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 It is alphabet sound of
subcontinet's language and also in used and
regular alphabet letter of Arabic and persian.
kaaf k, c, ch for geting this sound in
English often c (cat), k (kite) ch (school)
are used.)
chay: ch 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 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]
tt [to]
faux [fo]

letter "e"

sound /e/: exposition [eksposisj]

sound //: mer [mr]
sound //: vent [v]
sound //: ce [s]
sound //: vendredi [vdRdi]
no sound: pre [pr]

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 ().
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:
( , , , ( Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Punjabi
Saraeki. Pothohari, Gojri etc.) reads:

zikr
zaria
arzaan
namaz

 zaeef
arz
zalim
zarf
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
tarbooz

 aaru/aadu
rairi/raidi
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 sheen shes s nietzoche cliche, Fitch,
charade, chauvanism
Khay ch kh Munch, Zelicha (qibti)
Chay ch chest, chair, Chester
ch kaaf K 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 (-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 Im 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