong, some cuca or coca, yet this is pretty complicated for everybody, I think. But it has to be so, and the general rule for the Ger-ns is: if you find (and you have to find this so, if are well-bred) the thing in question nice and beautiful, then it has to be fem., else it is masc., and in some cases neutrum! Because of this the … Sun is she for them, but there are many many variants, this is not really so simple and I will not indulge in more explanations, yet can add that in some cases it is interesting to use m. and f. for one and the same thing, expressing some additional ideas, like the It-ns, for whom the day is il giorno (read ′dzhorno′, what is because the sun shines too strong, it ′zhuri′ /′prezhurja′ in Bul., if you ask me), but they don′t object to call it smm. la giornata (when they like it, I suppose, but maybe also when are angry at it and want to curse it, I can′t vouch here). And such nuances are entirely impossible in the notorious Eng.
     OK, but I can change the example, I can "bite" in another idea, in imagining … the power or strength to be a femme, as if a goddess! I have come to digging around this idea again starting from one Bul. peculiarity, where our word for power is ′sila′ but also ′mosht′ (′moshchj′ in Rus., and this ′shch′ is 1 letter there), and the 1st is obviously f., but the 2nd has to be m. according to all rules only that it isn′t, it is f., too. And the disappointing moment for me (as a guy, who is rich with ideas) is that here the only solution is as if simply to abandon this word, together with our ′moshtnost′ meaning the same and also f., and to use only ′sila′, because it just does not sound good to say la ′moshta′ or ′moshtnosta′ (although the situation is the same with our ′nosht′-night, which also ends on C. but is, still, fem.).
     ( The bad things are exacerbated also because — this is an interesting moment and unique, there has to be no other contemporary language with such things in it, so that you pay a bit of attention to this —, so because we put the definite articles at the end of the words and glued with the word! By these rules instead of il ′stol′-chair-or-stool we say ′stola′ or ′stolyt′, and adding article to the f. ′masa′-table we say ′masata′; what means that now we say ′moshtta′ and ′noshtta′, what sounds good, but if we want to make them with f. endings we would have said ′m`oshta – m`oshtata′, resp. ′n`oshta – n`oshtata′, what sounds pretty funny for me. Even using il ′mosht′ – ′moshtyt′ and ′nosht′ – ′noshtyt′, to say nothing about il ′moshtnost′ – ′moshtnostyt′, does not solve the problem. ) Yeah, but the It-ns have their la mano-hand, which seams to be m. but is f., as well also il sistema-system, where everything is reversed, and they could have easily used il mano & la sistema, or then on the contrary, changing the endings and building la mana & il sistemo (because they can never never have a noun ending on C., they would have preferred to die but not to spoil their melodious lang. with such monstrosity), in which way they would have not at all ruined their appetite. Yet they don′t do this, what is one of the proofs that the Bul. lang. is better than the It.!
     But let me continue with the fem. power, where in Ger. we have la Macht or la Kraft, also la Mut as courage (which word I can′t avoid to correlate with their Mutter-mother, with some questionable ideas); then in It. we have la forza and il potere meaning the same force or power, so that this is not a mere coincidence. And there are also the goddesses, and let me tell you that the old Skr. word deva means not the same like Lat. diva-beauty but god (like Vishnu deva), yet the relation between the god and the beauty, hence the woman, is unmistakable. So that what are the ideas here? Ah, it has to be, in two words, that we, the men, like to deify the women, that if they are not really strong we are glad to take them for such, to defend them, to believe in their (at least moral) strength, and this is exactly because the women are not like the men, they are different, if they were equal with us we would have not honoured them, we would have fought and competed with them, that′s it! Or that is how it was before the emancipation, so that I will advise my female readers to give a thought about what they have already lost with their unquestionably silly behaviour.
     I can add to this also that for the Ger. Frau-woman is said that this word comes from some Scan. (Icelandic) Goddess Freyia, which as a deity is also frei-free (to wish or to command etc.)! In short, there is a deep sense in fem. nature of the power, at least smm., or as wished thing, and there is also the old Greek goddess Sofia (like my town) which is wise and, still, soft, mark this (because there are not much words on sof-, or here is It. soffiare-to-blow, like a wind or whiff). Also, if you have not though about this, let me turn your attention to the fem gender of the … other one, of the very word "person", which in Ger. is la Person and in It. is la persona (and you have to have heard the Lat. phrase persona non grata as unwished person), what means that we honour him or her not like god but like goddess!
     And what else can the Slavs tell us about the power, in addition to la ′sila′ and la ′moshchj′ being fem.? Well, I have though about this long ago, and the ′sila′ I relate with some old root ′sil-′ like in the syllable (which is Gr.), Fr. sillage-speed-or-velocity, with It. /Lat. silva-wood, the silicates etc. Then the ′moshchj′ /′mosht′ surely is from the old cluster of might /Ger. mogen /old Moguls-Mongols /the magic /etc, but here comes in play …, ha, ha, the piss, which is ′moch`a′ in Rus, and ′mochitj′ is to moisten! This is a funny thing and I suppose that here is meant something of the kind of this fairy tale (at least we have it) where some brave guy squeezed as if some stone but factually a piece of … white cheese, and it left drops of water. Or if not this, then that smt. flows like a stream of water, meant as pissing; or then you propose some other explanation. Yet have in mind that I have heard the sentence of Chehov that, if in the first act of a play on a wall is hanging a gun, then it has to shoot till the end of the piece, so that I will come in the end to this special masc. part called dick, if one wants to be decent. Id est, the power can as well be hidden in this organ, and be fem. because this is, still, some water.

2. Pronouns, diminutives and words for women

     OK, but, as I mentioned it, there are the pronouns to substitute for some nouns, and they also carry some ideas in them, in various langs, and there are also the diminutives, which are missing only in the poor Eng. lang., but otherwise exist and also can tell us smt., if we can read this, and there are the ways for building of fem. starting from masc. noun or profession, so that I will dwell a bit (what here means a pair of paragraphs) on this. Let us take first the pronouns in focus, which are partly similar (if one can grasp the common ideas). The 1st person sing. is some cry as sign of exhibition, like: Rus. ′ja′, Bul. ′az′, Ger. ich (′ihh′), It. io, your (Eng.) ′aj′, and others. The 2nd person sing. is some hitting on the breast of the companion, like: your "you", Ger, du, It. tu, Rus. ′ty↓i′. etc., although there is the same syl. used for other persons (say, Gr. ′ton′ is his, and Bul. ′toj′ is he /′tja′ is she), and so on. More interesting for us are the 3rd persons with some sexual ideas, like Ger. er-he and It. egli-he (read ′elji′), where one has to account also for the near equality of the letters ′r′ and ′l′, so that these are people with smt. … errected (or, then, elected, what surely are words-twins).
     Then for "she" we have Ger. sie (′zih′) and It. essa, and here are mixed 2 ideas, that of the snake — the Gr. letter sigma is obviously a picture of curled snake —, and also of some hole, orifice, like the … sea (Ger. la See, read ′zee′, as sea, or il See as lake), that can be seen (sehen in Ger.), where is also, I suppose, Ger. Seele-soul (because it usually comes out of the body after some deep wound, or then comes out through the mouth, these are obvious beliefs). Then there is also the strange Eng. "her", which has nothing in common with "she", neither with Ger. ihr-her, and sounds as suspicious doubting, ′hym′ or hmm; but the Ger-ns are polite people, there is excuse for them, because there sie means also "they" (Sie, because the woman gives birth to the children, she makes the Sie), and Ihr is also "your", and this is similar to their Ehre-honour (and the Ehe-marriage!), while there is no excuse for these Eng. implications (like also for the Miss & Missis and the verb to miss, right?). So that I am convinced that the pronouns also say smt. about the women; and if in Ger. or It., etc. there are 3 to 4 ways for expressing of politeness, in the Eng. there is not accepted even to write You with capital letter, and one addresses the King or President or the dear God in the same way as he or she addresses some urchin or whore, but this goes a bit aside from the sexual theme, so that I will cease with this digression aside.
     Mark, though, that in the Sl. langs is nothing funny or indecent with the personal pronouns. Yet there is smt. with the diminutives. For example, the Rus-ns make from their il ′stul′-chair the word ′stuljchik′ as little stool, and in Bul, this will be ′stolche′ (also ′kolche′-small-stick, ′virche′-small-pond, ′uroche′-snall-lesson, etc.); where for fem. words the suffix in Rus. is –ka (say ′luzhajka′-small-lawn, ′dochka′-little-daughter, etc.), what in Bul. is usually –′chka′ (like ′rychichka′-small-hand, ′trevichka′-little-grass, but also ′poljanka′-small-lawn). Now, the people speaking the lang. don′t think about these things, but I am, hmm, enlightened person, and I have thought, and the old predecessors, when the words were built or taken from other langs, have also thought about this. So the point is that this ′chi′ /′chik′ /′ichka′ is old East. root for some … chip or chunk (and from this you can see that the Eng. have somehow preserved some old, probably Hindu, words and sounds; even the very … letter "w" does not exist in Ger. or Lat. etc., but has existed some millenniums back). And I mean here the Tur. (which has to be also Ar. or Per.) ′chuk′, which exists in Bul. as a hammer, but in the Tur. it means also … ha, ha (or ho, ho, but not ′hi, hi′), the penis; more then this we have in Bul-a the as if usual word ′zelenchuk′ meaning a vegetable, which is not Sl. (for in Rus. it is ′ovoshch′), but ′zelen′ is green, so that this is some green "chunk" or "lump" (where the mentioned "dick" is usually red, but if it is green, then nearly everybody can put it in his mouth, right?).
     Then –′ichka′ rhymes perfectly with our ′pichka′ what is fem. from Ar. ′pich′ (where stays also Lat. picem-tar, and Eng. pitch, and our ′pich′, to which I suppose to return later), what is, with my excuses, the fem. sexual organ, and, resp., a slut. Or then –′ica′ rhymes with ′cica′, what is Ger. Zitze or your tit, and this is the way to build fem from masc. in Rus. — e.g.: la ′rabotnica′-she-worker, la ′uchenica′-school-girl, which words in Bul. are built with –′ichka′ (here ′rabotnichka′ and ′uchenichka′), so that we move in a circle, we can′t exit out of some sexual associations. But if you think that such moments happen only with the Slavs, then you are, surely, wrong (and don′t forget also that I am citing world-wide spread roots). Now let us move to the Ger-ns, where they use –chen (′hhen′) and –lein (′lajn′) and don′t make big fuss about the initial gender (say, lo Hauschen, read ′hojsh|hen′ means small house, from their lo Haus, Waldchen is from il Wald-wood, but may be said also Waldlein, Uwelchen or rather Juwelchen is from lo Juwel-jewel, etc.). Yeah, but if you try to read this –chen as ′chen′ (and I use one, more or less, obvious transliteration) then this is the same East. ′chuk′-chip; and in addition ′chlen′ in Sl. (Rus., Bul., etc.) is this time the masc. sexual organ. Then their -lein can be smt. nice and shining, and there is the spread Scan. suffix –leinen, but for a Bul-n I can not miss to mention here our Gypsy ′lajno′ what is ... faeces, yet not of the kind of the dung or Ger. Schei?e-sh#t (what is some … shooting), but as smt. sleecky or slimy (like Rus. ′sljakotj′-mud, and I hope I am explaining precisely enough).
     Ah, and let us go now to the It-ns, who use as diminutives –ino (like il bambino-small-boy), -etto (like il pezzetto-little-piece, or la casetta-small-house) –ello (like il uccello-little bird), -uccio /-ucci, where as if is nothing indecent, but the professions end on -ore for masc. (toreadore, auttore-author, etc., what is so because of some raised part or the er-being, no matter that er is in Ger., like also their Herr-master), and for fem. on –essa (like poetessa, commessa-saleswoman, etc.) and on -ice (′iche′, like cucitrice-sewing-girl, lavoratrice-she-worker, autrice-she-author, or take the name Beatrice, what is from beato meaning blessed), where in –essa we have this snakish letter, and in -ice this means (for a Bul-n at least) that she has some ′piche′ what is variation of the mentioned ′pichka′, or then, ′ptichka′-chick, what is an usual simile.
     And that this clicking sound often means making of small particles, I can cite Bul. word ′chovek′ or Rus. ′chelovek′ as human being, where I have met etymologies trying to use the syl. ′vek′ (which means a century), but this is over-imaginative, according to me here the roots are also old and East., because the old Sl. word was ′chlovek′ and we still use the words ′cheljad′ as children, posterity, and there is a Tur. ′choluk′ /′chokuk′ exactly as child! If you have some remaining doubts, I can add that there is Bul (also Rus.) ′chesyn′ as garlic and it consists of many cloves or fingers, which can be divided, what is ′chesna′ as verb. This beautiful ′ch′ has become on the West as plain ′c′, yet it may be read smm. as ′ch′ like in It. la citta (′chitt`a′), what is your city, and on top of all this there is Bul. ′ch`eta′ as a band, troop, squad, as well also ′chet`a′-to-read (i.e. to pick, pluck, the letters) so that small chips build big things, and the diminutives are related with some sexual parts that hang like some chicks, and the women are liken with snakes, or with gulfs & chasms, and that all these unnecessary pictures make the "romantic" of life.
     Ah, but there is even smt. more to this, there is Ger – in, yet not as world-wide spread preposition meaning inside, entering in smt., but as suffix, and exactly for building of fem. words from masc., like: la Professorin, la Arbeiterin-she-worker, la Architektin, and on and on, what surely means that somebody (if as er is equipped with some sticking out organ) can enter in sie-her! Well, the Ger-ns will never confess this if asked, but I am more than convinced in it. And, ha, ha, relatively soon (before about a decade) I have come to a similar "entering" idea in the Rus., where there is one obviously incorrect but widely spread expression for "it can′t be", which is not denying (with ′ne′) the possibility (′mozhno′-can), but saying ′neljzja′. Yeah, but before a pair of centuries ′ne mozhno′ was used, what is the right way to put it, yet nowadays they will never-never say so (like the Eng-men will never say "it′s I"), hence there have to be some reasons for this, which they will never confess. ( Like there also are reasons for the Eng. incorrect usage of the pronoun "I" — they, or you, don′t like words with one char., they don′t count them for words, and because of this they write "I" with capital letter, what is an unheard boldness — in no other lang. "I" is written with capital, this would have been utterly uneducated, and the It-ns, for example, write freely i, e, o, a, and would have written also u as whole word, if this has meant smt. for them. ) And what means then the Rus. ′ljzja′? Well, there is not exactly such word, but there is ′lezet′, from the infinitive ′leztj′, meaning: enters, pushes ahead, crawls in a hole, what unquestionably confirms my ideas about the "er" entering into the "sie", or into the being with "-in" at the end.

3. The sexual organs as words

     Ah, I am bored of this matter because have explained it in my Urrh and where not else, but this is necessary here, this is the "salt" of the things. Yet before to begin I want to pose a question to you to think while reading; I am sure that you will never guess this, but, who knows, you can, still, make a try, and I will give you some hint. So the question is: what is the relation between the word sex and the … number six?! There is necessary some mathematical background, but also some philosophical sight at the things. And now let me begin with the masc. organ, what is not much polite to the dames, but the matters are not really decent, so that this reversing might be for the good, and the look at these things is initiated usually from the standpoint of a man, not of a woman. So the word penis is obviously related with Lat. pinus-pine, the pin, pen, etc., even with the … peninsula, which is some isolated "pen" or beak. But the idea for this has to have come from the Gr. … god Pan, who is present everywhere (the pandemias etc.), and in old times men have spoken about the small Pan, which every man has, and the big Pan, the god; from here is said to have come the expression about the … panic fear (imaging some "Pan"-man running after you, swishing his little "Pan", which is not really little — I hope I am explaining well the things, don′t I?).
     Then the phallus is more than obvious of Gr. origin (meaning the letter phi), and my guess is that the very letter phi looks like some phallus, or rather like a flower button, because this is what it is, this organ, some special "button", that when opens erupts some liquid, with which (I suppose) the people centuries back have though that is filled the … perm or sperm whale. Here I mean that when the knowledge was limited the imagination of people was unlimited, like also imagining that the woman breasts were filled with some fat or tallow, because Gr.-Lat. mazos or mastos are the breasts, and ′maslo′ in Bul. is butter or oil, and ′mas′ is grease or ungent (′mazj′ in Rus.). There is also the word phial as some small flask, which is from the phallic root, and also (as I have thought in the last moment) the phallic ideas has to be this, which relates the … physics with the physique! This has to be so because the science is logically to have been built around ′fis′ and ′fut′ roots, or in Eng. fission & fusion, as the two opposing processes of analysis & synthesis (let me not go in more details here), but this is not related with our body; yet if the phallus-button comes in play, then the body can be imagined as some injection of it, that all beings are result of its eruption, what in a way is so, and then the ′fis′ of the science is coincidence because of this syl. and the body growing further, too, from small as if flower button.
     Yeah, but I personally can never go away from the thought that the phallus is also smt. … fallen! This has to be so, because I, as mathematician, have easily calculated that if it stands about 15 min daily, on the average (say, from 15 to 65 years), and if there are about 1500 min in the day (60 * 24 = 1440) then this means that in 99 min from 100 it is fallen, am I right? And it has to be so, because the unexpectedness of its raising is what makes it unique, otherwise it usually looks to the ground. At most I can agree that it is meant that it falls girls down, hence it is the "faller", but the falling is hidden in the root (and even in Bul. we use to say that somebody ′svalja′-falls a girl when courts her).
     Then for the Ger-ns it is usually il Schwanz, what is a tail; for the It-ns it is il uccello-bird, when is not il cazzo, where la cazza means a trowel, so that here some "plastering" is meant. The member, lo Glied in Ger, ′chlen′ (as mentioned) in Sl., is different root, and not so interesting, so that let us move to the Russians. Their "official" word is ′huj′, what I derive from the … exclamation ′oj′ /′aj′ /′uj′ as smt. like your "ouch", i.e. "ah, how big", or smt. of the kind. This may seem not much serious as etymology but it is possible — compare with your whore, what is just a ′ho′ —; on the other hand this can be related with Ar. ′ud′ what is some piece of wood, or wooden musical instrument, and it is used smm. in Rus. books in order to mask the proper word, so that it is somehow known (together with "peaches" used for fem. breasts). Also ′uditj′ in Rus. is to catch fishes, ′udochka′ is a fishing hook, and if you compare with your … "up", the sounding ′ud′ is understandable as when pushing smt. deep into smt. else until this is possible. For such small words can be a heap of meanings and explanations, so that nothing can be absolutely sure. Ah, they use smm. also ′hher′ as phallus, and because this is exactly Ger. Herr-master they call the latter ′ger′, but are these words really related I can′t vouch.
     More interesting is Bul. word (which is also Serbian) ′kur′, from here also ′kurec′, and as diminutive ′kurche′, which is not related with some ′kura′ /′kurochka′ as hen, what is also Czech and Polish, but with Lat. cura-care, and is of old Greek origin. Well, maybe Bul. ′kur′-penis is not exactly Lat. cura (there is used in Rus. also the word ′kurator′ as mentor or manager, which is Lat.), but it is nice to think so because this organ really "heals" many women; the real Gr. origin is the kyrios meaning lord, master, i.e. this is the master of the man! How this word has taken its cynical meaning I don′t know, but this must have been before centuries, and from here is Ger. la Kirche-church. ( You see, the church has to come from the circle, because this figure is the king′s figure, there is the ruler in the center, and around him are all the others, and the churches are usually built spherical, and although ′c′ can become ′ch′ and then ′k′, I think that the direct Gr. origin here is in its right place. ) But there can be other ides mixed, there is this rubbing of ′curs′-corso-course, there is also the … cursing, surely, with the very cur, where some curling has to be meant, forming of some cuca-hooked things, then the dogs usually lie curled in circles and it is said that this explains the Sl. name of the dog as ′kuche′ in Bul., where ′kucha′ in Rus. is a heap, or maybe there comes in play smt. else East., because in Bul-a is known the dialect ′kurdisvam′ of Tur. origin as to put smt. in some narrow snuggy place, to stick it there, and others, but I think that this is enough. And that in Tur. this word is ′chjuk′ (cuk) I have already mentioned, from where is the known also in Bul-a ′chukundur′ (in Tur. ′chukundur′) as some ugly piece of smt. (so to say, a cazzo-like thing), what in Rus. would have been translated as ′hujovina′.
     But the penis goes with some hanging balls, which are called testicles, because with them a man testifies that is a man! One can probably object that the test comes from the ability to do smt. with one′s hands, because il testo in It. is a text, also a pot, the same ′testo′ in Sl. means a dough, but la testa in It. is already a head (surely meant as some mug, as you say, some pottery), then there is the testature /tastature what in Eng is given as dashboard, but la Taste in Ger. is a key (say, of piano), and so on, but, still, il teste in It. is a witness. OK, this might be so, the testicles might be meant as made by the fingers of the … very God, or that the girls like to touch or squeeze them, be it so if you so much want this, but the idea of testifying with them is very strong, and in various Sl. langs even the name of the man is ′myzh′ or ′muzh′ or ′mazh′ what (when I offer this to you in this context) has to be from our ′mozhe′ /′mozhno′ as "may be", i.e. he can do it, can make some girl pregnant. In It., on the other hand, is often used the word il coglione (read ′koljone′) for the same eggs, and as verb cogliere means to pluck or pick, so that maybe the It. girls like to touch (or pull) them, who knows? And this ′mozhno′-can is old cluster and related also with your "much", what in Sp. is mucho, and there is their man macho as real man, so that I an not inventing ideas, they exist. And because the main secondary masc. sexual characteristics are the muscles, let me squeeze here that they are meant from old times as jumping or playing … mice, because mus in Lat. means a mouse (but it is clear that these sound imitations are far away from exact, because a mouse gives rather peeping sounds, not ′muh′, le is not a cow), and an armpit in Rus. is ′podmyishka′ (where ′pod′ is under and ′myishka′ is a mouse).
     Yeah, but more interesting are these pieces in Bul., where they are called ′tashaci′ (′tashak′ as sing.), where I make the obvious relation with Ger. la Tasche (′tashe′) as bag, satchel, pocket; at the same time, though, the same ′tashak′ means smt. funny, a joke — and, really, to show your balls (if you have ones, ′hi, hi′) is funny, isn′t it? I mean that the same has to be idea of old sycophants who sold some fic(k)s /figs /figues-fruits, which could have been also olives, or grapes, or smt. alike. You see, here everything is mixed and twisted because the very form of the leaves plays some role, these might have been the wine plants and leaves, with which one hides or masks his sexual organs, and they are pretty figuratively (hence the word figure!) curved, and then there is Ger. la Feige-fig, but there is also the obvious derivative il Feigling as … coward (maybe because he is afraid to show his "figs", ah?). Then here we enter in the f#cking cluster where is Lat. futuo-to-fertilize, your fitting, Ger. fick-ing as f#cking, etc. etc.; the Rus-ns for their part use quite often ′figovina′ as synonim with ′hujovina′, and you surely know the sign of the fig /figue with 2 fingers and the thumb put between them. In short, the man′s balls are pretty interesting object for investigations, and I will return at the end of this "fantasy" again to them in some other, or in similar, aspect.
     And now it is maybe time to look at the women and their sexual organs (but I hope you have not yet forgotten to think about the relation sex – six, have you?). Here some things are obvious (at least for me) and some are not. The obvious thing is that the well known Fr. putain (′pjuten′), and Bul. — sorry or not but I have to write this —′putka′, or Lat. pudendum, also Ger. la Putte (as figure of an Amour-boy), and other words, have to be related with one Hindu demoness, Putana (′puhtanah′), who was killed by god Krishna, and I suppose for amoral behaviour. You see, the starting point here is the spitting sound (similarly to the whore), but it is accepted and there is also the medical Lat. term praeputium as foreskin (Forhaut in Ger.) meaning exactly this skinny thing that stays before the putta-vagina when some er enters in it (what is interesting observation of the ancient physicians, because this part is not of the putta but of the penis). Here are really many many words to which I will not come here but want to mention that, imitation or not, this cyl. signifies nearly whatever putting or pushing of one thing into another, i.e., say, your boot, Fr. boutique, the pot, and others, and I have quite recently heard that in some Sardinian dialect, the puttana was buttana. In this sense I can tell you also that, hmm, the well known Lat. potencia-potency (resp. impotence and omnipotence) has to mean the ability to fill (to the brim) some "pot", which in many cases is exactly this of some puttana! And there is also a meaning of this root as smt. trampled, stepped on, like the ancient path, and usually all kinds of paths or streets are smt. on which many people have stepped (and due to the massive usage of ′putj′-road in Rus., they don′t use the cynical meaning of this root but other word).
     This special fem. orifice in Bul. is called in the same Lat. way (as just said), but in Rus. it is ′pizda′, and my guess (because I have not found official etymologies) is that this is mutilated from … physique, i.e. the naked fem body. From here are also many derivatives (like: ′pizdetj′-behave-like-woman, ′pizdjulja′ as diminutive, ′pizdervanec′-good-f#cker, etc.). And then comes time for your cunt, which word puzzled me enough in the beginning until I got it that this has to be distorted from our Jypsy ′shunda′ what means the same, some orifice, slit, where is Ger. il Schlund as throat, abyss, chasm. There, surely are used many other words but I choose the most interesting, so that maybe this is enough as to the direct meaning of this organ. But in transferred one is probably necessary to mention Bul. and not only ′kurva′ as easy girl (not exactly prostitute), in the sense of deviated from the right way (where, it depends, but if you ask me this way is quite good, the bad one is to sell herself). The very prostitute, for its part, is related with the prostrating down and the prostate gland what is old Gr. word. And there is one Rus. word used very often, namely ′bljadj′, which usually means a slut, whore, yet in a chat between men it is just an exclamation (like buddy or pal, mate, etc.), what are different ideas, but such things happen with some fascinating words, like Eng. bloody, which has to mean very bad yet quite often means the opposite. Here I have come to Ger. blode as silly, what is smt. of the kind of blah-blah, one talks to much (′byrborja′ in Bul.), but also to the blood /bloody (Ger. Blut), your blotch-spot, and there is also an old Sl. ′blud′-incest, what, I think, explains the Rus. word as person with dirty blood who is also silly, but that is often exactly what a man searches.
     OK, and what can be said about the fem. breasts and, sorry, tits? Ah, this is interesting, because the official and decent word bosom (which is Lat.) is perfectly clear for me, due to the fact that in Bul. exists the Tur. and East. word ′boza′ as quite nutritious drink made out of corn (wheat, barley) and recommended for breast-feeding women, and also the very sucking is ′bozaja′, so that you can safely leave aside all doubts. Yet I can add that this plant called elder (where it is so called because it is the older, meant as tree, not grass, of two similar plants, but the smaller one is too bitter) is called in Rus. ′busina′ and in Bul. ′bysi′, for the same reasons, i.e. it is recommended for breast-feeders as purifying the blood. The very breast is Ger. la Brust and is smt. sticking out and defending; and in Rus. it is ′grudj′ (and in Cz. hrud) as smt. similar (compare with hard and guard). More interesting, however, is the tit /teat, or Zitze in Ger., where I have come to the old … titans, because in old Gr. titthe (in Lat. in order not to use Gr. letters because on some sites they are not allowed) was to feed with breast, so that they have become so strong because have sucked the breasts of their mothers for very long time (usually in the fairy tales is spoken about 7 years). On the other hand the tit must be related with the … tooth /teeth, as well also with the … stalactites and –mites (as some dropping or sticking out tits). And in It. one tit or nipple is called il capezzolo, as some tiny head (or eye somewhere in old Gr.).
     So, but all words used for fem. sexual organs and related with copulation have negative meaning while if applied to men everything changes at once. I personally find this pretty unjust and, maybe, it is the only thing that can excuse the emancipation, because there can be a man-f#ckers (although this word as if is not used in Eng. yet it is unmistakable) or play-boy, but it is not good to have play- or call- girls. On the other hand everything depends, and what can be allowed nowadays is not the same as what has existed for millenniums, because before 1800 the Earth population has still not exceeded the milliard level, and if a girl begins to practice sex for the fun of it, she may begin to like it and to forget about the procreation and in the end the human race could have been put in danger of extinction, but today it is not so. Because, see, there are kind of knowledge or experience which are not much useful to have, this is so in many cases also for the men, to say nothing about the women, who are much more sensitive and need some delusions, obviously, at least for me and now. This is the reason why Bul. il ′pich′ is as if some sign for dignity, where la ′pichka′ is rather cursing word. Well, now, after the emancipation, for which the women have "fought", they have won the right to feel glad when somebody calls them, or takes them for, sluts, right? I congratulate them from all my heart.
     But let us continue and ask us, what is the very copulation, as word? Hmm, this is pretty obvious thing for me, and I have forgotten when have come to my conclusion, probably before 20-25 years, and it is that this root, ′ko′, comes from the … cry of the hens, after they have laid an egg and hurry to announce to the whole world (or, maybe, only to their beloved cock) the result of the copulation! There are literally thousands of words here all around the world, like, say: cooperation, corporation, … constipation, correlation, company, combat, the very preposition con in It. (cum in Lat.), et cetera. If not this one has to start from the circle, but the point is that this is not of the root of number two, neither of bi-smt. (like bicycle, where the root is of the old Heb. bina), and the hen is a good relation because the birds often copulate, and they are present in each court, even in the poorest, where might not been pigs or cows, but hens surely.
     Then, avoiding to discuss more precisely the "f ick-ing" (how the Ger-ns call it) it remains nothing else for me as to come to the Sl. copulation, which is ′ebatj′, ′eblja′, ′ebane′, ′jober′, et cetera. Well, if I tell you that this is a kind of eating you will not believe me much, yet it is so. And if I tell you that this is a kind of … hedonism you will believe me even less, I suppose, but it is also so. As well as that this is some bam-boom, to what you as if may give some credence. But there are all these things and more, only that if one begins to judge starting from some root eb- one will come to nothing valuable. Still, I am very convinced in my conclusions because I compared Bul. ′ebane′ with old Gr. edone meaning pleasure, and with edoo (this time with omega) as to eat, or also edoode as food, meal, and invoked also the knowledge about some paradise Eden, which in Rus. is ′Edem′, and took into account that the leading ′h′ is dropped in many langs, so that here has to be also the ′hedon′-smt.! Have you got the idea? Ah, the eating is pleasure, the copulation is pleasure, in the paradise are only pleasures one upon the other, then the eating is really ′eda′-food, ′estj′-eat, this is Lat "is", i.e. exists, then the Arabs also make some relation with the "other" eating, then the sexual organs are "eaten" smm., then the hedonism is a kind of Eden-ism, living like in the paradise, so that the picture fits, especially if I add that Gr. letter delta, looks exactly like Cyr. "b" when written by hand (so that ′ebane′ looks like ′edone′). Remains only the booming, to what I have come quite occasionally, having read that in some Buddhist′s monasteries was spread one ritual by which all, men and women (supposedly young), left down their clothes, the men sat in lotus-pose and the women posed themselves onto the lap of the men and began to ... meditate about the life etc., and then, after some "meditation" (probably after half an hour or so), began some crazy ′jabuhm′ (or yabyum in Eng, how I have met it).
     And now about the sex –six relation, because it is so, really, in Lat. the sex is sexus, and the number 6 is sexis, in old Gr. the number was exi, what sounds (does it not?) very sexy (yet the exact word "sex" has not existed in the old lang., it is Lat. invention, and appeared then in the new Gr. lang.), in Ger. the number is sechs (′zeks′), so that it has to be how I am telling you; and take in account also that exi is the prefix ex- as smt. taken out, it is ′iz-′ in Sl., so that the sex has to appear just at once! Then the necessary mathematical knowledge is that the 6 was the so called perfect number, where the sum and the product of its prime factors are equal (also to the number, i.e.: 1 + 2 + 3 = 1*2*3 = 6) what by this definition is true only for 6! ( Yet it depends on the definition and according to Euclid a perfect number is such one for which the sum of all factors is equal to the number, what for 6 is again true, but also 28 turns out to be perfect number because: 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 = 28. ) And then it remains only to guess what can be so perfect in the sex, right? But I think this is an easy question, more or less for nursery children, yes? Surely this must be the very penis, I think you have to agree, if not with me, then with the ancient folks! Id est the number 6 is picture of the masc. sexual organ, looked in profile (or, then, when a naked man looks in some river at his reflection).
     Ah, and for this reason the old Heb-s value so much their 6-rayed star of David, or take the dice, that has 6 sides, or the number of extremities by the insects, or the Hindu gods, and so on. This is a great number, which is worthy to symbolize the really perfect God′s Creation, the phallus, which (as I said) is usually fallen down, but when it jumps above and becomes 3 times bigger, then… ! And smt. more, interesting is also the Sl. name of the 6, which is similar but different, it is ′shest′ in Bul. and ′shest j′ in Rus. (szesc in Pol., etc.), with the addition that exactly ′shest′ in Rus. means a … stick, cudgel, pole, what has nothing to do with the number but has with the phallus. Even more to this, in the Skr. the number 6 was sat or sastis (and in the backgammon game it is called ′shesh′), where in Bul. is known the word ′sashtisvam′ (or ′shashtisvam′) meaning to amaze, surprise, which is of Tur. origin (sasmak), and ′shashma′ in Bul. means a fakery. Now, tell me that I am inventing fables, ah? ( And for more details about the numbers you better read my "Reflexions about the numbers". )

4. Why two sexes are necessary?

     The things in this "movement" are new for me, they are written especially for this material, and, as I hinted in the beginning, they are obvious, but philosophical and important. Because sexes exist also by the plants, and by the animals above the worms, and no matter who has created our world, some divine creature or the evolution of the matter (or both, I shall say), the important question is, why. But first let us look a bit more precisely at the genders, and say with what they are important, in what they differ, as behaviour, habits, way of living? And is there a topmost gender, that is above the other, what is the subordination between them? And how they impose themselves upon the environment, what about the activity and passivity? And what about some heterarchy, where one is responsible for one thing and the other for smt. else? Are there various kinds of bosses? Does only one sex conquer and the other allows to be conquered? Such questions.
     Well, let me begin with the statement, that both sexes, as individuals, try to conquer somehow the surrounding world, to survive and win, yet they do this in two different ways, the one penetrates, the other … engulfs, that′s it! Where the penetration (with some "pen" or sword) destroys the other subject but does not use it, this is a silly thing, come to think about it, unless it is in an act of fight or defense and this is simply the easier way for conquering, but in a long run it is nevertheless silly (and because of this there are always slumps and falls after big won wars, due to the fact that the conquered enemy is not really assimilated, mark this). While the fem. individual just engulfs the other sex, or tries to do this, imagines it, thinks that she has done this, and in a long run really models the masc. exemplar, it begins to listen to her; I can′t vouch how this is by the animals, but by the humans this is obvious, the weak gender quite often has the commanding hand. Even from here you see that the question about the ruling sex is put to doubt, and that the things stay not so how they look.
     Then the next important moment is to begin to make difference between ruling and real ruling, what is also an obvious thing but I have alone come to my (obvious) conclusions. They are the following: there are two kinds of rulers, strategists and tacticians! Both these words are old Gr., and the strategy as sound imitation means some grinding, but this is not interesting here, the important thing is that the strategy means what to do, establishing of the general line of action, not the concrete details, while the latter are object of activity of the tacticians, who know how to make the situation say tick-tack like a well oiled clockwork. And then, judging by everything, it has to be clear that the born strategist in the family or group of together living individuals of both sexes is the woman, even if she is not officially recognized as such and is not asked what she wants, because the man knows what the woman may want (usually that her lower orifice was as often as possible visited by the masc. magical wand, isn′t it?), but he, as a rule takes her wishes into account, does what he does in the name of the woman. While the obvious tactician in the family is the man, because he all his life does exactly this, tries to conquer the situation, the world, to win, to invent moves, he is the born player, for him everything is game. This is obvious also for the reason that the main goal of whole living matter is the proliferation of the species, hence the individual who "calls the tune" is the woman, as the chief preserver and continuator of life.
     OK, but, my dear women, don′t begin to jubilate early, because this does not mean that the woman /women have to be asked, because this is perilous with danger! This is so not due to some inferiority of the women but due to their partiality and emotional liability, as a rule, of course. So that the things are messed, the strategist must not be asked about her wishes, and the tactician must rule accounting to the wishes of the strategist. Yet it is often so, look at the democracy, there everything is botched, people with no special knowledge, the politicians, are performing tactical ruling, and the real strategists, the people, are bamboozled as if in their own interest. And more confused are the things in the families now, when there are practically no families, and when the the main goal must not more be the survival of the humans but the diminishing of their number. Still, the difficulties does not mean that the problems have to be solved in the wrong way, like, say, to chose the women as heads of the families, or to have no families at all, or for each nation to try to outnumber every other one, or to cry to heaven that the sexes are equal, and so on.
     This, what we all have to do, is to take into account the differences of the sexes, and to try to perceive the deep meaning of this, so that to allow the development of necessary features, not to hinder them. You just look at the children, what are the young boys doing? They are always playing games, they want to win, they want risky life, they are naughty and disobedient, yet not because are bad, but because they want to check to what extent they can go unpunished, this is learning, people, the boys are learning by their mischiefs, and why, ah? Well, because they want to change the life, to find smt. new, not to continue to live in the same way, they, and thence the men, are not glad with the existing life, they are innovators, the usual peaceful life is too dull for them. While what are the little girls doing, and why? Ah, they are not playing, this occupation with dolls is not a play, their learning is only imitation (of what their mothers do), they do not look to risks and dangers, they don′t want real changes, they want to repeat the life, hence they like it, they are preservers. Don′t be mislead, please, by some external signs, don′t think that when they are always displeased this means that they don′t like the life, no, as a rule, they are scolding — sorry girls — because they want to make the man or men run around them and serve them, because they always want smt. more, but usually quantitative, not qualitative. Or then look at some masc. home animals, who become to live more quietly and to raise their weight only after they were … castrated. But the women usually gain weight easily, their organisms are used to live more economically, they live definitely longer, with about 15 %, these are not jokes.
     But let me not fall in long philosophizing, let me go to my general conclusions about the fem. and masc. nature. The masc. individuals are generally … silly players, who spend much efforts for some uncertain risky life, they spend themselves for nothing, and they are one and the same during their whole life, and with the ceasing of their sexual functions are not more able to lead reasonable life, they simply die early. Yet, from the standpoint of God or Nature, this is quite justified because one masc. exemplar suffices to about 100 fem. ones, if need be. While the fem. individual is smt. quite different, there are several souls in each one of them, which being fight between themselves for superiority of ruling, though they change somehow naturally with the age of the woman or dame! Now look, these are my pretty recent thoughts to which I have come also under another pen-name, and have developed in addition in poetical form in Bul., but they seem very probable and explain the well known instability of woman′s character, and in order to be more precise in the modeling of fem. nature I have come to the number of three such, let me say, deities. Which could they be, ah?
     Well, on the first place this is the seducer, this Putana, which has to cheat with smt. some silly man in order to engulf, as already said, his body and sole. Then, usually after some years, on the scene appears the mother, which is far away from the seducer in her spirit, she is the real preserver of the genes, she is utterly egoistic in defense of her offsprings, in recompense of the unfriendly Nature or God. Yet I insist that there is also a third being in every woman and this is the … wise Sofia, who may step on the scene as last, but who is wiser that the man because her wisdom is that of God, i.e. of the Nature! Could you follow me? Ah, but I have told you already the main ideas, the man is the destroyer, and the woman is the preserver; the man changes the world in search of some better one (because the situations change, this has to be done in each generation), and the woman sticks to the wisdom of God (according to the Eastern religions) that everything is justified (because there are contradictory participants in this "game"). And in order not to be able to say that I have forgotten in this section to call etymology to my aid I will tell you that the sex in Rus. (Sl.) is ′pol′, which word sounds the same as their ′pol′-floor, where are other ideas in play (probably from ′pole′-field, else it has to be ′pod′ meaning below, as in Bul.), but at the same time ′polovina′ is half, so that ′pol′ has to be just shortening of the latter, i.e. this is one half of the genders or people.
     So let me sum up that the answer to the question set in the heading of this part is that one sex could have done only the one thing, the preserving, because this is the most important, but there would have been not enough changes and our dear God, or the ever-present matter, have seen this somewhere at the stage of vegetation and by the animals after the worms. As much as the one thing is necessary, in such extent is also the other, here is no hierarchy, here we have some heterarchy of both sexes; were they equal, we would have been like the worms, I am fiery sexist — even if I have now, ha, ha, by … half erections monthly. Yet, on the other hand, if this could have been somehow managed, and if I were asked, I would have wanted by my next rebirth to be born as she-being, be it even as — this time ′hi, hi′ — a … cockroach. What does not impede me until I am on this world to think that the masc. sex is more interesting, and I will uncover some more hidden in the words secrets in the next "movement". Nonetheless I am convinced that the fem. sex is the most important, and because of this deserves to be honoured, especially, to tell you the truth, in view of the massive invasion of women in all spheres of social life, business, and industry, because with the diminishing necessity of physical strength nowadays more and more professions turn to be better occupied by women, men become bored pretty fast, while women are very strict and diligent, alas, my men-colleagues.

5. The hand of the man and his wisdom

     Here seems to be nothing very interesting, only that the West. Europe is divided by the meaning of the root man- as if by a watershed in two "valleys", where by the Teutons (including the Eng-men) they think that this is the man /human (Ger. Mann), while in the Lat. part this means a hand (It. la mano, etc., and then the man is il uomo, or homme in Fr., etc.), but what of it? This little confusion is explainable because the most important part of the man (if we leave the sex aside, or for the both sexes) is his (her) hand, with its 20 degrees of freedom only for the wrist (the directions of possible movements summed for all joints), and the Teutons think that when there is a hand there is a Mensch-human, while all Lat. people use the man- root for his hand and relate the whole human with the others around (because this is homo in old Gr., the same, like homogeneous). Yeah, but this is one (or rather 2) of the sacred Skr. syls, mani, and for this reason there are pretty many similar words, like: manipulate, maneuver, manual, maintain, etc., but also the East. mandarin-ruler (who holds the people like lobes or fingers of an orange), the similarly sounding Tibetan mandala-circle, and others.
     And then, together with this words, even in the good old Lat. lang. can be found the word mango, meaning there a dishonest trader, but this is what every Gypsy is, as a rule, and I have heard several times the same ′mango′ in conversation between these people; the modification ′mangasar′ has insulting meaning, but only ′mango′ for them is like your buddy, pal. This Gyp. word in principle confirms the Teu. meaning of man- root, yet there exists also one fruit with the same name, mango, and the Eng. mangrove as mango forest (what can be man+grove, or even mango+grove), so that this implies the conclusion that smt. in these trees is like a man (or maybe even as swarthy Gyp. or Hin. one). But what exactly is this I was unable to guess till this very year, and /or have not thought about, or have taken that this is smt. like with the ginseng, and if not exactly the roots are meant then smt. else. But come to think about the mango fruits it is clear that they are smt. strange, they smell at least peculiar (of fir), their skin is hard and uneatable, the flesh can not be divided from the fruit-stone, and they look like enormous plums, this is as if some impossible fruit (like, say, the camel is an impossible or ugly animal).
     And then one day in the dawn (probably scratching my, excuse me, eggs, I can′t remember exactly) I got it that this has to be meant as … masc. "plums", so to say! Id est, the mangrove is a grove where from the trees are hanging smelly balls or testicles, which can be, though, eaten, but better after some cooking. This is funny idea, so that I allow you all to have a bit of refreshing laugh (maybe like ha, ha, is better), but this is highly probable, because, just for the fun, I can share with you my knowledge of one Malaysian word, pisang in Eng., which meant … a banana (where the explanations I leave to you). And here I could have put the final point of this fantasy, yet there is a bit more in it, there is the Sl. (Rus., Bul., etc.) word for these balls, which is ′mudy↓i′ (′mudo′ in sing., in Rus.) or ′mydi′ (in addition to the mentioned ′tashaci′), which words I relate, quite naturally, I suppose, with Ger. mude-tired. These are not occasional relations because there is Rus. (also Bul.) ′mudnyij′ as slowly moving, also ′medlitj′ (with old ′muditj′, ′zamuditj′, ′myditi′ as the same slowliness), and so on, and there is also the Eng. mud /muddy as smt. dirty. And I suppose that you will not begin to deny now that these masc. balls make the girls dirty, will you?
     Hmm, the etymologists derive Ger. mude from Lat. modus, what generally is right, the slowness is a kind of modus vivendi, a way of living, which is in many cases a wiser way, what I have mentioned before but will dwell a bit more on it now. For example is said that moody meant as pensive was used by Shakespeare, that in Lat. madeo was to make wet or flowing (and to recall you the Rus. ′moshchj′-power and ′mocha′-strength), and in Skr. madati /madate was drunken; I have met even that there was some old Gr. medea (used by the very Homer), what was, this time, a vagina. So that, see, the point is not only in the tiredness or changing of the modes, the point is in the … moderation, in the middle condition of the things, and if there is smt., what the old Greeks have taught us, then this is to be moderate in everything, what means also in the moderation itself, I′ll tell you. And here I come to one of my beloved themes, about the moderation of the man, how he usually learns this.
     Now, the thing is that the woman always can, be it even 20 … coituses a day, what would have given her some troubles, but she would have endured this and been glad in addition, while the man smm. can, but smm. not, and as far as this begins to happen with him from an early age, about the puberty, he learns to be moderate in whatever, in order to succeed always. So that, you see, the sex defines nearly everything, and the masc. wisdom is, in a way, hidden in his balls, yeah! ( There is even one humorous sentence in Bul-a, that the bad, sorry, f#cker, is hindered by the balls, because if they have not hanged on his prick he would have penetrated even deeper. ) Funny or not, but it is so, the strength, as well the wisdom, of a man depends on his coglioni. And if you still have some remaining doubts on that point I will tell you that the very wisdom in Rus. /Sl. is ′mudryij′ (in Bul. ′mydyr′, in Cz. mondry, etc.), what can be traced to some Skr. medha as a thought or reason, or Avestan mazdra-wise-or-thoughtful, and to the meditation and the East. mantra and other similar words. Put in uneducated words this means that the man thinks with his balls, how many malcontent women would have said, but to prove this in sophisticated manner, calling in my aid the old Skr., is much better and laudable for me.
     And in an even more recent time than about the testicles of the mango-man I have come to another interesting guess, because I have asked myself some simple question, namely: why the balls in question hang outside and are not inside the body, how the fem. ovaries are? And my conclusion was that our God almighty has either not known exactly how big they must be, or have allowed the possibility for them to grow as much as possible! Because what is outside of the body it really can grow nearly unlimited — horns, hooves, claws, noses, hands, legs, breasts, etc., what leads us, men, to one very important conclusion, namely that this must be possible somehow to be done on purpose! I mean that there should exist some … gymnastics, or vitamins, or hanging little weights, or even operational intervention, whatever, what can make them begin to grow! Or there must firstly be created two new Olympic disciplines, lifting of weights hanged on the phallus, and measuring of the testicles (nowadays they can simply be scanned somehow and the volume given at ones).
     So that, buddies, guys, even gays, I personally have missed the "train", but the life continues, you are bound to try this. Surely if your eggs could have weighted by about 250 grammes the girls would have been much more satisfied, they might even decide to go alone to work and leave you to stay the whole day long at home only if you can succeed to increase your sexual activity, say, twice! This open entirely new horizons in the social life, this is a new revolution! Instead of to lead wars the guys of all nations and races, in quite near future, could use every possible moment to gather together, to compare their "instruments", to lift some small weights with their "cocks", to hit for half an hour some tiny boxing pear with their eggs, to exchange jokes, to have some refreshments or lunches, and to make every day new friends. Yet, my advice: moderation in everything, if you don′t want to become sportsman in the new disciplines. What means: prick not longer than half a meter, and "mangos" not heavier than half a kilo each, because enough is enough.
     And with this I trumpet my final accord in this etymological fantasy, that is:

     ding – dong, di-ding – dong, di-di-ding – dang – doong.

     Oct 2018

Количество отзывов: 0
Количество сообщений: 0
Количество просмотров: 32
© 18.01.2019г. Христо Мирский
Свидетельство о публикации: izba-2019-2469244

Метки: genders, sexes, etymology, sexual organs, different languages, hidden ideas, philosophy, psychology, interesting, funny,
Рубрика произведения: Разное -> Научная литература