Цитата:
|
Сообщение от Magnolia; 2198321 '
The starting point was the concept of" information "that is a different formation
|
Just do something, in-prefix meaning location within, ie, within the formation.
Your cause and effect relationships are built not on facts but on subjective interpretations. That is, theory is not supported by facts, that is anti-science. In the style of your treatments - anti-science <! - ~ 1 ~ ->, - the science of the Antichrist.
Confirmation of this, the constant references unchecked, such as now - "the secret, perhaps even with the stored up ancient Egyptian times." Why this in-formation doegipetskaya about "turning thought into it": There are some written sources, other? On the Egyptian know are all very vague, from what is known about before the Egyptian, and even an abstract idea?
Al (s) in F-vit "beginning of life", you probably assume that this Greek word-vita-life (but it means, in Latin).
But borrowed from the Greek - the word Alphabet, written not ἀλφά
V ητος, and ἀλφά
β ητος. And then it's just the first two letters of the alphabet. Moreover, neither of which "the old" there's no question - in ancient Greek was pronounced a-alfaBit (corresponds to the Russian A - B), and at present the alphabet. That is, ABC. Vita-Life here at all to do with it.
By the way, I decided to look more carefully about this anti-scientific approach to the phonemes, and it turned out that scientists are justified (in
real evidence) argued, "not knowing the content of speech, the values of spoken words and parts of speech, it is impossible to determine the phonemic structure of language . "And then trying to walk on the contrary, and with the pulling of the values that you want, and even in different languages.