饜憪饜懏饜懅饜憮饜懄饜憰 饜憫 路饜憪饜懄饜憸饜懃饜懕饜懁饜懢饜懐.

饜懇 饜憪饜懏饜懇饜憮饜懅饜憰饜懠 饜憹 饜憮饜懇饜懐饜懅饜憫饜懄饜憭饜憰.

饜懆饜憻 饜憿饜懄饜懁 饜憵饜懓 饜憰饜懓饜懐 饜懁饜懕饜憫饜懠 饜應饜懐, 路饜憪饜懄饜憸饜懃饜懕饜懁饜懢饜懐 饜懐饜懓饜憶饜憻, 饜懐饜應饜憫 饜懇 饜憪饜懏饜懅饜憮饜懄饜憰, 饜憵饜懗饜憫 饜懇 饜憰饜懓饜憭饜憿饜懇饜懁, 饜憿饜懄饜憲 饜懖 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜憰饜懇饜憪饜懁饜懖饜憶 饜懄饜懐 饜懄饜憫饜憰 饜憶饜懣 饜憪饜懁饜懕饜憰. 饜憺 饜懄饜憴饜憸饜懁饜懄饜憱 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜懐饜懘 饜懏饜懄饜憰饜憪饜懅饜憭饜憫 饜憮 饜憺饜懞 饜懁饜懆饜憴饜憸饜憿饜懄饜憽, 饜懐 饜憿饜懄饜懁 饜懐饜應饜憫 饜憫饜懓饜憲 饜憺饜懞 饜憲饜懄饜懁饜憶饜懏饜懇饜懐 饜憫 饜憰饜憪饜懓饜憭 饜懄饜憫. 饜憺饜懕 饜憰饜憪饜懅饜懁 饜懄饜憫 饜憰饜懘 饜懇饜憵饜應饜懃饜懄饜懐饜懇饜憵饜懁饜懄 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懐饜懘 饜懃饜懆饜懐 饜憭饜懆饜懐 饜憫饜懓饜憲 饜懀饜懄饜懃饜憰饜懅饜懁饜憮 饜憿饜應饜憫 饜懄饜憫 饜憰饜懍饜懐饜憶饜憻 饜懁饜懖饜憭. 饜懄饜憫 饜懄饜憻 饜懄饜懃饜憪饜應饜憰饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜憮 饜懇饜懐 饜懄饜憴饜憸饜懁饜懄饜憱饜懃饜懇饜懐 饜憫 饜懘饜憪饜懇饜懐 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜懃饜懍饜憯 饜憿饜懄饜憺饜懍饜憫 饜懃饜懕饜憭饜懄饜憴 饜憰饜懗饜懃 饜懗饜憺饜懠 饜懄饜憴饜憸饜懁饜懄饜憱饜懃饜懇饜懐 饜懀饜懕饜憫 饜懝 饜憶饜懄饜憰饜憪饜懖饜憻 饜懀饜懄饜懃. 饜憽饜懟饜懃饜懇饜懐 饜懐 饜憰饜憪饜懆饜懐饜懄饜憱 饜懜 饜懇饜憭饜憰饜懅饜憰饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜憫 饜憮饜應饜懏饜懄饜懐饜懠饜憻: 饜懄饜憴饜憸饜懁饜懄饜憱 饜懄饜憻 饜懐饜應饜憫 饜懇饜憭饜憰饜懅饜憰饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜懓饜憹饜懇饜懐 饜憫 路饜懄饜憴饜憸饜懁饜懄饜憱饜懃饜懅饜懐. 饜憺 饜懏饜懄饜憮饜懝饜懃饜懠 路饜懄饜憴饜憸饜懁饜懇饜懐饜憶 饜懐饜懓饜憶饜憻 饜憫饜懇饜憶饜懕 饜懄饜憻 饜懇饜懐 饜懅饜懐饜懠饜憽饜懅饜憫饜懄饜憭 饜憮饜懇饜懐饜懅饜憫饜懄饜憭 饜懄饜懐饜憯饜懣饜憻饜懄饜懆饜憰饜憫: 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懄饜憻 饜憿饜懖 饜懖 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜懃饜懕饜憶 饜憰饜懗饜憲 饜懇 饜憿饜懗饜懐 饜憺 饜懀饜懡饜懘 饜憹 饜懇 饜憪饜應饜憪饜憳饜懇饜懁饜懠 饜憪饜懁饜懕. 饜憺饜懞 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜憵饜懓饜懐 饜懀饜懡饜懘饜憻 饜憹 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜憭饜懖饜懐饜憶 饜憭饜懏饜懖饜懄饜憴 饜懄饜懐 饜憺 饜憿饜懄饜懁饜憶饜懠饜懐饜懇饜憰 饜憮 饜懃饜懅饜懐饜懄 饜憳饜懡饜憻 饜憪饜懎饜憰饜憫. 饜憿饜懅饜懐 饜懖 饜憵饜懄饜憭饜懕饜懃 饜懄饜懐饜憫饜懏饜懇饜憰饜憫饜懇饜憶 饜懄饜懐 饜憺 饜憰饜懗饜憵饜憽饜懅饜憭饜憫 饜憫饜懇饜憿饜懝饜憶饜憻 饜憺 饜懅饜懐饜憶 饜憹 饜憺 饜懕饜憫饜懓饜懐-饜憰饜懅饜憹饜懇饜懐饜憫饜懄饜憻, 路饜懃饜懅饜懁饜憹饜懄饜懁 饜憵饜懅饜懁 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜憶饜懅饜憶; 饜憵饜懗饜憫 路饜懆饜懁饜懄饜憸饜憻饜懎饜懐饜憶饜懠 饜憽. 饜懅饜懁饜懄饜憰 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜憰饜憫饜懄饜懁 饜懇 饜懁饜懄饜憹饜懄饜憴 饜憪饜懕饜憫饜懏饜懄饜懜饜憭, 饜憿饜懄饜憺 饜懇饜懐 饜懄饜懃饜憪饜懏饜懅饜憰饜懄饜憹 饜懀饜懅饜憶 饜懛饜懁饜憿饜懕饜憻 饜憭饜懗饜憹饜懠饜憶 饜憵饜懖 饜懇 饜憹饜懅饜懁饜憹饜懇饜憫 饜憰饜憭饜懗饜懁 饜憭饜懆饜憪, 饜憮 饜憿饜懄饜憲 饜懀饜懓 饜憿饜懌饜憶 饜懇饜憪饜應饜懁饜懇饜憽饜懖饜憻 饜憫 饜憪饜懗饜憵饜懁饜懄饜憭 饜懃饜懓饜憫饜懄饜憴饜憻 饜懄饜懐 饜懇 饜憹饜懅饜懏饜懄 饜憭饜懝饜憫饜懁饜懄 饜懃饜懆饜懐饜懠. 饜懀饜懓 饜懐 路饜憫饜懓饜憫饜懘 饜憪饜懆饜懁饜憳饜懜饜憶饜懓饜懐饜懄, 饜懇饜懐饜懗饜憺饜懠 饜憮饜懇饜懐饜懅饜憫饜懄饜憭 饜憹饜懅饜憫饜懠饜懇饜懐, 饜憿饜懟 饜懃饜懅饜懐 饜懀饜懙饜懃 饜懄饜憫 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜懄饜懃饜憪饜應饜憰饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜憫 饜憶饜懄饜憰饜懁饜懖饜憭. 路饜懀饜懅饜懐饜懏饜懄 饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫, 饜憺饜懅饜懐 饜懇 饜憳饜懗饜憴 饜懃饜懆饜懐, 饜懁饜懆饜憭饜憫 饜憺饜懞 饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫饜懐饜懇饜憰 饜憹 饜憭饜懆饜懏饜懇饜憭饜憫饜懠: 饜懀饜懓 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜懇饜憵饜懍饜憫 饜懆饜憻 饜憭饜懇饜懐饜憰饜懄饜懁饜懢饜憫饜懠饜懄 饜憫 饜憭饜懇饜懐饜憹饜懅饜懐饜憱饜懇饜懐饜懇饜懁 饜懃饜懝饜憫饜懇饜懁饜憻 饜懆饜憻 路饜懄饜憵饜憰饜懇饜懐 饜懝 路饜憰饜懆饜懃饜憳饜懌饜懇饜懁 饜憵饜懗饜憫饜懁饜懠. 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜憸饜懏饜懕饜憫 饜懇饜憵饜懄饜懁饜懄饜憫饜懄 饜懆饜憻 饜懇 饜憮饜懘饜懐饜懇饜憫饜懄饜憱饜懇饜懐 (饜懀饜懓 饜憿饜應饜憻, 饜懖 饜憯饜懄饜憴饜憭, 饜憺 饜憵饜懅饜憰饜憫 饜憹 饜憺饜懅饜懃 饜懛饜懁 饜懆饜憫 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜憽饜應饜憵) 饜憿饜懌饜憶 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜懄饜懐饜憫饜懖饜憫饜懇饜懁饜憶 饜懀饜懄饜懃 饜憫 饜懀饜懖 饜懇饜憮饜懄饜憱饜懇饜懁 饜懏饜懅饜憭饜懇饜憸饜懐饜懄饜憱饜懇饜懐, 饜懐 饜憪饜懠饜懀饜懆饜憪饜憰 饜懄饜懐饜懕饜憵饜懇饜懁饜憶 饜懀饜懄饜懃 饜憫 饜憪饜應饜憪饜憳饜懇饜懁饜懠饜懖饜憻 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜憰饜懗饜憵饜憽饜懅饜憭饜憫, 饜憵饜懗饜憫 饜憮 饜懀饜懄饜憻 路饜憰饜懇饜憫饜懆饜懐饜懄饜憭 饜憭饜懇饜懐饜憫饜懅饜懃饜憪饜憫 饜憮 饜懛饜懁 饜懆饜憭饜懇饜憶饜懅饜懃饜懄饜憭 饜憶饜懄饜憸饜懐饜懄饜憫饜懠饜懄饜憻 饜懐 饜憪饜懟饜憰饜懇饜懐饜憻 饜懄饜懐 饜憽饜懅饜懐饜懠饜懇饜懁 饜懀饜懙 饜憯饜懛饜憫 饜懃饜懝 饜憹 饜憸饜懏饜懓饜憭 饜憺饜懆饜懐 饜憹 饜憮饜懇饜懐饜懅饜憫饜懄饜憭饜憰. 饜憿饜懗饜懐饜憰, 饜懄饜懐 饜憺 饜憶饜懕饜憻 饜憿饜懅饜懐 饜憺 路饜懄饜懃饜憪饜懡饜懢饜懁 饜懄饜懐饜憰饜憫饜懄饜憫饜懣饜憫 饜懏饜懘饜憻 饜懄饜懐 路饜憰饜懍饜憯 饜憭饜懅饜懐饜憻饜懄饜憴饜憫饜懇饜懐, 饜懐 路饜憽饜懘饜憰饜懇饜憮 饜憲饜懕饜懃饜憵饜懠饜懁饜懇饜懐 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜憵饜懙饜懃饜懄饜憴 饜憺 饜懅饜懃饜憪饜懖饜懠, 饜懖 饜懄饜懐饜憶饜懣饜憰饜憫 饜憺 饜懅饜憶饜懄饜憫饜懠 饜憹 饜懇 饜懁饜懓饜憶饜懄饜憴 饜懃饜懗饜懐饜憯饜懁饜懄 饜懏饜懄饜憹饜懣 饜憫 饜憭饜懇饜懃饜懄饜憱饜懇饜懐 饜懇饜懐 饜懜饜憫饜懄饜憭饜懇饜懁 饜憮饜懏饜應饜懃 路饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫 饜應饜懐 饜憺 饜懄饜懃饜憪饜懡饜懢饜懁 饜懄饜懃饜憪饜懝饜憫饜懇饜懐饜憰 饜憹 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜憰饜懗饜憵饜憽饜懅饜憭饜憫. 饜憿饜懅饜懐 饜懄饜憫 饜懠饜懖饜憹饜憶, 饜懄饜憫 饜憭饜懇饜懐饜憫饜懕饜懐饜憶 饜懐饜懗饜憯饜懄饜憴 饜憵饜懗饜憫 饜懇 饜憰饜懆饜憹饜懄饜憽饜懁饜懄 饜憶饜懄饜懏饜懖饜憰饜懄饜憹 饜懇饜憫饜懆饜憭 饜應饜懐 饜懇 饜憪饜懏饜懇饜憮饜懅饜憰饜懠 饜憹 饜懁饜懆饜憴饜憸饜憿饜懄饜憽 饜懐 饜懁饜懄饜憫饜懠饜懇饜憲饜懠 饜懀饜懙饜憻 饜憲饜懞 路饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫 饜懏饜懄饜憸饜懜饜憶饜懇饜憶 饜懆饜憻 饜憪饜懏饜應饜憪饜懠 饜憫 饜懇 饜憮饜懇饜懐饜懅饜憫饜懄饜憭 饜懅饜憭饜憰饜憪饜懟饜憫 饜懘饜懐饜懁饜懄. 饜憺 饜懜饜憫饜懄饜憭饜懇饜懁, 饜憵饜懓饜懄饜憴 饜懁饜懖饜憵饜懇饜懁饜懇饜憰, 饜懀饜懆饜憶 饜憫 饜憵饜懓 饜懏饜懄饜憫饜懟饜懐饜憶 饜懆饜憻 饜懄饜懃饜憪饜應饜憰饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁; 饜懐 饜懖 饜懀饜懆饜憶 饜憫 饜懏饜懄饜懐饜懍饜懐饜憰 饜懃饜懖 饜憶饜懏饜懓饜懃 饜憹 饜憶饜懏饜懆饜憸饜懄饜憴 饜懄饜憫饜憰 饜懛饜憯饜懠 饜懄饜懐饜憫饜懙 饜憺 饜懁饜懖饜懃饜懁饜懖饜憫. 饜憿饜懅饜懐 饜懖 饜懃饜懅饜憫 饜懀饜懄饜懃 饜懎饜憮饜憫饜懠饜憿饜懠饜憶饜憻, 饜憮 饜憺 饜憮饜懟饜憰饜憫 饜憫饜懖饜懃 饜憮 饜懃饜懅饜懐饜懄 饜憳饜懡饜憻, 饜懖 饜憮饜懍饜懐饜憶 饜憫 饜懃饜懖 饜懇饜憰饜憫饜應饜懐饜懄饜憱饜懃饜懇饜懐饜憫 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懀饜懓, 饜懀饜懙 饜懀饜懆饜憶 饜憵饜懓饜懐 饜懇 饜憭饜憿饜懖饜憫 饜憫饜應饜懁饜懠饜懇饜憵饜懁饜懄 饜憪饜懏饜懄饜憻饜懅饜懐饜憫饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜憳饜懗饜憴 饜懃饜懆饜懐, 饜懀饜懆饜憶 饜懆饜憭饜憲饜懌饜懇饜懁饜懄 饜懃饜懆饜懐饜懄饜憽饜憶 饜憵饜懖 饜憱饜懡 饜憰饜憭饜懝饜懐 饜憫 饜懛饜懁饜憫饜懠 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜憪饜懟饜憰饜懇饜懐饜懇饜懁 饜懇饜憪饜懡饜懇饜懐饜憰 饜懇饜懐饜憫饜懄饜懁 饜懀饜懓 饜懀饜懆饜憶 饜憵饜懄饜憭饜懗饜懃 饜懇 饜憰饜懝饜憫 饜憹 饜憿饜懛饜憭饜懄饜憴 饜懏饜懄饜憪饜懣饜憶饜懄饜懕饜憱饜懇饜懐 饜憹 路饜應饜憭饜憰饜憮饜懠饜憶 饜懐 饜懛饜懁 饜懄饜憫饜憰 饜憫饜懏饜懇饜憶饜懄饜憱饜懇饜懐饜憻. 饜懄饜憫 饜懃饜懗饜憰饜憫 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜憵饜懓饜懐 饜懁饜懜饜憽饜懁饜懄 饜懄饜懐 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜懘饜懐 饜憶饜懄饜憰饜憪饜懖饜憫 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懀饜懓 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜憰饜憭饜憿饜懓饜憻饜憶 饜懄饜懐饜憫饜懙 饜憰饜懗饜懃饜憯饜懄饜憴 饜憭饜懛饜懁饜憶 饜懇 路饜懏饜懓饜憶饜懠饜憱饜懄饜憪 饜憹 饜憮饜懇饜懐饜懅饜憫饜懄饜憭饜憰 饜憺饜懞. 饜憺 饜憮饜懣饜憲饜懠 饜憹 饜憮饜懇饜懐饜懅饜憫饜懄饜憭饜憰 饜懏饜懅饜憰饜憫饜憰 饜憪饜懏饜應饜憵饜懇饜憵饜懁饜懄 饜憿饜懄饜憺 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜憪饜懣饜憪饜懇饜懁饜憻, 饜懀饜懙 饜懛饜懁 饜憰饜憿饜懝 饜憵饜懖 饜懀饜懄饜懃; 饜憵饜懗饜憫 饜懐饜懗饜憯饜懄饜憴 饜憭饜懌饜憶 饜憵饜懏饜懄饜憴 饜憺 饜懃饜懆饜懐 饜懀饜懄饜懃饜憰饜懅饜懁饜憮 饜懄饜懐饜憫饜懙 饜懅饜懐饜懄 饜憰饜懝饜憫 饜憹 饜憭饜懇饜懃饜憪饜懁饜懖饜懇饜懐饜憰 饜憿饜懄饜憺 饜憺 饜懣饜懐饜懄饜憹饜懟饜憰饜懄饜憫饜懄, 饜憫 饜憿饜懄饜憲 饜懀饜懓 饜懐饜懅饜憹饜懠饜憺饜懇饜懁饜懅饜憰 饜憭饜懁饜懗饜憴 饜憵饜懖 饜憶饜懄饜憹饜懖饜懐 饜懏饜懖饜憫 饜懄饜懐 饜懇饜懐 饜懄饜懐饜憫饜懅饜懐饜憰饜懁饜懄 饜應饜憭饜憰饜懘饜懐饜懢饜懐 饜憿饜懕. 饜懖 饜憶饜懞饜憰饜懕 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜憪饜懕饜憪饜懠饜憻, 饜懄饜憮 饜懀饜懓 饜懀饜懆饜憻 饜懁饜懅饜憮饜憫 饜懅饜懐饜懄, 饜懄饜懐饜憭饜懁饜懙饜憶 饜憰饜懗饜懃 饜憰饜懆饜憫饜懖饜懠饜憻 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懃饜懕 饜憵饜懓 饜憪饜懗饜憵饜懁饜懄饜憱饜憫 饜憿饜懄饜憺饜懍饜憫 饜憫饜懙 饜憶饜懄饜憰饜憫饜懏饜懗饜憭饜憫饜懄饜憹 饜懏饜懄饜憻饜懗饜懁饜憫饜憰 饜憮饜懄饜憮饜憫饜懄 饜憳饜懡饜憻 饜懀饜懅饜懐饜憰. 饜懀饜懓 饜憿饜應饜憻, 饜懖 饜憵饜懄饜懁饜懓饜憹, 饜懐饜應饜憫 饜懄饜懐 饜憺 饜懁饜懓饜憰饜憫 饜懇饜懐 饜懄饜懁-饜懐饜懕饜憲饜懠饜憶 饜懃饜懆饜懐: 饜憹饜懅饜懏饜懄 饜懃饜懗饜憲 饜憺 饜應饜憪饜懇饜憻饜懄饜憫, 饜懖 饜憱饜懌饜憶 饜憰饜懕; 饜憵饜懗饜憫 饜懀饜懓 饜憿饜懌饜憶 饜懐饜應饜憫 饜憰饜懗饜憮饜懠 饜憮饜懙饜懁饜憻 饜憸饜懁饜懆饜憶饜懁饜懄.

饜憺饜懘饜憻 饜懀饜懙 饜懐饜懣 饜懀饜懄饜懃 饜憿饜懄饜懁 饜懏饜懅饜憭饜懇饜憸饜懐饜懖饜憻 饜懄饜懐 饜懃饜懖 饜憯饜懟饜憶 饜懆饜憭饜憫 饜憺 饜懇饜懁饜懙饜憼饜懇饜懐 饜憫 饜憺 饜憪饜懕饜憫饜懇饜懐饜憫 路饜憱饜懝饜憫饜懀饜懆饜懐饜憶 饜懄饜懐 饜憿饜懄饜憲 饜懀饜懓 饜懣饜憰饜憫 饜憫 饜懏饜懖饜憫 饜憪饜懘饜憰饜憫饜憭饜懜饜憶饜憻, 饜懐 饜憿饜懄饜憲 饜懃饜懕 饜憵饜懓 饜懇饜憭饜憿饜懖饜懠饜憶 饜憮饜懏饜應饜懃 饜懇 饜憮饜懝 饜懐 饜憰饜懄饜憭饜憰-饜憪饜懅饜懐饜懄 饜懃饜懆饜懐饜憳饜懌饜懇饜懁 饜憪饜懗饜憵饜懁饜懄饜憱饜憫 饜憵饜懖 饜憺 路饜憭饜懁饜懆饜懏饜懄饜懐饜憶饜懇饜懐 饜憪饜懏饜懅饜憰. 饜憺 饜憪饜懘饜憰饜憫饜憭饜懜饜憶饜憻 饜憿饜懄饜憲 路饜懃饜懄饜憰饜懄饜憻 饜懀饜懄饜憸饜懄饜懐饜憻 饜憶饜懄饜憰饜憭饜懏饜懖饜憵饜憻 饜懜 饜憰饜懗饜憲 饜懆饜憻 饜懖 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜懏饜懄饜憰饜懓饜憹饜憶 饜憮饜懏饜應饜懃 路饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫. 饜懖 饜憿饜懌饜憶 饜憶饜懄饜憰饜懖饜憮饜懠 饜懇 饜憰饜懍饜懐饜憶 饜憿饜懄饜憲 饜懇 饜憭饜應饜憭饜懐饜懄 饜憿饜懌饜憶 饜懏饜懅饜憪饜懏饜懄饜憻饜懅饜懐饜憫 饜憵饜懖 zerr, 饜懐 饜懇 饜憮饜懏饜懅饜懐饜憲饜懃饜懇饜懐 饜憵饜懖 seu, 饜懐 饜憺饜懅饜懐 饜懏饜懖饜憫 饜憶饜懄饜懃饜懎饜懐饜憶饜懄饜憴 饜憿饜懄饜憺 饜憰饜懗饜懃 饜懀饜懓饜憫 饜憿饜應饜憫 饜應饜懐 饜懟饜憯 饜懄饜憫 饜懃饜懅饜懐饜憫. 路饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫, 饜憿饜懄饜憺 饜憵饜懍饜懐饜憶饜懁饜懇饜憰 饜憭饜懇饜懐饜憫饜懅饜懃饜憪饜憫 饜憮 饜懃饜懖 饜憰饜憫饜懣饜憪饜懄饜憶饜懄饜憫饜懄, 饜憿饜懌饜憶 饜懏饜懄饜憪饜懁饜懖 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懄饜憫 饜懐饜應饜憫 饜懘饜懐饜懁饜懄 饜懃饜懅饜懐饜憫 饜憵饜懗饜憫 饜應饜憵饜憹饜懢饜憰饜懁饜懄 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜憺 饜憿饜懟饜憶 芦饜懏饜懄饜憻饜懗饜懁饜憫禄, 饜懆饜憻 饜懐饜懘 饜懗饜憺饜懠 饜憿饜懟饜憶 饜憭饜懇饜懐饜憫饜懕饜懐饜懄饜憴 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜憰饜懍饜懐饜憶, 饜懐 饜憭饜懕饜憪饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜憹 饜懃饜懕饜憭饜懄饜憴 饜憰饜懅饜懐饜憰 饜憿饜懄饜憺 饜憺 饜憭饜應饜懐饜憫饜懅饜憭饜憰饜憫, 饜懄饜憸饜憻饜懄饜憰饜憫饜懇饜憶 饜懄饜懐 饜懅饜懐饜懄 饜懁饜懆饜憴饜憸饜憿饜懄饜憽 饜憰饜憪饜懘饜憭饜懇饜懐 饜應饜懐 路饜懟饜憯. 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懁饜懅饜憰 饜懅饜憭饜憰饜憪饜懟饜憫 饜懃饜懝饜憫饜懇饜懁饜憻 饜憱饜懌饜憶 饜懏饜懄饜憭饜憿饜懖饜懠 饜憮饜懌饜懁饜懠 饜懄饜懐饜憶饜懄饜憭饜懕饜憱饜懇饜懐饜憻 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜憵饜懄饜憳饜應饜懐饜憶 路饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫饜憰 饜憪饜懕饜憱饜懇饜懐饜憰. 饜憺饜懞饜憮饜懝, 饜憺饜懘 饜憺 饜懀饜懘饜懁 饜憪饜懚饜懐饜憫 饜憹 饜懀饜懄饜憻 路饜憭饜懗饜懏饜懇饜懐饜憫 饜憱饜懝饜憫饜懀饜懆饜懐饜憶 饜懄饜憻 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懄饜憫 饜憭饜懆饜懐 饜懄饜憭饜憰饜憪饜懏饜懅饜憰 饜懅饜憹饜懏饜懄 饜憰饜懍饜懐饜憶 饜懄饜懐 饜憺 饜懁饜懆饜憴饜憸饜憿饜懄饜憽 饜憪饜懟饜憮饜懄饜憭饜憫饜懁饜懄, 饜憹饜懍饜懇饜懁饜憻 饜懆饜憻 饜憿饜懅饜懁 饜懆饜憻 饜憭饜應饜懐饜憰饜懇饜懐饜懇饜懐饜憫饜憰, 饜懐 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜憳饜懝 饜懀饜懆饜懐饜憶 饜懀饜懆饜憰 饜憫 饜懃饜懕饜憭 饜懐饜懘 饜憰饜憫饜懏饜懘饜憭 饜懄饜憭饜憰饜懅饜憪饜憫 饜憺 饜懓饜憻饜懄 饜懐 饜憭饜懗饜懏饜懇饜懐饜憫 饜憿饜懗饜懐饜憻 饜憿饜懄饜憺 饜憿饜懄饜憲 饜懣 饜懏饜懖饜憫 m, n, 饜懐 u, l, p, 饜懐 q, 饜憰饜憭饜懏饜懄饜憵饜懁饜懄饜憴 饜憺饜懅饜懃 饜懆饜憫 饜憿饜應饜憫饜懅饜憹饜懠 饜懆饜憴饜憸饜懇饜懁 饜憭饜懗饜懃饜憻 饜懓饜憻饜懄饜懇饜憰饜憫 饜憫 饜懣, 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜懗饜懐饜憮饜懝饜憲饜懇饜懐饜懇饜憫 饜憶饜懄饜憫饜懟饜懃饜懄饜懐饜懕饜憱饜懇饜懐 饜憫 饜懃饜懕饜憭 饜憺饜懄饜憰 饜懏饜懄饜懃饜懜饜憭饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜懐 饜憭饜憿饜懖饜憫 饜懁饜懅饜憽饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜憰饜憭饜懏饜懄饜憪饜憫 饜憰饜懟饜憹 饜懛饜懁饜憰饜懘 饜懆饜憻 饜懇 饜憱饜懝饜憫饜懀饜懆饜懐饜憶 饜懏饜懄饜憶饜懣饜憰饜憫 饜懄饜憫 饜懄饜懐 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜懘饜懐 饜憪饜懏饜懆饜憭饜憫饜懄饜憰 饜憫 饜憺 饜懃饜懘饜憰饜憫 饜懄饜懐饜憰饜憭饜懏饜懙饜憫饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜憹 饜憭饜懏饜懄饜憪饜憫饜懘饜憸饜懏饜懆饜懃饜憻. 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜憫饜懏饜懙 饜懇饜憵饜憽饜懅饜憭饜憫饜懄饜憹 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜憺 饜憪饜懏饜懇饜憹饜懄饜憼饜懇饜懐 饜憹 饜懇 饜憮饜懌饜懁, 饜懆饜憭饜憳饜懠饜懇饜憫, 饜懁饜懅饜憽饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜憰饜憭饜懏饜懄饜憪饜憫 饜憮 饜懍饜懠 饜懐饜懘饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜憵饜懗饜憫 饜懄饜懁-饜憶饜懏饜懅饜憰饜憫 饜懁饜懆饜憴饜憸饜憿饜懄饜憽; 饜憵饜懗饜憫 饜懀饜懓 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜懁饜懅饜憶 饜憪饜懎饜憰饜憫 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜憵饜懖 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜憭饜懇饜懐饜憫饜懅饜懃饜憪饜憫 饜憮 饜憺 饜憪饜應饜憪饜憳饜懇饜懁饜懠 路饜憪饜懄饜憫饜懃饜懇饜懐 饜憰饜懄饜憰饜憫饜懇饜懃 饜憹 路饜憱饜懝饜憫饜懀饜懆饜懐饜憶, 饜憿饜懄饜憲 饜懀饜懓 饜憭饜懛饜懁饜憶 饜憺 路饜憪饜懄饜憫饜憮饜懛饜懁 饜憰饜懄饜憰饜憫饜懇饜懃. 饜憺 饜憫饜懏饜懖饜懇饜懃饜憮 饜憹 路饜憪饜懄饜憫饜懃饜懇饜懐 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜懇 饜憫饜懏饜懖饜懇饜懃饜憮 饜憹 饜憵饜懄饜憻饜懐饜懇饜憰 饜懝饜憸饜懇饜懐饜懖饜憻饜懕饜憱饜懇饜懐: 饜憺饜懞 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜懇 饜憿饜懓饜憭饜懁饜懄 饜憪饜懕饜憪饜懠 饜憫 饜憪饜懠饜憰饜憿饜懕饜憶 饜懣 饜憫 饜懁饜懟饜懐 路饜憪饜懄饜憫饜懃饜懇饜懐: 饜憺饜懞 饜憿饜懟 饜憲饜懓饜憪 饜憫饜懅饜憭饜憰饜憫饜憵饜懌饜憭饜憰 饜懐 饜懅饜憭饜憰饜懠饜憰饜懖饜憻 饜憵饜懌饜憭饜憰 饜懐 饜憫饜懏饜懆饜懐饜憰饜憭饜懏饜懄饜憪饜憫饜憰 饜憹 饜憰饜憪饜懓饜憲饜懇饜憻 饜憮 饜懣 饜憫 饜憭饜應饜憪饜懄, 饜懐 饜憰饜憭饜懙饜懁饜憻 饜憿饜懞 饜懄饜憭饜憰饜憪饜懡饜懢饜懐饜憰饜憫 饜憫饜懓饜憲饜懠饜憻 饜憭饜懘饜憲饜憫 饜懣 饜懗饜憪 饜憫 饜憺 饜懐饜懅饜憰饜懇饜憰饜懠饜懄 饜憪饜懏饜懇饜憮饜懄饜憱饜懇饜懐饜憰饜懄. 路饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫 饜憭饜懌饜憶 饜懐饜應饜憫 饜懝饜憸饜懇饜懐饜懖饜憻 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜懃饜懜饜憭饜懇饜憫 饜懄饜懐 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜憮饜懆饜憱饜懇饜懐. 饜懀饜懓 饜懃饜懖饜憫 饜懆饜憻 饜憿饜懅饜懁 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜憵饜懓饜懐 饜憺 路饜憰饜懄饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜懀饜懙 饜憫饜懝 饜懗饜憪 饜憺 饜懁饜懓饜憹饜憻 饜憹 饜憪饜懏饜應饜憮饜懇饜憰饜懄 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懐饜懘饜憵饜應饜憶饜懄 饜憿饜懌饜憶 饜懇饜憫饜懅饜懐饜憶 饜憫. 饜憺 饜憮饜懝 饜懐 饜憰饜懄饜憭饜憰-饜憪饜懅饜懐饜懄 饜懃饜懆饜懐饜憳饜懌饜懇饜懁, 饜懃饜懘饜憰饜憫饜懁饜懄 饜懄饜懐 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜懁饜懄饜憯饜懇饜憸饜懏饜懆饜憮饜憫 饜懀饜懆饜懐饜憶饜懏饜懖饜憫饜懄饜憴, 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜憿饜應饜憻 饜懐饜懅饜憹饜懠 饜憹饜懗饜懁饜憸饜懠饜懁饜懄 饜懆饜憶饜憹饜懠饜憫饜懖饜憻饜憶, 饜懃饜懕 饜憪饜懠饜懀饜懆饜憪饜憰 饜憰饜懗饜懃 饜憶饜懕 饜憵饜懓 饜憫饜懕饜憭饜懇饜懐 饜懗饜憪 饜憵饜懖 饜懇 饜憰饜懄饜懐饜憶饜懄饜憭饜懇饜憫 饜懐 饜憪饜懌饜憱饜憫 饜懇饜憪饜應饜懐 饜憺 饜憪饜懗饜憵饜懁饜懄饜憭 饜懆饜憻 饜憺 路饜憫饜懖饜懃饜憻 饜憪饜懌饜憱饜憫 饜憺 路饜懄饜懐饜憰饜懖饜憭饜懁饜懇饜憪饜懓饜憶饜懢 饜憵饜懏饜懄饜憫饜懆饜懐饜懄饜憭饜懇; 饜憵饜懗饜憫 饜懇饜懐饜憫饜懄饜懁 饜憺饜懅饜懐 饜懄饜憫 饜憿饜懄饜懁 饜憰饜懟饜憫饜懇饜懐饜懁饜懄 饜懐饜應饜憫 饜憪饜懏饜懄饜憹饜懕饜懁 饜懇饜憸饜懅饜懐饜憰饜憫 路饜憪饜懄饜憫饜懃饜懇饜懐. 饜懖 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜憵饜懛饜憫 饜憯饜懏饜懓 饜憭饜應饜憪饜懄饜憻 饜憹 饜懄饜憫 饜憶饜憳饜懌饜懠饜懄饜憴 饜懃饜懖 饜懁饜懖饜憮饜憫饜懖饜懃; 饜懐 饜懖 饜懆饜懃 饜懄饜懐饜憮饜懝饜懃饜憶 饜憵饜懖 饜憺 饜憪饜懗饜憵饜懁饜懄饜憱饜懠饜憻 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懄饜憫饜憰 饜憭饜懁饜懚饜憰饜憫饜懠饜憶 饜懄饜憸饜憻饜懄饜憰饜憫饜懇饜懐饜憰 饜懄饜憻 饜憰饜憫饜懄饜懁 饜懇 饜憰饜憫饜懅饜憶饜懄 饜懐 饜懀饜懅饜懁饜憯饜懄 饜憿饜懗饜懐. 饜懖 饜懆饜憭饜憲饜懌饜懇饜懁饜懄 饜懁饜懟饜懐饜憶 饜憺 饜憰饜懄饜憰饜憫饜懇饜懃 饜憫饜懙 饜憰饜懅饜憹饜懠饜懇饜懁 饜憫饜懖饜懃饜憻; 饜懐 饜憳饜懅饜憫 饜憺 饜憱饜懝饜憫饜懀饜懆饜懐饜憶 饜懄饜懐 饜憿饜懄饜憲 饜懖 饜懆饜懃 饜懏饜懖饜憫饜懄饜憴 饜憺饜懓饜憻 饜懁饜懖饜懐饜憻 饜懄饜憻 路饜憪饜懄饜憫饜懃饜懇饜懐饜憻. 饜懐 饜憺 饜懏饜懓饜憻饜懇饜懐 饜懄饜憻, 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懃饜懖 饜憰饜懅饜憭饜懏饜懇饜憫饜懠饜懄 饜憭饜懆饜懐饜應饜憫 饜憫饜懏饜懆饜懐饜憰饜憭饜懏饜懖饜憵 路饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫, 饜懀饜懆饜憹饜懄饜憴 饜憵饜懓饜懐 饜憪饜懠饜憮饜懝饜憰 饜憫饜懛饜憫 饜懄饜懐 饜憺 饜憰饜憭饜懙饜懁饜憻 饜憹 路饜憪饜懄饜憫饜懃饜懇饜懐. 饜憺饜懞饜憮饜懝, 路饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫 饜懏饜懕饜懁饜憶 饜懆饜憫 路饜憪饜懄饜憫饜懃饜懇饜懐 饜懆饜憻 饜憹饜懕饜懐饜懁饜懄 饜懆饜憻 路饜憯饜懟饜憰饜懖饜憫饜懓饜憻 饜懏饜懕饜懁饜憶 饜懆饜憫 饜懕饜憽饜懆饜憭饜憰: 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜懏饜懕饜懁饜懠饜懄, 饜懀饜懍饜懅饜憹饜懠 饜懄饜憫 饜懃饜懕 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜懓饜憻饜憶 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜憰饜懘饜懁, 饜憸饜懕饜憹 饜懐饜懘 饜憪饜應饜憪饜憳饜懇饜懁饜懠 饜憹饜懘饜憸 饜憫 路饜憭饜懗饜懏饜懇饜懐饜憫 饜憱饜懝饜憫饜懀饜懆饜懐饜憶. 饜憪饜懄饜憸饜懃饜懕饜懁饜懢饜懐 路饜懀饜懄饜憸饜懄饜懐饜憻 饜懄饜憻 饜懐饜應饜憫 饜懇 饜憪饜懝饜憫饜懏饜懄饜憫 饜憹 路饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫, 饜憫 饜懀饜懙饜懃 饜憺 饜懇饜憶饜憹饜懅饜懐饜憲饜懠 饜憹 路饜懄饜懁饜懖饜憻饜懇 饜憶饜懙饜懁饜懄饜憫饜懇饜懁 饜憿饜懌饜憶 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜憵饜懓饜懐 饜懄饜懃饜憪饜應饜憰饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁; 饜憰饜憫饜懄饜懁, 饜懆饜憻 饜憿饜懄饜懁 饜憵饜懓 饜憰饜懓饜懐, 饜憺饜懞 饜懜 饜憫饜懗饜憲饜懇饜憻 饜憹 路饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫 饜懄饜懐 饜憺 饜憪饜懁饜懕. 饜憿饜懄饜憺 路饜懀饜懄饜憸饜懄饜懐饜憻饜懇饜憻 饜憮饜懄饜憻饜懓饜憭 饜懐 饜憫饜懅饜懃饜憪饜懠饜懇饜懃饜懇饜懐饜憫 路饜憰饜憿饜懓饜憫 饜懃饜懖饜憫 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜憰饜懅饜憫 饜憺 路饜憫饜懅饜懃饜憻 饜應饜懐 饜憮饜懖饜懠. 饜懆饜憻 饜懄饜憫 饜憿饜應饜憻, 饜懀饜懓 饜懄饜懃饜憪饜懏饜懅饜憰饜憫 饜懀饜懄饜懃饜憰饜懅饜懁饜憮 饜憪饜懏饜懇饜憮饜懅饜憱饜懇饜懐饜懇饜懁饜懄 饜應饜懐 路饜憳饜懌饜懠饜懇饜憪 饜憫 饜懇饜懐 饜懄饜憭饜憰饜憫饜懅饜懐饜憫 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懃饜懕饜憶 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜憭饜懇饜懃饜憪饜懆饜懏饜懇饜憫饜懄饜憹 饜憪饜懟饜憰饜懇饜懐饜懇饜懁 饜懇饜憵饜憰饜憭饜憳饜懌饜懠饜懄饜憫饜懄, 饜懐 饜憺 饜憮饜懕饜懁饜憳饜懠 饜憹 路饜應饜憭饜憰饜憮饜懠饜憶 饜憫 饜憶饜懙 饜憽饜懗饜憰饜憫饜懄饜憰 饜憫 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜懅饜懃饜懄饜懐饜懇饜懐饜憰, 饜懇 饜憪饜懗饜憻饜懇饜懁 饜憫 饜憮饜應饜懏饜懄饜懐 饜憰饜憪饜懅饜憱饜懇饜懁饜懄饜憰饜憫饜憰 饜懄饜懐 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜憰饜懗饜憵饜憽饜懅饜憭饜憫. 饜懖 饜憶饜懙 饜懐饜應饜憫 饜憵饜懁饜懕饜懃 路饜應饜憭饜憰饜憮饜懠饜憶, 饜憵饜懄饜憭饜應饜憻 饜懖 饜憯饜懄饜憴饜憭 路饜應饜憭饜憰饜憮饜懠饜憶 饜懄饜憻 饜憭饜憿饜懖饜憫 饜懏饜懖饜憫 饜懄饜懐 饜憶饜懄饜懃饜懎饜懐饜憶饜懄饜憴 饜懇 饜憰饜懟饜憫饜懇饜懐 饜憰饜懘饜憱饜懇饜懁 饜懇饜懃饜懓饜懐饜懄饜憫饜懄 饜憮饜懏饜應饜懃 饜懄饜憫饜憰 饜懐饜懟饜憰饜懁饜懄饜憴饜憻 (饜懀饜懅饜憹饜懇饜懐 饜懐饜懘饜憻 饜懄饜憫 饜懄饜憻 饜懐饜應饜憫 饜懄饜憸饜憻饜懝饜憵饜懄饜憫饜懇饜懐饜憫 饜懄饜懐 饜懄饜憫饜憰 饜懏饜懄饜憭饜憿饜懖饜懠饜懃饜懇饜懐饜憫饜憰!); 饜憮 饜懛饜懁饜憺饜懘 饜懖 饜憿饜懅饜懁 饜懐饜懘 饜懀饜懍 饜懀饜懜饜憶 饜懄饜憫 饜懄饜憻 饜憮 饜懇 饜懃饜懆饜懐 饜憹 饜憽饜懓饜懐饜懢饜憰 饜憿饜懄饜憺 饜懇 饜憰饜懡饜懢饜憰饜懁饜懄 饜懗饜懐饜憶饜懠饜懏饜懕饜憫饜懇饜憶 饜憰饜懗饜憵饜憽饜懅饜憭饜憫 饜憫 饜懃饜懕饜懐饜憫饜懕饜懐 饜憰饜懠饜懓饜懐 饜懐 饜憭饜懖饜懐饜憶饜懁饜懄 饜懏饜懄饜懁饜懕饜憱饜懇饜懐饜憻 饜憿饜懄饜憺 饜憺 饜懃饜懅饜懐 饜懀饜懙 饜懗饜懐饜憶饜懠饜懏饜懕饜憫 饜懄饜憫, 饜懐 饜懀饜懙 饜憭饜懓饜憪 饜懛饜懁 饜憺 饜憵饜懅饜憰饜憫 饜憪饜懁饜懕饜憰饜懇饜憻 饜憮 饜懁饜懅饜憰 饜懄饜懃饜憪饜懝饜憫饜懇饜懐饜憫 饜憰饜懗饜憵饜憽饜懅饜憭饜憫饜憰 饜憿饜懄饜憲 饜憺饜懕 饜憪饜懏饜懇饜憮饜懅饜憰 饜憿饜懄饜憺饜懍饜憫 饜懠饜懄饜憽饜懄饜懐饜懆饜懁饜懄饜憫饜懄 饜懐 饜憰饜懗饜懃饜憫饜懖饜懃饜憻 饜憿饜懄饜憺饜懍饜憫 饜懃饜懗饜憲 饜憭饜懇饜憪饜懆饜憰饜懄饜憫饜懄 饜憮 饜憺饜懅饜懃, 饜憰饜憫饜懄饜懁, 饜懄饜憮 饜懀饜懓 饜懘饜憹饜懠饜憿饜懅饜懁饜懃饜憻 饜憺饜懅饜懃 饜憿饜懄饜憺 饜懏饜應饜憯 饜懐 饜憶饜懄饜憰饜憶饜懕饜懐, 饜懀饜懓 饜憭饜懆饜懐饜應饜憫 饜懄饜憭饜憰饜憪饜懅饜憭饜憫 饜憺饜懅饜懃 饜憫 饜懀饜懓饜憪 饜應饜懐饜懠饜憻 饜應饜懐 饜懀饜懄饜懃.

饜憹 饜憺 饜懁饜懕饜憫饜懠 饜憽饜懅饜懐饜懠饜懕饜憱饜懇饜懐饜憻 饜憹 饜憮饜懘饜懐饜懇饜憫饜懄饜憱饜懇饜懐饜憻 饜懖 饜懐饜懘 饜懁饜懄饜憫饜懇饜懁. 饜懇饜懃饜懗饜憴 饜憺饜懅饜懃 饜憫饜懍饜懠饜憻 饜憺 路饜憪饜懘饜懇饜憫 饜懁饜懝饜懢饜憫, 饜憫 饜懀饜懙饜懃 饜憪饜懠饜懀饜懆饜憪饜憰 路饜懀饜懄饜憸饜懄饜懐饜憻 饜懃饜懕 饜懘 饜懀饜懄饜憻 饜懃饜懄饜懁饜憫饜應饜懐饜懄饜憭 饜憰饜懄饜懃饜憪饜懇饜憯饜懄饜憻, 饜憺饜懘 饜懀饜懡 饜懇饜憸饜懅饜懐 饜懖 饜懃饜懗饜憰饜憫 饜憶饜懄饜憰饜憭饜懁饜懕饜懃 饜懛饜懁 饜憪饜懝饜憫饜懏饜懄饜憲饜懠. 饜憵饜懗饜憫 饜懄饜憮 饜憺 饜憪饜懁饜懕 饜懃饜懕饜憭饜憰 饜憺 饜憪饜懗饜憵饜懁饜懄饜憭 饜懇饜憿饜懞 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜憺饜懞 饜懜 饜憰饜懗饜憲 饜憪饜懓饜憪饜懇饜懁 饜懆饜憻 饜憮饜懘饜懐饜懇饜憫饜懄饜憱饜懇饜懐饜憻, 饜懐 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜憺饜懕 饜懜 饜懇饜懃饜懗饜憴 饜憺 饜懃饜懘饜憰饜憫 饜懄饜懃饜憪饜懝饜憫饜懇饜懐饜憫 饜憪饜懓饜憪饜懇饜懁 饜懄饜懐 路饜懄饜憴饜憸饜懁饜懇饜懐饜憶 饜懆饜憫 饜憪饜懏饜懅饜憻饜懇饜懐饜憫, 饜懄饜憫 饜憿饜懄饜懁 饜憰饜懟饜憹 饜懄饜憫饜憰 饜憫饜懟饜懐.

饜懖 饜憿饜懄饜憱 饜憫 饜憵饜懘饜憰饜憫 饜憺饜懆饜憫 路饜憪饜懄饜憸饜懃饜懕饜懁饜懢饜懐 饜懀饜懆饜憻 饜憵饜懓饜懐 饜懇饜懐 饜懄饜憭饜憰饜憫饜懏饜懓饜懃饜懁饜懄 饜憰饜懇饜憭饜憰饜懅饜憰饜憮饜懇饜懁 饜憪饜懁饜懕 饜懛饜懁 饜懘饜憹饜懠 路饜憳饜懌饜懠饜懇饜憪 饜懐 路饜懐饜懝饜憯 饜懇饜懃饜懅饜懏饜懄饜憭饜懇 饜懆饜憻 饜憿饜懅饜懁 饜懆饜憻 饜懆饜憫 饜懀饜懘饜懃. 饜懄饜憫 饜懄饜憻 饜憰饜懘 饜懄饜懐饜憫饜懅饜懐饜憰饜懁饜懄 饜懐 饜憶饜懄饜懁饜懄饜憵饜懠饜懇饜憫饜懁饜懄 饜憶饜懖饜憶饜懆饜憭饜憫饜懄饜憭, 饜懐 饜懄饜憫饜憰 饜憰饜懗饜憵饜憽饜懅饜憭饜憫 饜懄饜憻 饜懄饜憰饜憫饜懓饜懃饜憶 饜憰饜懘 饜憶饜懏饜懖, 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懖 饜憶饜懄饜懁饜懖饜憫 饜懄饜懐 饜憯饜懏饜懘饜懄饜憴 饜懄饜憫 饜懆饜憫 饜憺 饜懀饜懅饜憶饜憻 饜憹 饜憺 饜憿饜懖饜憻饜懕饜憭饜懠饜憻 饜懀饜懙 饜懏饜懄饜憪饜懓饜憫 饜憺 饜憪饜懆饜懏饜懇饜憫 饜憭饜懏饜懖 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懜饜憫 饜憱饜懌饜憶 饜懐饜懅饜憹饜懠 饜憵饜懓 饜憶饜懖饜憶饜懆饜憭饜憫饜懄饜憭. 饜懄饜憫 饜憸饜懘饜憻 饜憫 饜憪饜懏饜懙饜憹 饜懃饜懖 饜憭饜懇饜懐饜憫饜懅饜懐饜憱饜懇饜懐 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懜饜憫 饜憱饜懌饜憶 饜懐饜懅饜憹饜懠 饜憵饜懓 饜懅饜懐饜懄饜憯饜懄饜憴 饜懅饜懁饜憰.

饜憮饜懖饜懐饜懇饜懁饜懄, 饜懐 饜憮 饜憺 饜懄饜懐饜憭饜懗饜懏饜懄饜憽饜懃饜懇饜懐饜憫 饜憹 饜憪饜懓饜憪饜懇饜懁 饜憫饜懏饜懗饜憵饜懇饜懁饜憶 饜憿饜懄饜憺 饜懆饜憭饜憰饜懇饜懐饜憫饜憰 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜憭饜懗饜憫 饜憺饜懅饜懃 饜應饜憮 饜憮饜懏饜應饜懃 饜懛饜懁 饜懀饜懖 饜懄饜懃饜憪饜懁饜懚饜懃饜懇饜懐饜憫, 饜懖 饜懃饜懕 饜懆饜憶 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜憺 饜憲饜懕饜懐饜憽 饜懏饜懛饜憫 饜憵饜懖 路饜憪饜懏饜懇饜憮饜懅饜憰饜懠 饜懀饜懄饜憸饜懄饜懐饜憻 饜懄饜懐 饜憺 饜憮饜懁饜懍饜懠 饜憸饜懟饜懁 饜懄饜憻 饜懐饜懖饜憺饜懠 饜懄饜懃饜憪饜應饜憰饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜懐饜懝 饜懗饜懐饜憭饜應饜懃饜懇饜懐. 饜憺 饜懃饜應饜憶饜懠饜懐 饜憭饜應饜懐饜憰饜懄饜懞饜憼饜懇饜憻 饜憶饜懛饜憫饜懠 饜懀饜懙 饜憮饜懌饜懁饜憮饜懄饜懁饜憻 饜懀饜懟 饜懆饜懃饜憵饜懄饜憱饜懇饜懐 饜憵饜懖 饜憪饜懁饜懕饜懄饜憴 饜憺 饜憭饜憿饜懓饜懐 饜憹 路饜憰饜憪饜懕饜懐 饜懄饜懐 路饜懏饜懙饜懄 饜憵饜懁饜懆饜憰 饜懆饜憫 饜憺 路饜憯饜懢饜憫饜懠 饜憮饜懏饜應饜懐饜憰饜懕 饜懄饜憻 饜懘饜懐饜懁饜懄 饜憿饜懗饜懐 饜憹 饜懃饜懅饜懐饜懄 饜憯饜懍饜憻饜懇饜懐饜憶饜憻 饜憹 饜懃饜懅饜懐 饜懐 饜憿饜懄饜懃饜懄饜懐 饜懀饜懙 饜懀饜懆饜憹 饜憰饜懁饜懗饜憮饜憫 饜應饜憮 饜憺饜懞 饜懐饜懕饜憫饜懄饜憹 饜憶饜懖饜懇饜懁饜懅饜憭饜憫饜憰 饜懐 饜懇饜憭饜憿饜懖饜懠饜憶 饜懇 饜懐饜懣 饜憫饜懗饜憴. 饜憵饜懗饜憫 饜憺 饜憯饜懄饜憴 饜懀饜懆饜憰 饜憫 饜憵饜懓 饜憶饜懗饜懐 饜憰饜懖饜懇饜懐饜憫饜懄饜憮饜懄饜憭饜懁饜懄, 饜懝 饜憺 饜懁饜懎饜憰饜憫 饜憰饜憫饜懕饜憫 饜憹 饜憺 饜懆饜憰饜憪饜懄饜懏饜懇饜懐饜憫 饜懃饜懕 饜憵饜懓 饜憿饜懟饜憰 饜憺饜懆饜懐 饜憺 饜憮饜懟饜憰饜憫. 饜懇饜懐 饜應饜懐饜懇饜憰饜憫 饜懐 饜懐饜懆饜憲饜懠饜懇饜懁 饜憰饜懁饜懗饜懃 饜憶饜懖饜懇饜懁饜懅饜憭饜憫 饜懄饜憻 饜懃饜懝 饜憫饜應饜懁饜懠饜懇饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜憺饜懆饜懐 饜憺 饜懇饜憫饜懅饜懃饜憪饜憫 饜憹 饜懇 饜憮饜懇饜懐饜懅饜憫饜懄饜憭饜懁饜懄 饜懗饜懐饜憫饜懛饜憫 饜憪饜懟饜憰饜懇饜懐 饜憫 饜懄饜懃饜懄饜憫饜懕饜憫 饜憺 饜憹饜懗饜懁饜憸饜懠 饜憶饜懖饜懇饜懁饜懅饜憭饜憫 饜憹 饜憺 饜憸饜應饜懁饜憮 饜憭饜懁饜懗饜憵; 饜懐 饜懖 饜懆饜懃 饜憰饜應饜懏饜懄 饜憫 饜憰饜懕 饜憺饜懆饜憫 饜懄饜懐 饜憰饜憪饜懖饜憫 饜憹 饜憺 饜懅饜憮饜懠饜憫饜憰 饜憹 饜懍饜懠 路饜懇饜憭饜懆饜憶饜懇饜懃饜懄 饜憹 饜憶饜懏饜懇饜懃饜懆饜憫饜懄饜憭 饜懜饜憫, 饜憺饜懞 饜懄饜憻 饜憰饜憫饜懄饜懁 饜憫饜懙 饜懃饜懗饜憲 饜憱饜懆饜懃 饜憸饜應饜懁饜憮饜懄饜憴 饜懄饜憴饜憸饜懁饜懄饜憱 饜應饜懐 饜懍饜懠 饜憰饜憫饜懕饜憽, 饜懐 饜憫饜懙 饜懁饜懄饜憫饜懇饜懁 饜憹 饜憺 饜懐饜懘饜憵饜懇饜懁 饜懄饜憴饜憸饜懁饜懄饜憱 饜憹 路饜憮饜懝饜憵饜憻 饜懏饜應饜憵饜懠饜憫饜憰饜懇饜懐.

Preface to Pygmalion.

A Professor of Phonetics.

As will be seen later on, Pygmalion needs, not a preface, but a sequel, which I have supplied in its due place. The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it. They spell it so abominably that no man can teach himself what it sounds like. It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him. German and Spanish are accessible to foreigners: English is not accessible even to Englishmen. The reformer England needs today is an energetic phonetic enthusiast: that is why I have made such a one the hero of a popular play. There have been heroes of that kind crying in the wilderness for many years past. When I became interested in the subject towards the end of the eighteen-seventies, Melville Bell was dead; but Alexander J. Ellis was still a living patriarch, with an impressive head always covered by a velvet skull cap, for which he would apologize to public meetings in a very courtly manner. He and Tito Pagliardini, another phonetic veteran, were men whom it was impossible to dislike. Henry Sweet, then a young man, lacked their sweetness of character: he was about as conciliatory to conventional mortals as Ibsen or Samuel Butler. His great ability as a phonetician (he was, I think, the best of them all at his job) would have entitled him to high official recognition, and perhaps enabled him to popularize his subject, but for his Satanic contempt for all academic dignitaries and persons in general who thought more of Greek than of phonetics. Once, in the days when the Imperial Institute rose in South Kensington, and Joseph Chamberlain was booming the Empire, I induced the editor of a leading monthly review to commission an article from Sweet on the imperial importance of his subject. When it arrived, it contained nothing but a savagely derisive attack on a professor of language and literature whose chair Sweet regarded as proper to a phonetic expert only. The article, being libelous, had to be returned as impossible; and I had to renounce my dream of dragging its author into the limelight. When I met him afterwards, for the first time for many years, I found to my astonishment that he, who had been a quite tolerably presentable young man, had actually managed by sheer scorn to alter his personal appearance until he had become a sort of walking repudiation of Oxford and all its traditions. It must have been largely in his own despite that he was squeezed into something called a Readership of phonetics there. The future of phonetics rests probably with his pupils, who all swore by him; but nothing could bring the man himself into any sort of compliance with the university, to which he nevertheless clung by divine right in an intensely Oxonian way. I daresay his papers, if he has left any, include some satires that may be published without too destructive results fifty years hence. He was, I believe, not in the least an ill-natured man: very much the opposite, I should say; but he would not suffer fools gladly.

Those who knew him will recognize in my third act the allusion to the patent Shorthand in which he used to write postcards, and which may be acquired from a four and six-penny manual published by the Clarendon Press. The postcards which Mrs. Higgins describes are such as I have received from Sweet. I would decipher a sound which a cockney would represent by zerr, and a Frenchman by seu, and then write demanding with some heat what on earth it meant. Sweet, with boundless contempt for my stupidity, would reply that it not only meant but obviously was the word Result, as no other Word containing that sound, and capable of making sense with the context, existed in any language spoken on earth. That less expert mortals should require fuller indications was beyond Sweet's patience. Therefore, though the whole point of his "Current Shorthand" is that it can express every sound in the language perfectly, vowels as well as consonants, and that your hand has to make no stroke except the easy and current ones with which you write m, n, and u, l, p, and q, scribbling them at whatever angle comes easiest to you, his unfortunate determination to make this remarkable and quite legible script serve also as a Shorthand reduced it in his own practice to the most inscrutable of cryptograms. His true objective was the provision of a full, accurate, legible script for our noble but ill-dressed language; but he was led past that by his contempt for the popular Pitman system of Shorthand, which he called the Pitfall system. The triumph of Pitman was a triumph of business organization: there was a weekly paper to persuade you to learn Pitman: there were cheap textbooks and exercise books and transcripts of speeches for you to copy, and schools where experienced teachers coached you up to the necessary proficiency. Sweet could not organize his market in that fashion. He might as well have been the Sybil who tore up the leaves of prophecy that nobody would attend to. The four and six-penny manual, mostly in his lithographed handwriting, that was never vulgarly advertized, may perhaps some day be taken up by a syndicate and pushed upon the public as The Times pushed the Encyclopaedia Britannica; but until then it will certainly not prevail against Pitman. I have bought three copies of it during my lifetime; and I am informed by the publishers that its cloistered existence is still a steady and healthy one. I actually learned the system two several times; and yet the shorthand in which I am writing these lines is Pitman's. And the reason is, that my secretary cannot transcribe Sweet, having been perforce taught in the schools of Pitman. Therefore, Sweet railed at Pitman as vainly as Thersites railed at Ajax: his raillery, however it may have eased his soul, gave no popular vogue to Current Shorthand. Pygmalion Higgins is not a portrait of Sweet, to whom the adventure of Eliza Doolittle would have been impossible; still, as will be seen, there are touches of Sweet in the play. With Higgins's physique and temperament Sweet might have set the Thames on fire. As it was, he impressed himself professionally on Europe to an extent that made his comparative personal obscurity, and the failure of Oxford to do justice to his eminence, a puzzle to foreign specialists in his subject. I do not blame Oxford, because I think Oxford is quite right in demanding a certain social amenity from its nurslings (heaven knows it is not exorbitant in its requirements!); for although I well know how hard it is for a man of genius with a seriously underrated subject to maintain serene and kindly relations with the men who underrate it, and who keep all the best places for less important subjects which they profess without originality and sometimes without much capacity for them, still, if he overwhelms them with wrath and disdain, he cannot expect them to heap honors on him.

Of the later generations of phoneticians I know little. Among them towers the Poet Laureate, to whom perhaps Higgins may owe his Miltonic sympathies, though here again I must disclaim all portraiture. But if the play makes the public aware that there are such people as phoneticians, and that they are among the most important people in England at present, it will serve its turn.

I wish to boast that Pygmalion has been an extremely successful play all over Europe and North America as well as at home. It is so intensely and deliberately didactic, and its subject is esteemed so dry, that I delight in throwing it at the heads of the wiseacres who repeat the parrot cry that art should never be didactic. It goes to prove my contention that art should never be anything else.

Finally, and for the encouragement of people troubled with accents that cut them off from all high employment, I may add that the change wrought by Professor Higgins in the flower girl is neither impossible nor uncommon. The modern concierge's daughter who fulfils her ambition by playing the Queen of Spain in Ruy Blas at the Theatre Francais is only one of many thousands of men and women who have sloughed off their native dialects and acquired a new tongue. But the thing has to be done scientifically, or the last state of the aspirant may be worse than the first. An honest and natural slum dialect is more tolerable than the attempt of a phonetically untaught person to imitate the vulgar dialect of the golf club; and I am sorry to say that in spite of the efforts of our Academy of Dramatic Art, there is still too much sham golfing English on our stage, and too little of the noble English of Forbes Robertson.