Utterer

Sometimes, in a talk ring, a thread may be talked about that only a few folk have indepth knowledge of, as they are outhwits in the field. However, it can happen that a head who is not a outhwit nor has higher knowledge on the underthrow, ends up saying truly outright and crafly insight, either by getting the word the outhwit was trying to remember, or by outspelling, for whatever need, some thread. This ends up making the head seems like a outhwit too, for the way, troth and flowing with which he spoke, when he, in truth, only happened to have this outright knowledge. This is a gripping thing I heed sometimes from folk, and even from myself. Talking about this with ChatGPT, he forset the termen "unwitting shammer".

Thoughtline ereknack is a termen I begot to name a forset that showed up in my mind after diving in Ununderstandenliness. Folk, even if before having any skinship with an outhwitly thought, would have a ereknack to follow a sicker knowingness path, they would already have a kindful leaning to see full ground in sicker things, and not cun to see ground in others. This is, however, **not** the same thing as thoughtache or thoughtline tilt, as these are about withfiddling, wrench that one nethermindly or unnethermindly makes to not underfang that his thought may or is wrong.

Overkindlorely and outhwitly askings is in truth more retching than seeing of sooth: even if they are knitty and deep, they don't give us an ending answer, which tells, with no tween, sooth, but rather give us only clues;

Forthen, we are left with only strouts, which, tweenly leads us somewhither;

It's not sheerly the strouts that make folk to onnim an outhwitly belief over another, forwhy, if so, the strouts of the unonnimed belief would be retching things in a less thorough way, which is not true, when we learn things billwhitely; they are evening in suttlings. In truth, since there are good sights from both sides, if sheerly through strouts, one should onnim no belief, since it's groundlessly to choose one as right, while the other is even in "might". One should instead onnim belieflessness;

Therefore there must be something other than strouts that make folk to onnim a belief over another, and this thing is the thoughtline ereknack, a tilt, a kindful thoughtworking that shaped one's anyet so he can see ground only in one of those witcrafts.

It doesn't dow how overwon is a head about something, how overween he is with the rowground that he has chosen leads to a sundry ending, in the end of the day, he, in truth, cannot asoothe that his belief - which here is not only lief, but ofondly anything that one believes -, is indeed the truth, indeed the retching of sooth. In the same way that the head who thinks the thwirely, here going for one thought as knotty as, as evenly overween, cannot in truth asoothe either that the other head is wrong, or his own thought is right. And in the end that is it: we con and con on an antimber, find sere knotty strouts and begettings, which so well retch sooth, which are so witcrafty, but that's all, they don't lead us to an endly upshot; they do finger to an airt, but are not enough for us to say without any tween. Therefore every belief is a trow, for we believe something without even having a seething that it is true.

In sid, it's almost if, even if with all strouts, we are left in the same site whither we started: in tween, with the only shed that we have a comenly answer. But it's gripping how we don't get crazy with this sussel, the trey of trying so hard, forwhy our belief for our thanks is such, that we reach a prick where we truly feel like we've reach the utter ending, the truth, and indeed there are folk like that, but it's something that, and the one who has undergot our mightless of knowing will know, is dwimmery, for, in sid, there is no wissness. Once this unwissness shows up in one's head, it doesn't go away anymore, the full sickerhood to seethe something is soothe doesn't go along with us anymore, for there's no way to asoothe, which leaves comendliness alive for, even if one's trow is strong enough to make its rine very small, another belief being the afforder of the retching for sooth.

(This thought of mine isn't brookenly for anything, it is brookenly always for things whose endings, outcomes we can't witness; that is, for overkindlorely and eldritch askings, which seek to retch the working and staddles of sooth.)

Wanting a name for this shape beknowing we have no wissness, I begot "Soothknowingless", or "Outhwitly Fraindom (the latter word being an own Anglishening for 'Skepticism'". Happily, there's already a word for this thinking. It's not a ferly that my thoughts and swenches were already felt by someone else, who begot a name for that. The word is "Acatalepsy", which I Anglishened to Ununderstandenliness.

The heading may make it seem that I'm nemmening my doom, whether I'm going to heaven or hell, that I'm nemmening the dread of not having a good fettle on the other side, but I'm not talking about that. In truth, hell is not even in this thinking, but rather heaven.

All of this starts with that of we'll be forshaped from after death, all our stint of our body to understand how the world truly works, that is, seeing the ghostly side, it will be no more. We'll see the world otherwise, our thinkerness and being will be better. This way, I wonder: am I going to be someone else? Will I be forshaped into a so alike being from what I am right now, that it will be like I will seem like another head? What if the way I "live", the way I deal with things will be no longer the same? Thinking of this makes me a little heartsick. I like the way I am now, the things I like to learn, that pleases me, and it's downfeeling to think that I can lose this.

The thing here, it's seeendly, is the feeling that, in the other side, I will feel like I've lost a stitch of me. For a bisen: I wonted to like watching drawnfilms. I still like the thinking rewatching them; the yoreyearn, the feeling of remembering the brightomwhiles of me watching is good. I didn't stop watching drawnfilms because I wanted, but I was ofoldly loosing the grip. Even if there's a stitch of me that would like to watch the same drawnfilms again, when I do it, that doesn't take my heed anymore, is not the same thing anymore, and that makes me a little sad. Knowing I will no longer cun to enjoy the things I care about, knowing that a stitch of me from 10 years ago is no more, that makes me a little sad. What if is it the same after death? It's not like our earthly life will be forgotten, I believe we will remember it. What about my sibs? What if it will no longer be as before?

Anemoia: yoreyearn for a stell or time one has never been.

One day I went to a shoppinghub and, walking through the highend limb, one thing I underyet was that the ansen of the steads was truly chirten, hour the eatinghouses, which had a lite truly alike to the things I like to see on the net, like the limbs in shires of Europe or lightshootings I see on Tumblr. But something happened: although I truly like seeing such lightshootings, the askillhood in the things, the folk, even though I like everything, I didn't feel any of that when I was there. At the truly least I should find that beautiful, if even it wasn't right like what I see on net, I should like to see folk withworking with each other, living their own lives, as I do watching walking tapes. But nothing happened.

At the time I even think on me as halfhearted, wandered if that was an aftermath of bad sleeping, because it's not as if I like better to see those things by lightshootings than in the fresh; I'd always like to see those things in the fresh when finding or watching, to touch, feel, enjoy being there; so having the bire to see something alike and feeling almost nothing is thorny, and that does worry me. What if it will never go away, even if I start to sleep well?

However, I watched a tape of a man who lives in Sunland and talks about what Sunland is like and life altogether, with a tape of him walking through the streets. In this tape he talks about a yoreyearn (nostalgia) feeling for a spot one has never been. I had already knew about this feeling by the name of "anemoia", from "The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows", but he brooks a Germanish word "sehnsucht". And it was with what he said in the tape and what folk posted that I beknew: it is not only me that this happens to.

He names it yoreyearn. I do feel that watching tapes from aforetime, but I'm not sure I feel that with nowadays spots. In truth, I'm not even sure about the rightness of this word in the retching of this feeling, it billwhitely only seems like something else. But I'll be brooking it for lack of a better one.

The man of this tape has a selcouth taste: he likes twitchens. And he says that, when he still lived in his inborn land, he watched tapes of Sunlandish twitchens and did feel that yoreyearn feeling. Today, having the seel of seeing those twitchens in the fresh, he feels nothing, or seld feels anything. He only feels something alike to what he wont to feel when he sees the lightshootings he took at home, and, even then, it is not in the same greaten.

And, suttlely, it's an atle feeling, clearly it is. Alas, one untweenendly would like to have that good feeling looking at the shootings and have even more looking at that in the fresh. It's truly a letdown seeing all those spots, knowing more about them, willing to see them with one's own eyes and, having the seel, one no more feels the yoreyearn.

At the same time, it truly retches the feeling of yoreyearn; yoreyearn infolds remembering a throw, wanting to live it again, but not cunning to do so. An unsadendly lust!

Maybe that happens for the way we "feel the surroundings" through tapes and lightshootings is sere from the way we feel it in fresh, which is anyetful for me. Along of that, anemoia happening in a sundry lay, that is, afar, is right for the freedness is sere.

Even then, it's gripping how that works alsuch like yoreyearn. Yoreyearn is longing for the foregone, which we can't "touch" anymore, in an unrinendly way; yoreyearn is when we can't reach that, it's a feeling that only happens in our mind. Yoreyearn for a lay... even if these lays, unlikely from the aminds, can still be, can still be neesed, still be lived.

---

I'm in a crafted tongue Discord-webthew and there's a theet where folk make asks. It's quite oftseen to see folk ask something and answer themselves right away, either in the mootstow retching, or in the next sond, if it's in the chat. That's wreaty.

And I have it too, although I try to avoid it. The annoying thing is that I don't know what it is, I can't retch it, even though I have it. Maybe it's a way to not look witless to folk, underly, since by making an ask you're andetting your lorelest, your lesser knowledge withmet with other head. Giving mightly answers to oneself's ask makes the head he's not coming out so low; "Look, I'm not lorelest, I know how to use my brain." Although I also think that there are those who do that to show off. On the other hand, you can also see falls where a head calls his own ask or even himself dumb for the suttleness, which underscores what I said about witness.

I remember seeing in the Godbook a reard being retched as "as many waters". Seeking, I saw it is a retching of and God's and Christ's reard (from Ezekiel 43:2 and Wraying 1:15 thasly). Lately came to me something that can at least get close to what it lides like.

Have you ever heard a crowd in a footballspird? You may already know whither I'm going. The reards of sere folk screaming or only speaking in oneswey end up sweying as if they were an afold reard, it doesn't lide like sere reards, but rather a new one shows up. Although it sunders between he- and shereards, for the andeven of men and women in the crowd, the onalikeness belives. Won't you say this crowdreard doesn't lide like "many waters" too? I find it so chirten and even soothing to hear, even if it's not thousands of folk.

That's as close as I can ofthink what Christ's reard may lide like. Does it make anyet to you? It's easy to ween it's loud and strong, showing all His mighty; He is God after all.

The meaning

Anyone who reads the Godbook can underyet that a lot of things said in there are leethy, have, so to speak, a bodily and a rowny meaning. The soothquid Christ's reard lide like many waters doesn't mean only chirtenness, mighty; in truth, I would only say it gives the feeling of mighty, not that it's the meaning of it. It turns out the word "water" here may not have been brooked hapsomely.

On my last upload I needed a word that has the endfastening -ism, and selfshrithingly thought: "Oh no, likely there's no Anglish endfastening for this one." Even if a word or endfastening is oftseen, not always it will be in the wordbook, either for thanklack or nobody has eked it. Sure enough, I didn't find it on the wordbook. For hint, the word was "Symbolism", that is, I needed an endfastening to utter withdrawal.

But afterwards I found an unseethed sidekir: -dom. I can't say I liked it at first. It already has three meanings, to show a lay, a fettle (as in freedom) or a wield (as in kingdom). Wouldn't ekeing one more make mong? On the other hand, I can't find a better sidekir for that, at most brooking the name "deed" as an endfastening, which doesn't lide that good. So we would make a new meaning to -dom, upshotting words like:

Markdom - Symbolism

Mankinddom - Humanism

Heathendom - Paganism

Lide good? Would they make any mong? After all I think we would only need to understand the thinking folk bring with the word, like we already do with -ism, since we can't always understand what the name with -ism stands for only by reading it.

The other meanings of -ism

I only talked about one meaning of the endfastening -ism, the meaning of withdrawal altogether, but there are the meanings of learninghouse of thought, wieldcraft lorespell and faithbelief. Either we brook -dom for all of them as we do with -ism, or we brook an endfastening for each meaning. But which?

There is the Fandom wordbook, which gives sidekirs for these meanings. They are unseethed though, that is, wickeny, but that's all that I've found. I also found them selcouth; I don't know for I'm not wonted to them, for I'm withmeeting with English, or for there's indeed something wrong.

But let's do it. For the meaning of learninghouse of thought, we have -belief, which here comes with the anyet of "underfanging something as the truth and worth following", or any whatness that is better than mine. Deemlessly, that's what a learninghouse of thought is, isn't it? So we get words like:

Behaviorbelief - Behaviorism

Workingbelief - Functionalism

Mankindbelief - Humanism

(Yes, I already brooked "Humanism" here. That's something I underyot: maybe there will be understandings for which more than one word can be brooked, so either we'll choose one, or we'll be brooking both betweenchangeable.)

For wieldcraft lorespell, we have -stem:

Freewardstem - Liberalism

Wealthstem - Capitalism

Fellowshipstem - Communism

For the meaning of faithbelief, one may ask "what could we brook, since -belief is already took?", but Fandom wordbook gives a gripping sidekir: -troth.

Christentroth - Christianism

Joudishtroth - Judaism

Buddhatroth - Buddhism

What about -ist?

But here comes another ask: what about the endfastening -ist? For this one Fandom wordbook gives nothing, but I think there's one good sidekir: ekeing -er, for one of its meanings is "someone who is theeded or underbears a thought, teaching", which is alsuch what we're talking about here. So, weirdly as it may lide, we could onefoldly endfasten it:

Tokendomer

Workingbeliever

Wealthstemer

Christentrother

I wonder why folk aforetime liked better words from other tongues over words from Germanish upspring. The only ground that comes in mind is ease, it's easier to take an edwistly word from other tongue than to beget one. It makes it seem like it's uneath to come up with words, and aren't enough Germanish roots to do so. But is that all? It seems to me that Anglish is doing well in the outswapping; even if one gets the uneathness of not having a root to make a word for a begetting, it would be comendly to make a new one from scratch. So why did folk still wanted loanwords?

I meaningly wrote the writ above before laiting an answer for this, forwhy I wanted my thought to be written the way it formly came, without neething it being foreswayed. It turns out that there's a ground I didn't think of. It was more than a bare liking, it was, somehow, a walelack. Indeed one can even say that English didn't insooth picked up those words. English was a tongue whose speakers were bestrode by inroading kingdoms, so the upshowing of unGermanish words was a foisting of the inroader's wordstock, an outcome of the Norman's wieldcraft and folkways might in England.