as i once wrote... and i’m not about to change my mind
as to how i managed to spot the two major tools
in language, but for added SHOCK value,
ich kampf... the pronoun takes on an indefinite nature,
as does the complete expression,
it expresses future struggles more than past struggles,
and thus with future struggles there is a process of becoming
rather than being, hence there is no possessiveness
in relation to the past, for a translation into the future;
utilising the definite and indefinite articles within the pronoun
category is my keenest of all observations - the struggle in itself
is as indefinite due to the coupling with the pronoun that allows
dis-possessiveness of concepts, whether they be being at ease
or struggling... as such i know this is incoherent
because the meanings of certain words are so tightly knit that
it is bound to happen, a bit like red and crimson / blue and azure,
but that is as much due to schizoid conditioning of a symptom,
whereby a schizoid conditioning is a complex splintering of
what was once wholly unified, and upon dis-unification the unified is trapped
in a trans-grammatical state of symptom, without any categorical
orientation, whether that’s with nouns, verbs etc.,
primarily stressed by what i can only fathom as pre-nouns
(you know, the vocabulary unit
before new words enter our vocabulary, mostly nouns -
since the quality of things rarely changes -
like sodium and lady gaga, the pre-noun is almost
like a pronoun, although the pre-noun is kept
in a dark room and the pronoun is kept in
a room with a lightbulb),
that which could be uttered and is unnecessarily “thought.”
so through this medley i was only crafting a revision as to whether
call the compound ich kampf within the orientation of:
ich is a definite pronoun or an indefinite pronoun?
and if so... which pronoun orientation in terms of articulation makes
the second aspect of the compound definite or indefinite
for the overall persuasion?
well... anyway... it will make me think rather than read knausgård,
i already read kierkegård - søren
(ø = cut open o for a u, and angstrom = aa, i.e. roll over beethoven):
this is why english is problematic compared
with all the other latinised languages of europe...
due to its diacritical ****** / lack of accent stressors,
ø = u and oo: ***** / luck / pull -
the second use of u is less stressed in the sense that it's short,
a short / dwarfed u (ù), rather than the third example of u,
which is a long / pronounced u (ú)...
or as in the first example the elongated u (ū)
by god,
this is like forging a new linguistic system
in english from all the other languages of europe...
avoiding the linguistic notative system,
characteristic with: /ˈæŋstrʌm; -strəm/;
but obviously that would make spelling words in english
look pretty ugly... but not as ugly as LOL *** ***?!
i never got the hang of the teenage acronym alphabet,
even though i lived as a teenager, and the acronyms were already
in use.