Education Is Our World - Retrospective View of IAMSCU and Is Prospects

Published on last month | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 0 | Comments: 0 | Views: 112
of x
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

 

0

 

1

PARTICIPATION

Research team

Almir deVicentini Souza Maia Beatriz Elias(Coordinator) Irene de Carvalho Macêdo Jardim Sérgio Marcus Pinto Lopes Language consultants

Juan Carlos Berchansky (Spanish translation) Margaret Ann Griesse (English editing) Sérgio Marcus Pinto Lopes (English translation) Support staff

Adriana Outeiro Jardim (Art work) Sumie Yokota (Accounting services) s ervices) Sponsorship

International Association of Methodist Schools, Colleges and Universities (USA) General Board of Higher Education and Ministry of the United Methodist Church (USA) Support

Methodist Global Education Fund for Leadership Development (USA) International Association of Methodist Schools, Colleges and Universities

Ted Brown (President) Masayuki Ida (Vice-President) (Vice-President) Gerald Lord (Secretary/Treasurer) (Secretary/Treasurer) World Methodist Council - Education Committee

Amós Silva do Nascimento (Chair) Center for Documentation and Research

Rua XV de Novembro, 944/74 - Piracicaba, SP, Brazil CEP 13400-370 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

 

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was made possible thanks to the contribution and support of agencies, organizations and persons. On behalf of the Coordination of the research EDUCATION IS OUR WORLD - Retrospective View of IAMSCU and its Prospects , we  offer our thanks to

all those who participated and got involved in it. This work required several months of intense dedication, especially of the members of the Research Committee, ultimately responsible for this work now published. We register here, therefore, the contribution and participation of all, extending our gratitude and recognition to:

  the



International Association of Methodist Schools, Colleges and Universities –

IAMSCU, in the person of its President, Dr. Ted Brown, for his support and trust;

  the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry – GBHEM, by its participation



in and support of this effort for the retrieval of the history of IAMSCU;

  the Methodist Global Education Fund for Leadership Development – MGEFLD, in



the person of the Special Assistant to the General Secretary of the GBHEM for Initiatives for Global Education, Dr. Ken Yamada, for consultation and for logistical and financial support for the research; research;

  the Education Committee of the World Methodist Council – WMC/EC, in the person



of its chairman, Dr. Amós Silva do Nascimento, for the encouragement and contributions to this work; 

  the Latin American Association of Methodist Educational Institutions – ALAIME, in



the person of its president, Magister Claudia Lombardo, and the Methodist Institute of Educational Services Services – COGEIME, in the person of of its president, Dr. Marcio de Moraes, for their support;

  the leaders, agents in the construction of the history of IAMSCU, who accepted the



invitation and participated by answering questionnaires and granting interviews for without them this work would not had been done;

  the



Research Commission, Journalist Beatriz Vicentini Elias, Prof. Irene de

Carvalho Macêdo Jardim and Dr. Sérgio Marcus Pinto Lopes, for their dedication in implementing this research;

  the



language consultants, Dr. Juan Carlos Berchansky (Spanish translation); Dr.

Sérgio Marcus Pinto Lopes (English translation); tr anslation); Dr. Margaret Ann Griesse (English editing);

 

3

  Filipe Fernandes Ribeiro Maia and Juliana Libardi Maia for f or their logistical support in



the document organization, in the interviews and interpretation during the research phase at the offices of GBHEM in Nashville, Pulaski and Franklin, USA;

  Adriana



services.

Outeiro Jardim for the art work and Sumie Yokota for the accounting

 

4

A WORD FROM THE PRESIDENT

It is with a great deal of anticipation that we offer this history of the International Association of Methodist Methodist Schools, College Colleges s and Universities. IAMSCU is celebrating its 20th  anniversary, so the association is emerging from its “teenage years” with enormous potential and boundless energy for a vital future. We are indebted to Dr. Almir de Souza Maia for his thoughtful and moving treatment of this saga of an unlikely international international association. Dr. Maia was there at the beginning beginning as one of IAMSCU’s founders and collected a wonderful cache of documents and photographs through the years. No one is better prepared prepared to offer an insider’s view of IAMSCU’s launch and evolution. Dr. Maia is also no stranger to the theology theology that underg undergirds irds IAMSCU and this history is clear about our Wesleyan Wesleyan roots and the role it plays in our develo development. pment. Perhaps most important, this work constantly points forward and identifies the high expectations we hold for IAMSCU in the future. On January 4, 1758, John Wesley made the following entry into his journal: I rode to Kingswood and rejoiced over the School, which is at length what I have so long wished it to t o be – a blessing to all that that are therein, and a benefit to the whole whole body of Methodists. Methodists. In a

sentence, Wesley summarized the hope and potential of the church’s mission in education – blessing students and genuinely genuinely benefiting the church. church. As the association of of all educational institutions in the Wesleyan tradition, IAMSCU exists to support our members in this unique twin mission. We give thanks for Dr. Almir de Souza Souza Maia’s wonderful wonderful work that clearly demonstrates IAMSCU’s readiness for the future challenges of sustaining and extending Wesleyan values in education.

Dr. Ted Brown IAMSCU President

 

5

PRESENTATION

Education shapes the souls and recreates the hearts. It is the lever of change.

Paulo Freire

We are pleased to present to the Methodist educational community the result of the documental research EDUCATION IS OUR WORLD - Retrospective View of IAMSCU and its Prospects, the first survey to study and record the twenty-year history of the development

of this association, from 1991 to 2011. The International Association of Methodist Schools, Colleges and Universities - IAMSCU - is one of the most important initiatives in the world of Methodist education in recent decades. It is responsible for the important role of cooperating in the development of institutions related to Methodism or to the t he Methodist tradition. We are the heirs of a religious and social movement led by the Wesley brothers, John and Charles, in the eighteenth eighteenth century.

For over more than two and a half centuries

Methodists have been prominent in offering an alternative education built on Christian values, which has been recognized as a benchmark of quality and academic respectability in the world. There is an intangible treasure yet to be searched for and discovered in this educational heritage. Starting with the foundation of Kingswood School in 1748, hundreds of educational institutions have been established, with a social and a scientific presence in over seventy countries, carrying the Methodist hallmark through to the present. Little is known of this educational universe.

 

How many institutions do in fact exist?

 

How many students have been reached?







   

How many teachers and employees do they have?

 

What is their academic production in terms of research and publications?

 

How can all this enormous potential be operated operated or managed in terms of shared







Which courses and programs do they t hey offer?

programs and projects with the resources offered by new information technologies? It is the task t ask of institutions, leaders and educators to cooperate so that this mission can go forward and that this heritage is guaranteed to future generations with the awareness of the deep and radical changes going on in this new century in all areas of knowledge. It is up to IAMSCU to take up a protagonist role in this institutional task of articulating cooperation and exchange processes and helping the schools to reflect on their Methodist

 

6

identity. Its work is still recent and incipient but there is an expectation that it will grow and be able to reach a position of leadership in these areas in the future. The research, which now goes public, is more than a record of the history of IAMSCU because it opens up a process of reflection. It is intended to offer information, and suggestions for IAMSCU institutionalization and better prepare it to play its role in the future. This report presents a synthesis of several months of work involving the analysis of documents and the completion of interviews, recording the opinions of many people who were IAMSCU leaders in its twenty years of activities. Piracicaba, May 2, 2011

Almir de Souza Maia Research Coordinator

 

7

ABSTRACT

The focus of this project is the retrieval of IAMSCU’s history during its twenty years of existence (1991-2011), analyzing it in a retrospective view and considering its future challenges. The research was based on documents of the association and interviews with educational leaders who have accompanied it more closely and contributed to its history. The immersion in thousands of documents permitted the establishment of a database and the retrieval of facts and events in the ttwenty wenty years of IAMSCU’s history. The interviews made it possible to advance beyond the collection of documents and recover a part of the history of the association hitherto unrevealed and unknown to the Methodist educational community. The analysis of the documentation and expressions of the leaders helped to better understand the association and start a process of reflection and evaluation of IAMSCU, one of the objectives of this study. The result was a relevant set of ideas and proposals for the future that may be considered by IAMSCU as it prepares its strategic development plan. Key Words: IAMSCU – history – Methodist education – globalization

RESUMEN

El eje de este trabajo es el rescate de la historia de IAMSCU en sus veinte años de existencia (1991-2011) por medio de un análisis retrospectivo y prospectivo. La investigación se llevó a cabo basada en la documentación de la Asociación y en entrevistas con los líderes educativos que la acompañan más de cerca y contribuyen en su historia. La inmersión en miles de documentos proporcionó y constituirá un banco de datos para el rescate de hechos y acontecimientos de la historia de los 20 años de IAMSCU. Las entrevistas hicieron posible avanzar más allá del acervo documental y rescatar parte de la historia de la Asociación, que hasta entonces no había sido revelada y era desconocida por la comunidad educativa metodista. El análisis de la documentación y las manifestaciones de los líderes permitieron conocer mejor a la Asociación e iniciar un proceso de reflexión y evaluación de IAMSCU, que es uno de los objetivos de este trabajo. Como resultado tenemos un conjunto relevante de reflexión y propuestas con visión de futuro, que podrán ser consideradas por IAMSCU con vistas a la elaboración de su plan de desarrollo estratégico. Palabras clave: IAMSCU – historia hi storia – educación Metodista – globalización

RESUMO

O foco deste trabalho é o resgate da história da IAMSCU em seus vinte anos (1991-2011) de existência, analisando-a retrospectiva e perspectivamente. A pesquisa baseou-se na documentação da Associação e em entrevistas com lideranças educacionais que mais de perto a acompanham e contribuem com a sua  sua   história. A imersão em milhares  milhares  de documentos proporcionou a constituição de um banco de dados e o resgate de fatos e acontecimentos da história de 20 anos da IAMSCU. As entrevistas possibilitaram avançar além do acervo documental e resgatar parte da história da Associação, até então não revelada e desconhecida da comunidade educacional metodista. A análise da documentação e as manifestações das lideranças permitiram conhecer melhor a Associação e iniciar um processo de reflexão e avaliação da IAMSCU, um dos objetivos deste trabalho. Como resultado, tem-se um conjunto relevante de reflexão e propostas de visão de futuro quedesenvolvimento poderão ser consideradas plano de estratégico.pela IAMSCU com vistas à elaboração de seu Palavras-chave: IAMSCU – história – educação metodista – globalização

 

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A WORD FROM THE PRESIDENT 

4

PRESENTATION 

5

ABSTRACT 

7

1. INTRODUCTION 

10

2. OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY 

12

3. TIMELINE 

14

4. DEVELOPMENT 

15

5. A RETROSPECTIVE RETROSPECTIVE VIEW OF IAMSCU IAMSCU 

18

The creation of the Education Committee: a Standing Committee of the Sixteenth World Methodist Council

21

A Historical Proposal: IAMSCU’s Founding Document

22

Varna, Bulgaria, 1992, first meeting of the Steering Committee

23

Tokyo, Japan, 1993, meeting of the Steering Committee

24

Tallinn, Estonia, 1994, joint meeting of the Steering Committee of IAMSCU and of the Education Committee of the WMC

24

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1996: The First IAMSCU Conference

25

London, England, 1997, meeting of the Steering Committee

28

Grantham, England, 1998: The Second IAMSCU Conference

29

Hiroshima, Japan, 1999, meeting of the Board of Directors

31

Belfast, Northern Ireland, 2001: The Third IAMSCU Conference

33

Oslo, Norway, 2002, meeting of the Board of Directors

34

Boston, USA, 2003, meeting of the Board of Directors

35

Puebla, Mexico, 2004, meeting of the Board of Directors

36

Washington, DC, USA, 2005, meeting of the Board of Directors

37

Marion, Australia, 2005: The Fourth IAMSCU Conference

38

Seoul, Korea, 2006, meeting of the Board of Directors

40

Vancouver, Canada, 2007, meeting of the Board of Directors

41

 

9

Honolulu, Hawaii, 2008, meeting of the Board of Directors

44

Rosario, Argentina, 2008: The Fifth IAMSCU Conference

46

Honolulu, Hawaii, 2009, meeting of the Board of Directors

48

Honolulu, Hawaii, 2010, meeting of the Board of Directors

50

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2011, meeting of the Board of Directors

52

Washington, DC, USA, 2011: The Sixth IAMSCU Conference

53

The promising movement carries on

56

6. EVALUATION AND PROSPECTS 

57

7. THE LEGAL ASPECT 

68

8. CONCLUSIONS 

70

Creation of IAMSCU Retrospective analysis

70 ….. 70

The support from the GBHEM

70

Evaluative analysis

70

Potential

71

Weaknesses

71

Prospective analysis

71

REFERENCE LIST 

73

ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS 

75

ANNEXES

76

ANNEX 1 - Bylaws

76

ANNEX 2 - Charter

85

ANNEX 3 - Benefits of Membership in IAMSCU

87

ANNEX 4 - Shared Values for Methodist Education

88

ANNEX 5 - World Map identifying the countries where Methodist education

is present ANNEX 6 - Folder IAMSCU

89 90

ANNEX 7 - Leaflet - Sixteenth IAMSCU International Conference and

NASCUMC Meeting, Washington, DC, 2011

93

 

10

1 INTRODUCTION

This report is the record of the research project EDUCATION IS OUR WORLD Retrospective View of IAMSCU and its Prospects, which aims at studying the association

in two dimensions: retrieving its history, and providing a future perspective by proposing challenges for the entity. The first considerations about the possibility of retrieving the history of IAMSCU were raised at the end of 2009, when the memory and perspectives of some leaders looked to 2011 when IAMSCU would be completing twenty years. In September 2010, after IAMSCU approved the project, the Center for Documentation and Research, based in Piracicaba, Brazil, was given the task t ask of implementing it with support from the GBHEM/MGEFLD. Some questions that arose in the elaboration of the project and permeated its development were:

       



Why survey the history of such a young association?



What is its significance or importance for Methodist education?



Was it fulfilled f ulfilled the role for which it was envisioned and created?



Where are we and where do we want to go?

These are challenging issues, as challenging as the task of an association that includes a universe of hundreds of institutions linked to the Methodist tradition and which proposes to contribute to their development. This project is based on data and information from the many documents that make up the collection of IAMSCU, composed over two decades, as well as on the testimonies of leaders who have accompanied and contributed to the history of the association. The researchers had access to most of the letters, minutes, reports and bulletins produced by the association for the past twenty years. Initially, these documents were classified by their subjects and time of production to facilitate their searching and the construction of the matrix that guided the work. The IAMSCU conferences, for example, have all been mapped and key data and information stored in a database. Thus, it is possible to know at which date, city and country they occurred, their themes, number of participants, speakers and panelists, the main decisions, documents discussed, etc. Another source of information used in the research was the testimonials written by those who participated in in answering a questionnaire. questionnaire. This instrument instrument was sent to twenty-six leaders who accepted the invitation to participate in the survey and talk about IAMSCU. In addition, some interviews were conducted live and saved on audio recordings.

 

11

The questions were composed according to the central goals of the research, namely, to evaluate IAMSCU from a retrospective and a prospective dimension. This research worked with the cluster of leaders who, most significantly, were or are involved with IAMSCU, occupying institutional positions as members of the board and the executive committee. The responses to the questionnaire permitted the development of a database that covers a broad universe of issues, from the facts leading to the formation of the association, its creation at the t he Sixteenth Methodist Conference in Singapore in 1991, and its development in these two decades.

 

12

2 OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY  The objective of this research project is to survey the first twenty years of IAMSCU’s existence from two points of view, the retrospective and the prospective. In a retrospective view, it retrieved the history and memory of the association from the facts preceding its creation and its development in these two decades. In this line, the events and activities that it promoted - conferences, seminars, meetings of the planning committee, the board of directors, publications, directories, etc. - were treated and systematized in a timeline. From the prospective point of view, the study aimed at creating a space for discussion about the future of IAMSCU with an evaluative eye of these twenty years and the construction of proposals that could contribute to t o expand it operation. To this end, a group of world leaders who have followed the life of IAMSCU were interviewed. They were asked questions that would clarify unknown historical data and make a general assessment of the association. Other questions asked for suggestions in a purposeful line: What is expected of IAMSCU? Where are we and where do we want to go to? What needs to be done for the association to extend and consolidate its work? What is the t he role of Methodist education in today's world? In order to achieve the objectives of this study, procedures that involved two general areas for data collection and information were used. First, the literature review and consultations in the collection of documents that IAMSCU accumulated in the period from 1991 to 2010, available at the offices at the headquarters of GBHEM, Nashville, TN (USA). This collection consists of a large number of documents of various types. Queries were also made at the Center for Documentation and Research in Piracicaba, SP (Brazil). Other sources of information were books, magazines, websites, etc., in order to gather the largest possible amount of data on the association. The bibliography is short and the academic production or the writing of texts about IAMSCU is limited.

Archives IAMSCU – Nashville, TN (USA)

Archives CDP – Piracicaba, SP (Brazil)

 

13

Another source used in the research were the questions presented to leaders involved in IAMSCU, some of them since its beginning, whose names and contributions were found in the documentation available. A large number of leaders and partners were identified. To take part in the research, twenty-six of these were nominated. They received a letter informing them about the project and asking if they were willing to help by responding to a questionnaire sent attached. All accepted the invitation but two of those invited did not answer the questionnaires.

 

14

3 TIMELINE The survey was conducted between the months of October 2010 and January 2011. This period does not include a phase of processing, organizing and cataloging the CDP collection or other dialogues and agreements prior to the formal approval of the project. In October 2010, the stage of document retrieval from the archives of GBHEM/IAMSCU in Nashville, TN was completed. In elaborating the timeline, the meeting of the IAMSCU board of directors, set for February 2011, was used as a reference for the conclusion and presentation of the report. The planning of the Sixth IAMSCU Conference scheduled for July 24-28, 2011, in Washington, DC, USA, was on the agenda of the board’s meeting.

TIMELINE 2010 Steps

Jul.

1

2011

Activity Formulation of the project by CDP and approval by IAMSCU

Aug.

Sep.

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

x

x

x

Feb.

2

Documents retrieval and systematization, bibliographical review

3

Production of promotional material about the research

4

Distribution of information: IAMSCU/GBHEM/ALAIME

x

5

Contacts, interviews: Nashville, Pulaski, Franklin, TN (USA)

x

6

Production and conclusion of the basic report – English edition

x

7

Presentation of the basic report IAMSCU Board of Directors meeting (February 3-5, 2011) Rio de Janeiro, RJ (Brazil)

x

8

Production of the final report in English, Spanish and Portuguese

x

Mar.

Apr.

x

x

x

 

15

 4 4 DEVELOPMENT

The survey was developed following the steps set out in the proposal submitted and approved by IAMSCU. One of them was the announcement of the research itself within the celebration program of the twenty years of existence of the association, the first survey promoted by IAMSCU focusing on its history. To this end, promotional items were prepared for the Sixth IAMSCU Conference in Washington, DC, in July 2011. This step took place in October 2010 when, on two occasions, the coordination made the presentation and delivery of the promotional material. This first happened during the Sixth ALAIME Pedagogical Congress, held on October 14-16, in Panama City (Rep. Panama). Later, another presentation was made to IAMSCU and GBHEM authorities in Nashville, Pulaski and Franklin, TN (USA), in October 18-21. It was then that the interviews were recorded on audio. The promotional campaign had as its theme Education is our world,  highlighting the global dimension of education, illustrated by a world map identifying the countries where Methodist education is present. As a key part in the development of this project, the team dedicated itself to the task of identifying and examining around four thousand documents. The data and information were selected to set up a database and a timeline used in this study. These data were compared and checked, seeking thereby to process accurate information drawn from primary sources. It should be emphasized that the documents gathered as well as the testimonials of leaders, were sufficient to retrieve the history of IAMSCU and meet the goals of this study. Throughout the search it was found that the documents of the entity are not registered in a standardized way and that there are gaps in the records. This fact, however, does not compromise the historical survey and the results of this work. The collection is made up of extensive documentation that can be classified into: (i) formal documents – such as the record of the official constitution of the association, minutes of the Sixteenth World Methodist Conference – Singapore, statute, charter registration in accordance with the laws of Tennessee, USA, etc.; (ii) minutes and reports – such as the records of decisions of meetings of the board of directors and of the executive committee; (iii) public statements – documents presented by the association; (iv) letters – formal communications from the presidency and organs of IAMSCU; (v) publications and texts – in print or available electronically on the internet; and (vi) announcements, posters, programs, brochures and photos of events organized by IAMSCU.

 

16

Interviews conducted in written and oral format were other sources used in the research. The twenty-six leaders who most closely contributed to the creation and development of the association over the years participated in these interviews. They answered a series of questions drawn from the goals motivating the research, i.e., to retrieve the history in a retrospective dimension and look at it prospectively. Some questions were directed to all interviewees but others were directed to some individuals specifically. There were clear-cut questions in the overall questionnaire, but the respondents could raise comments beyond that which was asked. Thus, there were questions related to themes such as: (i) the significance of the creation of IAMSCU (ii) the role of IAMSCU for the development of Methodist education, (iii) assessment of its twenty years of existence, (iv) preparation of the association for the future and how to expand its contribution. Because of their specific positions, the three existing presidents in the history of IAMSCU received, besides these, other questions related to the chairing of the association. Some interviews were audio taped and conducted by the coordinator of the research. They form an extraordinary mosaic of contributions to the association and were used in this study, which permits an information base for further research in the future. Based on this broad set of data and information it was possible to organize and record the main facts and events of these twenty years. This was done chronologically, which makes it easier for the reader and students of Methodist education to know much of the history of IAMSCU. This report registers a survey that reflects a retrospective view of the association at various levels of action, e.g., the themes and issues discussed during the meetings of the board of directors and other events. Among these are included the IAMSCU conferences and the main activity of the association. During the period there were five conferences: First Conference - Rio de Janeiro, RJ (Brazil, 1996); Second Conference - Grantham (England, 1998); Third Conference - Belfast (Northern Ireland, 2001); Fourth Conference - Marion (Australia, 2005); Fifth Conference Conference - Rosario (Argentina, (Argentina, 2008). Reference was also made to the Sixth Conference to be held in Washington, DC (USA) in July 2011. The legal aspects of IAMSCU, its regulatory framework, are also considered. For this, the coordination heard Dr. Kent Weeks, who since the beginning has guided and accompanied the formal dimension of the association. There is a summary of the legal constitution of the association. The complete texts of the Charter and the Statute are included in the attachments. This completes a retrospective survey of the association and fulfills one of the objectives proposed. The prospective dimension of this research on IAMSCU was based on considerations of the interviews (both written and oral) in addition to using the data given in the previous survey. One of the threads of the questions proposed an evaluative approach to the

 

17

association. Thus, these data were used for reflection on the performance of IAMSCU and offered an opportunity for a critical evaluation of its work, providing a basis for concrete suggestions for its future. Nothing more appropriate for the achievement of this goal than to hear its own designers, builders and leaders who were and are at the head of tthe he association. Therefore, the views and comments here registered come from the agents of history, who, in the last two decades of the twentieth century, dreamed of building an organization that would represent and contribute to the development of worldwide Methodist education. Without exhausting the evaluative and prospective dimensions, this project presents contributions to be explored by the directors of IAMSCU. The report ends with some conclusions which are a summary of the main points of the research that deserve the attention of the IAMSCU administration as it prepares studies and proposals for its strategic development plan. The study was conducted at the Center for Documentation and Research (CDP), located in Piracicaba, SP (Brazil) by a Research Commission composed of Almir de Souza Maia (Coordinator), Beatriz Vicentini Elias, Irene de Carvalho Macêdo Jardim and Sérgio Marcus Pinto Lopes. This research was supported and sponsored by the IAMSCU, the GBHEM and the MGEFLD.

 

18

5 A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW OF IAMSCU

“The Council VOTED to receive this proposal.”   This single line in the Proceedings of the sixteenth meeting of the World Methodist Counci l – convened in Singapore, July 24 to 31, 1991 – recorded the fact that on the 27 of that month a new organization was being founded,

the International Association of Methodist Schools, Colleges and Universities, better known by its acronym IAMSCU (XVI WMC meeting. 1991, 256). A single line indeed but it was the coronation of a process born years and years before. Or was it just the small beginning of a historical and promising movement that would reach and enrich hundreds and hundreds of educational institutions? The World Methodist Council had been created in the 19th century but up until that time there had been no initiative to congregate the different educational institutions that had been started or supported by Methodism since the 18th century. Ken Yamada, special assistant to the General Secretary for Global Education and New Initiatives of the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry of The United Methodist Church in the United States and associated to the GBHEM since the 1970s, said on an October 2010 letter to Almir Maia, coordinator of this research, that the idea of a regional and an international network of United Methodist and Methodist educational institutions began at a time when F. Thomas Trotter was its general secretary. secretary. When the Cultural Revolution in the People’s Republic of China was over in 1976 – says Yamada – the GBHEM recognized and anticipated that the Pacific Rim Nations Nati ons st would prosper in the 21  century and created the Pacific Rim Initiative for Methodist Education. all Board [church] [church]ofwork outside America including was placed underUntil the 1984, General Global Ministries (GBGM) and education the GBHEM’s work was limited to the United States (Yamada 2010).  2010). 

The General Conference of the United Methodist Church decided to alter this scenario and in that year authorized the GBHEM to deal with educational institutions located outside the United States. In that same year, the West Africa Central Conference made a proposal for the creation of Africa University in Zimbabwe, which came c ame about four years later. The GBHEM started a project called Africa Initiative to study and promote the proposal. It was 1988. That same year Roger W. Ireson was elected as the general secretary of GBHEM. I began to think of how we might become more international in our program reach and build a greater unity. I arranged a meeting in England of the heads of the Methodists Schools associated with the British Methodist Church, where the then associate general secretary of the Division of Education of GBHEM, Julius Scott, and I spoke about forming an association of pre-collegiate schools for the purposes of exchange and program development (Ireson 2010a).

 

19

The idea was received with enthusiasm by the leaders of the institutions both in England and in the US. John Barrett, then head of of Kent College and later of the Leys School in Cambridge, championed the project among his fellow school heads as chair of the group of Methodist Independent School Heads. In that capacity he participated in NASCUMC (The National Association of Schools and Colleges of The United Methodist Church) meetings on several occasions. A few months later, Julius Scott left the board of the GBHEM to become a college president again and Ken Yamada, indicated by Ireson, was elected by the board to replace him as associate general secretary of the division. Yamada brought a deep knowledge and experience of the educational institutions and programs of Asia while Ireson brought a similar experience of the institutions in Europe. Yamada says that they  began to explore the global connections among Methodist educational institutions in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa together with the Methodist educational institutions in America. Ireson and I discovered that Almir de Souza Maia in Brazil and John Barrett in the United Kingdom had the same idea of connecting all Methodist educational institutions around the world (Yamada ( Yamada 2010).  2010). 

It is true, however, that many great projects in history were not born just as a result of sheer and intelligent planning. Many of them were started in informal conversations as a sharing of ideals between friends. Barrett states that it is fair to say that the creation of the WMC Education Committee and IAMSCU in 1991 came about because of the longstanding personal friendship between Roger Ireson and me. We had studied together at Cambridge in the sixties and maintained a close relationship between us and our spouses over the years. It happened that both of us found ourselves leading aspects of our Church’s education programme (Barrett 2010).

He remembers that in their conversations they often regretted that the WMC didn’t formally recognize the important role of education, which along with evangelism and social witness had traditionally been part of Methodist mission beginning with Wesley. Ireson remembers that “a discussion at the World Methodist Council meeting in the early 1980s between John Barrett and myself focused on the possibility of a standing Educational Committee of the World W orld Methodist Council. This discussion occurred during the meeting of the Council (July 21-28, 1981) in Honolulu” (Ireson 2010a). At that same time, GBHEM was already anxious to build on the experience of NASCUMC and create a worldwide association of Methodist schools, colleges and universities. After discussion with the officers of the World Methodist Council, it was agreed that Barrett would bring a resolution to the Council in 1991, in Singapore, proposing the establishment of a new standing committee to deal with education. Roger Ireson seconded the proposal. Also during the Council, Ireson and Yamada invited the presidents of educational institutions attending the meeting for a supper on June 26 and a luncheon the following day for the special purpose of putting “for the establishment of a world wide Association of

Methodist Schools, Colleges and Universities of the Council. Through such an association,

 

20

closer cooperative and support relationships among the institutions can be developed for mutual benefits”.

Meeting of the presidents of educational institutions – Singapore, 1991  

This invitation was included in a letter to the presidents on May 1, 1991.  After a presentation of the subject and of a draft designed by David G. Ruffer – then president of the Albright College, Read, PA, USA (1979-1991) (1979-1991) – the participants of these meetings meetings discussed the objectives, the organization, the structure, the membership and possible programs of the association to be founded, elected the officers and even planned for the next meeting in 1996. According to Ken Yamada the following people were invited: Almir de Souza Maia (Brazil), John C.A. Barrett (United Kingdom), John Kurewa (Zimbabwe), John W. White, Jr. (USA), Juanita H.S. Mei (Taiwan), Ken Yamada (USA), Kirk Treible (USA), Marcus Frang (USA), Masanobu Fukamachi (Japan), Norman E. Dewire (USA), Robert A. Davis (USA), Roger W. Ireson (USA), R. Sheldon Duecker, (Bishop, USA), Stephanie M. Bennett (USA), Seung-Keun Rhee (Korea), Toyotsune Murata (Japan), Wan Foo Weng (Singapore), and 1991).  Ely Eser Barreto César (Brazil), Ovidio Torres William Hurdle (USA) (USA)   (Yamada 1991).  (Argentina) and Ho Chee-Sin (Bishop, Singapore) were afterwards included in the meetings. Ireson states: it was at that meeting in 1991, that a group of presidents and educational leaders meeting with us determined for the association which became IAMSCU. At that meeting, John Barrett, Almir Maia, Ely Eser Barreto César, Ovidio Torres, Ken Yamada, Bishop [Ho Chee] Sin, [Masanobu] Fukamachi, Robert Davis, myself and others met to consider the prospect. We determined to form IAMSCU in a loosely organized association with myself being named as the Convener, a post which I held until I was chosen as President of the Association (Ireson 2010a).

The decision was taken to the WMC with the emphasis that it would be an independent association which would work with the Council through the Education Committee. Upon reflecting on the events of those days, Barreto César recalls that a   “ most most decisive factor in the founding of IAMSCU   was the effort of the United Methodist Church through the action of the Board of Higher Education and Ministry to create Africa University in

Zimbabwe, the first Methodist university in that continent  (César 2010).

 

21

Ireson, seconded by Barrett, brought the proposal thus designed to the Council, asking the delegates to note the formation of IAMSCU and accept it as an affiliated organization. Both proposals were adopted unanimously! unanimously!

The creation of the Education Committee: a Standing Committee of the Sixteenth World Methodist Council

The approval of the proposals for the creation of the Education Committee and of IAMSCU would turn that Sixteenth Council into a memorable one for Methodist education. The two structures would not be officially linked to one another, but their history would be tied together since the beginning. That is why both are celebrating twenty years of activities in 2011. The minutes of the Council (XVI WMC Conference. 1991, 255) record the fact that in its session of July 30 it approved the creation of the committee although it would have to operate on a tight budget: budget:  That the Council set up an Education Committee as an additional Standing Committee of the World Methodist Council with the following terms of reference: ref erence: 1. To enable the World Methodist Council to be more effectively involved in the world-wide debate about the role of education in society and, in particular, issues relating to Christian value-centered education. 2. To enable the sharing within the World Methodist Council and the world-wide Methodist family of experiences and insights in both the philosophy and practice of Christian education as a whole church activity and through primary, secondary and tertiary institutions. 3. To encourage the formation of a world-wide association of Methodist schools, colleges and universities for mutual encouragement and support. 4. To encourage reflection on what it means to be a Methodist church related institution. 5. To sponsor, arrange or cooperate in the organization of occasional conferences and consultations. 6. To consider encouraging relevant research projects and, where appropriate, setting up or establishing special relationships with specific institutions to support its work. 7. To consider ways of non-formal education.

The item number three already pointed to the the   next proposal that would be brought to the Council for the creation of IAMSCU.

 

22

A Historical Proposal: IAMSCU’s Founding Document According to the minutes of the Council dated July 30, 1991, the introduction of the proposal to create IAMSCU was brought up for consideration and adoption by Roger Ireson. He reported on the recent meeting of college presidents and presented its draft to the delegates. The association, which would be an independent association closely affiliated with the WMC Education Committee, would also include those institutions with a Methodist tradition but now connected to denominations resulting from mergers of Methodist and other churches. The proposal read: Proposal: To form an international association of Methodist-related educational institutions and those with Methodist tradition. Rationale: Education is an important mission of Methodists around the world. In some countries Methodist education is quite mature involving over 200 years of development and experience whereas in other countries the quest for education is  just beginning. We share many common goals and ideals. We know that it is desirable to pool our wisdom and to learn from one another. It is within this diversity of experience and heritage of common roots that we seek to develop closer cooperative and supportive institutions among the Methodist-related educational institutions and those with a Methodist tradition for our mutual benefit. Name: International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities (IAMSCU). Association Members: Methodist-related schools, colleges and universities and those with a Methodist tradition from throughout the world. Association Representatives: Methodist-related schools, colleges and universities and those with a Methodist tradition from throughout the world. Mission Statement: To promote the development of quality and value-centered education thereby providing better life for people. Goals: (1) To increase the availability of education opportunities throughout the world, (2) To improve the quality of education, and (3) To enable Methodist-related educational institutions and those with a Methodist tradition tr adition to cooperate through the development of common understandings. Strategy: To develop an informal, flexible and highly functional association to accomplish significant goals for education. The Association will convene its own work as well as make suggestions and recommendations to other bodies including the Standing Committee on Education of the World Methodist Council.

The representatives may involve others from their institutions and may contribute resources when the work provides for a high degree of mutual benefit. Organization and Officers: At each World Methodist Conference, the Association will hold meetings to select a convener and a steering committee to guide the Association representatives in their work including plans for programs for subsequent meetings, conferences and consultations. The need for bylaws or other working guides will be addressed by the Association as needed. The convener shall be a member (if invited) of the proposed WMC Standing Committee on Education. Association Programs: The Association programs will be defined by the member institutions. At present, the following types of "institutional" and "association" level activities are envisioned: Institutional Level Programs: Exchanges of staff, information, and educational resources. Provision of management and technical assistance. Discussion of common issues, problems and opportunities for improving education. Association Level Programs: Association directory and newsletter. Sponsor conferences and consultations. Form informal working groups for crucial research

 

23

and development projects or programs. Facilitate the awareness and use of advanced educational methods and resources. Create dialogue on such issues as curriculum development and standards, staff development, financial planning and development, etc. Coordination and Support: The Steering Committee will provide the coordination and support. The Board of Higher Education and Ministry of the United Methodist Church, Division of Higher Education will provide some assistance to facilitate the work of the Association (XVI WMC Conference. 1991, 257).

The proposal became what is known as the Founding Document of IAMSCU. John Barrett was elected as chairperson of the newly formed Education Committee and Roger Ireson was elected vice-chairperson. Ken Yamada was subsequently coopted as secretary. During the early organizational years of IAMSCU, the Division of Higher Education of the GBHEM would help in carrying out its functions. Invitations were sent to all Methodist educational institutions through the WMC member churches and one hundred Methodist institutions responded positively. It was at that time that a group of members of the GBHEM and several educational leaders coming from Methodist-related institutions around the world were elected and organized into the steering committee as determined in the founding document. This committee remained as the guiding group of IAMSCU for five years, until a new structure was defined and it was replaced by a board of directors. However, why the name IAMSCU? In a recorded interview Ireson states: I chose [it]. And the reason why was: it was international, it was Methodist (not United Methodist; it meant the whole Methodist tradition) and it was an association of institutions. And those institutions were schools, colleges and universities. It was a little unwieldy but it so perfectly described what we were trying to put together that we kept it (Ireson 2010b).

Varna, Bulgaria, 1992, first meeting of the Steering Committee The committee ponders on what means to be a Church-related institution The IAMSCU steering committee met for the first time in Varna, Bulgaria, in September, 1992, convened by Barrett (IAMSCU 1992, 1-7) in his capacity as Chair of the WMC Education Committee. Ireson was appointed as chair of the steering committee, and Barrett vice-chair. After an initial presentation on the background to the formation of the committee, Ireson, at the request of Barrett, also briefly briefly   presented information on the discussions that led to the establishment of IAMSCU at the World Methodist Conference in Singapore. One of the questions discussed at some length was the importance of what was called “church-relatedness” of an institution. It was stressed that while ownership and governance of the institutions were very important issues, still more important was their relationship to Methodism in terms of their ethos, atmosphere, academic standards and tradition. It was recognized that an institution must receive a contribution from the church and should include the meaning of this relatedness in the definition of its purpose or mission. A

 

24

church-related institution should stress a value-centered education, its contribution to society, its accessibility to the poor, and its understanding of its global mission.

Tokyo, Japan, 1993, meeting of the Steering Committee Methodist leaders invited to reflect on global educational issues

Participants of the steering committee meeting and university representatives. Tokyo, Japan, 1993

The steering committee met again the following year in Tokyo, Japan at the Aoyama Gakuin University with a heavy agenda (IAMSCU 1993, 1-20). Its members – many of whom did not know each other yet – were invited to introduce themselves and describe their institutions, the form of education in their countries, and programs under development at that time. Then they reviewed the decisions taken at the past meetings of the committee and discussed the issues of education in the world in order to consider how they should be presented to world Methodist educational leaders in the coming World Methodist Conference that would happen in Rio de Janeiro in 1996. Finally, the fourth and heavier item of the agenda was a very detailed planning, including logistics, of a first meeting of IAMSCU which would take place in association with the World Methodist Conference.

Tallinn, Estonia, 1994, joint meeting of the Steering Committee of IAMSCU and of the Education Committee of the WMC Directory of Methodist institutions to be organized or ganized In 1994, in a joint meeting of the WMC Education Committee with the executive leaders of the Council, held in Tallinn, Estonia, a report on the Tokyo meeting was read and plans were developed that would affect IAMSCU in the coming years (IAMSCU 1994, 1-20). Among these plans were: the Rio Conference; the organization, publication circulation and use of a directory of Methodist Schools, Colleges and Universities; the possibility and

 

25

implementation of faculty and student interchange between institutions; and the promotion of relationships among the heads of IAMSCU affiliated institutions.

Meeting in Tallinn, Estonia, 1994

It is important to highlight that the board meetings, the Conferences and other IAMSCU events in the following years would also be celebrative and fraternal opportunities that would offer occasion for their participants to interact with the culture and the spirituality of the Methodist churches of the countries in which they were held. The experience of sharing the faith was registered by Maia.  When I visited Estonia in 1994, the country was going through political changes as the Soviet regime was declining. Religious freedom was just being restored. Temples remained still closed, full of junk and trash, despite their majestic architecture. The Russian Orthodox Church had been forced to discontinue its services for 50 years. During this period the faith manifested itself solely in the homes, in a silent and secret way. We were able to attend a Methodist morning service where both the elderly – silenced for so much time – and the young people could publicly express their faith. It was a fantastic and unforgettable experience. The singing, the praise, had survived despite the persecutions, the destroyed city ,  and the poverty (Elias 2008, 191).  191). 

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1996: The First IAMSCU Conference Theme: Educating for world citizenship  

The World Methodist Council decided to hold its Seventeenth Conference in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Following the decisions reached in Tallinn, the First IAMSCU Conference was held on August 7-9, 1996, hosted and organized by the General Council of Methodist Educational Institutions in Brazil (COGEIME), which was chaired at that time by Maia (First IAMSCU, 1-3). Since 1991 he had been a strong supporter of the idea of an international organization bringing together Methodist educational institutions from all over the

 

26

world. It was also in Rio de Janeiro on August 7 that a group of leaders of several Latin American countries got together to continue talks about the expected organization of the Latin American Association of Methodist Educational Institutions (ALAIME). They were able to draft its objectives and bylaws and schedule the constitutive assembly of the organization to Santiago de Chile in 1997. Its creation followed the same IAMSCU perspective, aiming at having an integrative and agglutinating role, but focusing on the educational institutions which exist in Latin America for 135 years and are based on biblical, theological, and doctrinal principles and on the educational philosophy of the Methodist Church (2009, 9).

Education Seminar - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1996

The Conference, which happened when IAMSCU was celebrating  celebrating its Fifth anniversary, was also a memorable occasion. Ireson is enthusiastic when he mentions that it was in Rio de Janeiro at the First Conference that the organization became a reality and began to assume its present form. We had met under the theme of ‘Citizens of the World’ and spoke of preparing a new generation of leaders for the world through our educational institutions. This meeting was concurrent with the meeting of the World Methodist Council in that same city. It was determined at this meeting that our association was now strong enough to begin to meet on its own, at a time and place separate from the World Methodist Conference and always at a location of one of the member educational institutions (Ireson 2010a).

As it would happen with other IAMSCU conferences, the theme was somewhat prophetic and well ahead of the discussions that would start later on, focusing on world citizenship. According to Barrett – as reported by Sharon Hels, director of Scholarly Research, of the office of the General Secretary of the Board of Higher Education and Ministry, UMC – the World Methodist Council asked IAMSCU “to put on a seminar for itself and for World Methodist Conference delegates”. The event, which happened on August 8-9, 1996, was attended by more than 200 people, including educators representing five continents: North America, South America, Africa, Asia, and Europe – focusing on the theme Educating for World Citizenship .

Two important important speakers led led the participants participants in the discussion of of the

seminar theme: Paul Kennedy, “J. Richardson Dilworth Professor” of History at Yale

 

27

University, who is in an article written for the New York Times  and  and the Los Angeles Times , and Yasuo Furuya, senior minister of International Christian University in Osaka, Japan (Hels 1997).  1997).  Aiming at offering fraternal moments and greater closeness, COGEIME offered a dinner with a cultural show on August 9. On that occasion homage was paid to several personalities in recognition for their support and efforts in the promotion of the First IAMSCU International Seminar: Bishop Adriel de Souza Maia, president of the Methodist Church in Brazil, Donald English, chairperson of the Executive Committee of the World Methodist Council, John C. A. Barrett, chairperson of the Organizing Committee of the World Methodist Conference, Joe Hale, general secretary of the World Methodist Council and Roger Ireson, president of IAMSCU. COGEIME also offered a Catalogue of the Methodist Educational Institutions in three languages to the participants.

The Conference was highly evaluated by the participants, who considered it an event of utmost importance. Ireson qualifies it as the first great international meeting of Methodist education: the whole [IAMSCU] project, probably, would have failed or hit a brick wall, w all, had it not been for Brazil – in my opinion – and that was because Brazil was very, very key in providing the Rio Conference. Because it was the Rio Conference that gave the educators the confidence that we did have an organization. And with all those American Presidents of institutions – who said: why do we need this? We have so much institutional work […] – suddenly they began to realize they really had something here. So, Rio was more key than people realized. Because it gave us energy (Ireson 2010b).

The Education Committee of the WMC had its meeting during the sessions of the Council. It was also the occasion for the first official meeting of IAMSCU (IAMSCU 1996, 1-3). It was jointly sponsored by the General General   Board of Higher Education and Ministry of the UMC and by COGEIME. Yamada recalls that “at this first Conference, the IAMSCU bylaws and the membership fee of US$100 US$100 were approved. The new governing governing board members members and the officers were elected”. At the end of the meeting Ireson mentioned that during the past four years, IAMSCU had produced a directory which included at that time over 500 church-related institutions linked around the world. He reported that a number of student-faculty st udent-faculty exchanges were already in progress. He gave special emphasis to the announcement that in 1998 a conference would be held in England to celebrate the 250 th anniversary of Kingswood School, one of the first Methodist schools, founded by John Wesley in 1748 and the oldest still in existence. IAMSCU planned to invite educators from around the globe for the special commemorative events at Kingswood and a seminar on Methodism's historic commitment to education. Plans were already underway to call an IAMSCU conference to be held in conjunction with the Education Committee meeting during the next World Methodist Conference scheduled for 2001. There were also plans to convene a group which would study the usefulness of a specialized

 

28

computer network which would link Methodist institutions of education around the world and make library resources available to them.

London, England, 1997, meeting of the Steering Committee IAMSCU enlists 590 associated institutions

Meeting of the steering committee - London, England, 1997

The steering committee had a subsequent planning meeting in London in June 25, 1997 (IAMSCU 1997, 1-7). The main item of the agenda was the upcoming 1998 IAMSCU Conference in England, but the meeting also reviewed the Rio de Janeiro Conference. The participants evaluated the contribution of the speakers as excellent, discussed some of the conclusions reached in the working groups, analyzed the logistics and pondered some suggestions resulting from the Conference as a whole. It was at this meeting that the t he plans for the events in England the following year were established. They would include a tour of important places in Methodist history: Bath, where Kingswood School would comemorate its 250 aniversar), Bristol, Oxford University, the Westminster College and finally Harlaxton College at Grantham, which which   is connected to the University of Evansville (EUA). These plans also included the dates, the theme, and the names of the speakers for the 1998 Conference. The steering committee also discussed issues related to the 2001 IAMSCU Conference , exploring possibilities for the next WMC meeting, planned for England, possibly at Oxford, in July of that year, coinciding with the 150th anniversary of the founding of Westminster College. In a circular letter sent in September 1997, Ireson remarked: “We now have 590 institutions joined in common cause through IAMSCU and have come a long way from the first planning meeting held in Singapore in 1991” (Ireson 1997). This number had climbed up to 610 in March 1998 and in July it reached 660 institutions. Plans were being developed to establish an interactive educational system via satellite to link all Methodist institutions for shared seminars and library resources. Several locations were being considered as

technology hubs in Brazil, Africa, Japan and the USA.

 

29

Grantham, England, 1998: The Second IAMSCU Conference  Theme: Methodism&Education- from roots to fulfillment 250 years of Methodist Education in the world

The Second IAMSCU Conference was held in England. It was preceded by a gathering of Methodist educators who took part in the celebrations of the 250 th  anniversary of the founding of Kingswood School, in Bath, on July 17-18, 1998. The festivities included a special convocation preceded by an academic procession in appropriate academic gowns with the participation of Kingswood’s headmaster, Gary Best, other personalities and invited guests. It was expected that the convocation, with the presence of hundreds of educators from all over the world, would draw attention to Methodist commitment to education. As Ireson points out in the above mentioned letter, Kingswood School was the beginning of Methodism's commitment to education through church-related educational institutions, a ministry which has spread around the world and which involves approximately 660 institutions in 70 countries. This historic Conference was held in England in 1998 […] and included a gathering of over 225 educators from 20 countries (Ireson 1997).

Kingswood School – Bath, England, 1998

The educators left Kingswood School and visited the New Room Chapel in Bristol, the Westminster College, the Oxford University in Oxford and then Harlaxton Manor in Grantham, where the Conference really happened and was kindly offered by the president of the University of Evansville, James Vinson, who was very much involved in IAMSCU at that time. The  theme was Methodism & Education - from Roots to Fulfillment . The keynote speakers The  were James Laney, former US ambassador to the Republic of Korea and Bishop Paulo Ayres Mattos, Brazilian theologian and educator. Other speakers participating in the panels were Hoyini Bhila, chair of the Department of Humanities at Africa University; Elizabeth Charles,

principal of Isabella Thoburn College for Women in India, and Timothy Macquiban, director of

 

30

the Wesley and Methodist Studies Centre at Westminster College in England. The theme became the title of a video and a book published by IAMSCU. The book, which was distributed all over the world, included a series of essays by leading educators from IAMSCU meetings in Brazil (1996) and the United Kingdom (1998). The video by the same title t itle contains highlights of the Conference. There was a special meeting for the students, which included thirty-one representatives from five countries - Brazil, India, Northern Ireland, England and the United States – and one that most attracted participants among all the meetings promoted. It was then that IAMSCU became a full-fledged world organization (IAMSCU 1998, 6). Its bylaws and its structure were defined, the steering committee was officially replaced by a board of directors – composed by the same committee members with the inclusion of two new members – and the first president was elected. The association decided to include theological schools among its potential  potential institutions members and to establish a student program. It was decided that only administrators, faculty, students, and members of the boards of trustees or other persons related to the institutions were to attend the conferences. Their travel and lodging expenses would have to be paid by their respective educational institutions. To establish the autonomy and independence of the association, all its programs would have to be paid by the member institutions, although special gifts of staff and personnel offered by the institutions and the GBHEM would be welcome. According to Ireson, “it was envisioned that in the future the association would be entirely self-sufficient, supported entirely by member institutions and eventually independent of GBHEM, which would assist in its formative years” (Ireson 2010a). To insure that this would be a decisive step in IAMSCU history a yearly membership fee of 100 dollars was instituted for the operating expenditures related to future conferences Those institutions able to contribute with this sum would be known as supporting institutions  while   while those unable to do it would be known as participating institutions. It was also decided to incorporate IAMSCU as a legal entity whose purposes

would be the same ones defined when the association was created. The incorporation took place in the State of Tennessee, USA, on October 10, 1998 (Charter 1998, 3). This decision led to the definition of an executive committee with three officers who were then elected, namely, Roger Ireson as president, John Barrett as vice president and Kenjiro (Ken) Yamada as secretary/treasurer. secretary/treasurer. According to Ireson, concerns arose that the structuring of an international association of Methodist educational institutions could create some difficulty for the GBHEM, due to to   three aspects of the institutional scenario. The first was a financial and administrative one. Some people thought that part of the personnel and financial resources would be taken from the to   be used abroad. Another aspect had to do with the GBHEM’s  responsibilities in the US to  GBHEM’s 

global nature of the United Methodist Council and its relationship to United Methodist and

 

31

Methodist educational institutions in the world. A third aspect was connected to the structural relationships of the institutions and the churches to which they belonged. Some were connected to South American or African churches, who were not members of the United Methodist Church. Institutions in Europe or Africa were connected to Central Conferences of the UMC while others were related to the British Methodist Church in several countries. As he considers these issues, Ireson I reson remarks: the complexity of this context for unity in Methodist educational institutions as well as governance questions raised concern in some quarters of Methodist members. Eventually these concerns were allayed but they point to the importance of IAMSCU being an association of the educational institutions through voluntary membership in an institutional basis with the GBHEM bringing denominational and technical support to the organization for its establishment and initial years but then allowing IAMSCU to continue with its own life, mission, and governance  governance (Ireson 2010b).

Hiroshima, Japan, 1999, meeting of the Board of Directors Education, committed to World Peace

Members of the board of directors visiting the  – Hiroshima, Japan, 1999 Peace Memorial  –

University  The next meeting of the board of directors was held held   at Hiroshima Jogakuin University  in Hiroshima, Japan, in September, 1999 (IAMSCU 1999, 1-5). The University was celebrating its 50th anniversary and its president president   Keizo Nishi welcomed the association, emphasizing the importance of the theme proposed for the 2001 Third IAMSCU Conference, Education for Human Responsibility in the 21st   Century . The meeting included the participation of

consultants and the GBHEM staff. It was preceded by the meeting of the WMC Executive Committee and Education Committee meetings held in Hong Kong. Several important issues were placed before the board. Kent Weeks, its legal counsel, introduced issues regarding the organization of IAMSCU. Several actions were taken in this regard. Some of the main decisions included the establishment of a nominating committee –

appointed by the board of directors or the executive committee – which would be responsible

 

32

for choosing the members of the board from among the representatives of the institutions connected to the association. They would be nominated in an IAMSCU plenary session. The officers of the board would be elected by an action of the board of directors and two other atlarge members would be added to the executive committee, chosen among the members of the board of directors. The individuals formerly designated as steering committee members would become members of the board of directors. In addition to educational institutions, associations related to Methodist education such as the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (USA), NASCUMC (USA), COGEIME (Brazil) and ALAIME (Latin America) would be eligible to participate in IAMSCU. The board received an important report on the meeting of the Education Committee of the WMC presented by Barrett. The committee decided to hold a Conference on the theme Christian Faith in Education into the 21 st   Century   in Brighton, England on July 2001,

immediately after the meeting of the WMC in the same city. These decisions had an impact on the discussion and decisions related to the organization of the IAMSCU Conference scheduled for that same time of the year in England. After much discussion on the details of the Conference it was decided that it would take place just prior to the WMC conference in Brighton, but would be held in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Ireland. As a result of previous decisions, the board elected two of its members as at-large members of the executive committee: Elizabeth Charles, from Lucknow, India, and Almir Maia, from Piracicaba, Brazil. During the meeting in Hiroshima, at a dinner in a hotel built on the exact site where the atomic bomb was dropped on August 6, 1945, the participants could hear the thrilling account of a Methodist minister, Shozo Muneto, 72, a survivor of the tragedy that marked the end of the war. He was 18 and was one of the victims saved by his mother, even though he only got medical care 24 hours after the Hiroshima explosion. He accompanied the tragic death of thousands and the destruction of his community. Over the years he had to receive medical monitoring to cope with leukemia. “I still don’t know how I did not die. I feel that God saved me from death in order that I could transform myself into a living witness of the atom bomb tragedy and to work for the cause of peace in the world. I gave up my chemistry course and decided to join a theological seminary to become a pastor” he said. Muneto gave the educators a clear message: The peace maintained by the strategic balance of nuclear weapons should be seen as the peace coming from threat and from fear. It is difficult to see in these initiatives the genuine peace based on mutual friendship and on dialogue between countries. The Christian and theweapons nuclear isweapons areand twothe contradictory banishment of faith the nuclear the desire fundamentalrealities. prayer ofThe all Christians and all human beings (Muneto ( Muneto 1999). 1999).  

 

33

Belfast, Northern Ireland, 2001: The Third IAMSCU Conference  Theme: Building peace, building partnership When in January 18, 2001, Ireson wrote to the Methodist educational institutions connected to IAMSCU inviting them to this Conference, he found it important to highlight some important issues: the Conference will be held in Belfast, Northern Ireland at the Methodist College from July 16 through the 20 […] This event will mark the 10th anniversary of the founding of IAMSCU in Singapore in 1991. Our association now includes 705 institutions in 67 countries […] Here is an opportunity to meet with fellow Methodist educators from around the world, to learn of their institutions and programs, and to participate in discussions which could lead to greater insights as well as share programs and possible exchanges (Ireson 2001).

The response was strong. There were 176 participants from 20 countries to hear and discuss the presentations offered by distinguished speakers, including Sean Farren, Minister for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment of Northern Ireland, who addressed the Conference on the theme Building Peace, Building Partnership . Maia recalls that in that year Northern Ireland was still facing a conflict between Catholics and Protestants: but IAMSCU chose the country for the realization of its meeting specifically so that we, as educators, could give a testimony of the search for peace. We were together with representatives of the Catholic hierarchy around the same discussions table, within a besieged town divided by barbed wire. The passage from one side to the other was allowed only during determined But the joint celebration with ecclesiastic representatives of other churcheshours. demonstrated the possible strength coming from dialogue and from peace (Elias (E lias 2008, 194).

This experience could be felt from the beginning of the Conference. The opening ceremony had the presence of the president of the Northern Ireland Methodist Church, Rev, Harold Gold, the moderator of the Presbyterian Church, Alistair Dunlop, the bishop of the Irish Catholic Church, James E. Moore, and the Archbishop from Armagh, cardinal Cahal B. Daly, one of the most important Catholic Catholic authorities from the area area.. Hisako Kinukawa, from Tokyo Women’s Christian University spoke on Justice, Gender and Human Rights . A third keynote address was presented by Vivian Bull, president and Professor of Economics of Linfield College. She spoke on Economic Justice . Ely Eser Barreto César, provost of the Methodist University of Piracicaba, Brazil, member of the IAMSCU board of directors and of the Education Committee of the WMC, addressed the participants on the theme Education with a

view on Human Responsibility in the 21st  Century .

 

34

Academic opening procession – Belfast, Northern Ireland, 2001

This Third Conference highlighted IAMSCU’s 10 th anniversary, recalled in the academic opening procession and in the remarks of president Ireson. There were also moments of public visibility with high political meaning such as July 19, when the participants were received in a banquet at the government palace by the Mayor of Belfast, Counselor Jim Rodgers, together with many civil, religious and educational authorities, including A. Shannon, permanent secretary of the Department of Higher and Further Education.

Oslo, Norway, 2002, meeting of the t he Board of Directors IAMSCU’s incorporation in Tennessee, USA, approved It was in Oslo, Norway on September 22, 2002, that the board ratified the incorporation of IAMSCU in the State of Tennessee USA, and reaffirmed that its officers should remain in their positions until its next meeting the following y year ear (IAMSCU 2002, 1-5). 1-5). In this meeting, the board also decided to develop its bylaws to formalize IAMSCU operational procedures. Starting from its charter and its operating mode, it defined some assumptions for the development of these bylaws and appointed a task force to draw and present its draft at the 2004 board meeting for action. The board decided that English language proficiency was not an issue in the selection of its officers. It was elected Rukudzo Murapa, from Zimbabwe, as president; Elizabeth Charles, from India, as vice president and Ken Yamada, from the United States, as secretary/treasurer. In recognition for the leadership and commitment of Roger Ireson to IAMSCU, the board decided to name him Founding President Emeritus and expressed its deep appreciation to John Barrett for the effective role he played as vice president. It also elected Almir de Souza Maia and Neil Irons to serve on the executive committee together with the officers. Ireson had already been distinguished for his work for the advancement of IAMSCU by some Methodist universities such as UNIMEP (Brazil), which granted him in 1998 th

a Honoris Causa  doctorate  doctorate at the closing of the institution celebration for the 250  anniversary

 

35

of Methodist education in the world. The University of the Latin American Educational Center (Universidad del Centro Educativo Latinoamericano , UCEL), Argentina, also granted him subsequently an academic title.

Members of the board of directors – Oslo, Norway, 2002

After some discussions on future IAMSCU activities, the board decided that the 2005 Conference to be convened in a sub-Saharan country in June of that year should work on the theme Globalization: Ethical Implications for Methodist-Related Education   with special emphasis on religion and culture, economics, and the environment. The board also discussed the possibility of realizing the 2008 Conference in an area near Seoul, Korea, where the executive committee of the WMC would promote an event as part of the World Methodist Conference that year. Hong Kong and Japan were considered as possible sites for the IAMSCU Conference.

Boston, USA, 2003, meeting of the Board of Directors Reaffirmed the participation of students in the Conferences The board met again in Boston, Massachusetts, in July 2003 at the Omni Parker House, home of Boston University, a renowned Methodist university where Martin Luther King studied. According to the minutes of the meeting (IAMSCU 2003, 1-5), the board adopted a draft of the bylaws that included the several issues discussed at its Belfast meeting and was briefed on a strategic plan adopted by the GBHEM. This was most meaningful to IAMSCU as an international educational focus was intentionally incorporated in the plan and the GBHEM and IAMSCU were expected to play a key role in creating increased educational access to young people and in forming leaders around the world. The most important item on the agenda, however, was the planning for the next IAMSCU conference.

 

36

The board decided on July 10-16, 2005 as a good date in consideration of the different academic year calendars followed by the member institutions. There were discussions on the conference place, theme, and format, but formal decisions were postponed. The board affirmed that student participation was of a vital importance and should be stressed. The date for the next board of directors meeting was set for June 20-23, 2004. No definite place was chosen, but there was a general agreement that the Instituto Mexicano Madero  would   would be a convenient site. The University of the Latin American Educational Center in Argentina was considered as an alternate site.

Puebla, Mexico, 2004, meeting of the Board of Directors Future perspectives: concerns with planning and finances With a welcome word presented by Job Cesar Romero Reyes, the Rector of the Universidad Madero, the board of directors opened its meeting the following year, on June 2122, in the city of Puebla, Mexico. As the financial report was being discussed, a long discussion developed around IAMSCU membership and the need for increasing the number of institutions paying their dues (IAMSCU 2004, 3). There were at the time 747 institutions in 69 countries enrolled as members and only 100 paying their dues. It was recognized that increasing this number should be a priority and that it was necessary to help the institutions to understand that dues were needed to develop the organization and offer new programs. A brainstorming session developed on the possibilities for the future. A decision was reached on the need to develop a strategic plan for IAMSCU and a special committee was created to draft it. Four persons were nominated as members: Wanda Bigham (convener), Ted Brown, Elsa Bauman and Almir Maia. The committee met in Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil, on September 20-21, 2004 to prepare a proposal for a strategic plan based on two axes: institutional cooperation and leadership formation for schools, churches and the society. The committee presented this proposal as basic for the development of IAMSCU for the next years. The board received a report on the General Conference of the United Methodist Church that emphasized education both in the US and abroad. The report – presented by Neil L. Irons – described the shift in Church membership, which is rapidly growing outside the US while declining in the US and discussed implications for maintaining funding of its ministries to the poor in other countries, including educational institutions. One important decision reached by the Conference was the approval of the concept of the Global Education Fund to provide technical assistance to Methodist-related schools. Funding developmen developmentt would begin. The agenda provided some time for the presentation of reports on the situation of Methodist-related institutions in Japan, Argentina and Latin America as a whole, and the US.

 

37

The planning for the 2005 Fourth IAMSCU Conference took a large part of the agenda of this board of directors meeting. It was agreed that it should be held in Australia, at the Westminster College, in Marion on July 11-14. The Conference theme would be Globalization: Ethical Implications for Methodist-Related Education.  Some discussion points related to the

theme were suggested, focusing on the fact that the program meant Methodists speaking to Methodists. Transformational leadership, cross cultural and interfaith dialogue would also be topics of interest to participants. Several names were suggested in the selection of the keynote speaker for the Conference. Kofi Annan, Gracia Machel-Mandela, Enrique Dussel and Cain Felder were the most voted.

Washington, DC, USA, 2005, meeting of the Board of Directors Di rectors Strategic P lanning lanning begins to be discussed The board was again convened in Washington, DC at the Hyatt Regency Washington Hotel on January 29, 2005 (IAMSCU 2005a, 1-2). When discussing and approving the financial report, the board faced an issue pending from past meetings: should the IAMSCU membership dues remain at US$100 or should the institutions that have been contributing be asked to pay more? The discussion ended when a motion that it should remain at that level was adopted.

Meeting of the board of directors – W ashington, DC, USA, 2005

In order to go on with the discussions dealing with the program for the upcoming IAMSCU Fourth Conference, Bradley Fenner, Principal of Westminster School, joined the meeting directly from Australia, via speakerphone, as he could not come to Washington, DC. With his participation, plans for the Conference were discussed. The board directed him and Wanda Bigham to continue with the necessary preparations. Two strategic plans were then considered: one that was being developed for IAMSCU and another that was being organized for the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (GBHEM). The discussions were not

aimed at reaching a decision and, in relation to IAMSCU, the members of the board agreed to

 

38

analyze the matters discussed in order to retake the issue in the next meeting and reach a final document. In relation to the strategic plan for the GBHEM, the board was simply given a report on the progress of its revision and on still pending decisions.

Marion, Australia, 2005: The Fourth IAMSCU Conference Theme: Globalization: ethical implications for Methodistrelated education  

The Fourth IAMSCU Conference was held at Westminster School in Marion, South Australia, on July 11-14, 2005. The board of directors met on the first day of the Conference, Murapa chairing (IAMSCU 2005b, 1-8). After the final program and the list of registered delegates were distributed, it was noted that there would be 97 participants – including the speakers – plus the members of the board which should register at the conclusion of its meeting. The keynote speaker that was invited found it impossible to come to the Conference and the board decided to accept the offer of Masayuki Ida, a specialist on information technology, to share information on this subject. According to what was decided before, the Fourth Conference gathered around the theme Globalization: Ethical Implications for Methodist-Related Education   giving particular attention to its relationship to issues dealing with religion and culture, economy, and the environment. Speeches, panels and small groups all concentrated around these topics, although there was also a moment when the Conference discussed institutional cooperation. The students also had a special meeting, but there was no information available concerning their number or which country or institution they represented. As in Belfast and at other IAMSCU’s conferences, the program featured public events, including a reception by the Mayor of Adelaide, Michael Harbison. During its meeting the board of directors dedicated a great amount of its time to discuss the IAMSCU’s strategic plan that was being drafted with the help of a special committee nominated in the last meeting. Although there were no actions to be taken in relation to the plan, several observations were raised around issues included on some notes distributed by the committee. Increasing the amount of the membership dues, the need to define more clearly IAMSCU’s mission, the use of technology to facilitate contacts and bringing down costs, regional leadership and networks, the building up of an archival center to be developed into a research facility, the possibility of creating an endowment fund and of fostering a sister relationship between institutions so that the financially strong would provide

assistance to weaker ones, were some of the issues that were discussed and suggested to be

 

39

inserted in the strategic plan. There were regional reports on issues related to Methodist education in Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa and the United States.

Members of the board of directors – Marion, Australia, 2005

Information was also shared on GBHEM’s strategic plan, the discussion and development of which started in January 2002. An important dimension of this plan is its focus on the Global Education Fund created as a concept by the 2004 General Conference of the UMC and still to be funded through the work of the GBGM / UMC. A wide presentation on the Global Fund by Ken Yamada described to the board members how meaningful it is to IAMSCU dynamics as the fund will certainly benefit all 747 Methodist institutions worldwide, with an enrollment of nearly 1 million students. It should become a vehicle to enable more institutions to participate in IAMSCU. The goal, he said, was to get the fund off the ground in three years. One of the most important points in the agenda was certainly the nomination and election of the 2005-2008 board of directors and officers. It was recognized that some board members were eligible to serve another period but with new leadership emerging, it would be appropriate for some of the older leaders to step down so that the board could be renovated. When reviewing its role, the board recognized that after the bylaws were revised and adopted it should organize the slate and recommend it to the general IAMSCU membership for ratification, with the possibility of nominations coming from the floor also opened. At the Conference the following people were elected as members and officers of the board: Rukudzu Conference  Murapa as president, Almir de Souza Maia as vice president, Wanda Bigham as secretary/treasurer, Gary Best, Ted Brown, Elizabeth Charles, Jerome King Del Pino, Bradley Fenner, Neil Irons, Zenaida Lumba, J. Jeremy Packard, Maxine Clarke Beach, Masayuki Ida, Wilfred Mulryne, Job Cesar Romero Reyes and Humberto Santoni. It was also a time to recognize the contribution of several departing members of the board who had led the association in its early years: John C.A. Barrett, Luis Carello, Ely Eser Barreto César, Thomas W. Cole, Jr., Masanobu Fukamachi, Fukamachi, Roger W. Ireson, Ovidio Torres and Ken Yamada.

 

40

Seoul, Korea, 2006, meeting of the Board of Directors Direct ors Methodist Global Education Fund to prioritize the development d evelopment of new leaders The board had its next meeting in Seoul, Republic of Korea on July 21-22, 2006, when IAMSCU was reaching its fifteenth year of activities although no record of this fact was found found   on the documents researched. One of the decisions reached in that meeting (IAMSCU 2006, 1-8) was the replacement of two of the board’s members and the addition of others as new ones. Humberto Santoni resigned from the board and Zenaida Lumba had not been reached apparently because of communication problems. Ken Bedell was elected as a board member and also as its secretary/treasurer. secretary/treasurer. He had been been hired by GBHEM to replace Ken Ya Yamada, mada, who had retired as Associate General Secretary but continued active as Special Assistant to the General Secretary. Secretary. It was decided that president president Murapa would would designate a nominations committee to fill the other positions. After the financial report was accepted, the board devoted some time to hear updates on the situation of the world regions. Several members brought information on Australia, India, Japan and the United States. One good thing that came out of the Conference in Australia was that a number of schools and colleges expressed interest in working cooperatively and decided to call a meeting to approximate the institutions, many of which showed interest in becoming IAMSCU members. It was reported that Methodist institutions in India stress valuecentered education and Christian activities, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain these characteristics as students have no interest in values and look for job-oriented education. It was mentioned that in Japan students are attracted to Methodist schools because they offer quality education and they are taught in English. It was emphasized that Japanese society is an aging one so the schools are competing for the best students. The situation in the US is difficult to describe because states have different standards. There is a large number of colleges and universities – 123 in all – but they vary widely in size, resources and selectivity and there is unbridled competition between them. Besides, for-profit colleges are increasing in number in the country. Institutions in Brazil, Mozambique and Africa University reported conversations aimed at finding ways to cooperate with one another. A large part of the meeting was used to share, receive and discuss information about the Methodist Global Education Fund approved by the UMC General Conference in 2004, which aimed at raising US$4 million by 2008 for technical assistance, for sending Methodist scholars to help schools around the world and for scholarships. The Fund’s ultimate goal is to produce world class leaders. It was recognized that there would be no viable future for the Methodist movement unless it took the t he development of leaders for both the church and society seriously. Since the GBHEM had no infrastructure to function globally, it was suggested that IAMSCU be such a vehicle according to what is incorporated in its bylaws and charter.

 

41

The board included a discussion on the upcoming Fifth IAMSCU Conference. After many interventions it was decided that 2008 would be an ideal time to hold the conference and it was approved to have it held in Rosario, Argentina, accepting the invitation presented by the Universidad del Centro Educativo Latinoamericano , UCEL, and subject to ALAIME’s support. A discussion on theme ideas for the 2008 Conference was started after these decisions. The concept of leadership was on top of all concerns as it had to do with world peace. Two questions were raised: What does a Methodist world leader look like? How can Methodist education contribute to world peace? A good amount of time was dedicated to this discussion and among other issues the need for an analysis was raised on the contribution IAMSCU conferences can make to its membership. It was decided that a program committee should be nominated and several suggestions were offered for the president’s consideration. Names and profiles were discussed in relation to who should be invited to speak at the Conference and the president was asked to establish a committee with the responsibility of nominating future members for the board. No final decisions were reached in relation to these subjects.

Vancouver, Canada, 2007, meeting of the Board of Directors IAMSCU discusses the use of information technology and the creation of its own web site On April 18, 2007, two days after the shooting at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA, USA, when a gunman killed twenty-seven students and five faculty members, the board started its two-day two-day meeting, this time in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Canada. The tragedy tragedy was still fresh in people’s minds and the initial devotions started with a message on love and a remembrance of those who died within a school, a place which was meant to offer education and life. After the devotional moment, the board welcomed Maxine Beach and Masayuki Ida as its newest members and Yamada, now as its permanent senior advisor, who had been elected at the Seoul meeting (IAMSCU 2007, 1-12). A request for an update on the international exchange and service projects, mentioned in the minutes of the last meeting, was answered by referring to a web page of the GBHEM that was being developed at that time and could be expanded to include this information.

 

42

Meeting of the board of directors – Vancouver, Canada, 2007

The board devoted then some time to receive regional reports and some members brought them for consideration. They covered especially Africa, Asia, India, the United States, Australia and Latin America. The report on Japan, presented by Masayuki Ida, m mentioned entioned that there was some uncertainty about the meaning and role of IAMSCU in that area and that it would be necessary to make a special effort to clarify the importance of the association. Elizabeth Charles reported that the educational efforts of the churches in India had empowered the women to defend themselves, although this created a difficult situation. They were enabled to engage in job opportunities where they suffered a burnout crisis and many were then left jobless. This was true especially for those working as c call all center workers. Up to that point, the efforts to guarantee more gender and age representation within the board had not been entirely successful. The report on the United States, offered by Jerry Packard, started with the affirmation that the reality of Methodist education is extremely complicated in that country. Violence in society and on campuses, the secularization of the institutions, tension between the federal government and possible new regulations of the Higher Education Act were a few of the issues faced by the colleges and universities. There was a growing tendency at the time to engage in distance education and there were three-day workshops organized and offered to Methodist educators for them to learn about this option. One concern was that there was little participation of American Methodist institutions in IAMSCU. It was necessary to find ways to get them interested in the association and to become active members. A report was presented by Almir Maia on Latin America. His main emphasis was on the fact that the region had strongly promoted the ideal and reality of IAMSCU and had worked hard in developing a close relationship between the Church and church-related institutions. Many events and activities were organized by the ALAIME, which would give full support to the 2008 IAMSCU Conference to be held in Argentina. February 9 was chosen in 2003 as a date to celebrate Methodist Education Day in Latin America throughout the

 

43

continent, as this was the anniversary of the oldest Methodist educational institution in Latin America, the Madero Mexican Institute, at Puebla, Mexico, founded in 1874. The report on Australia, brought by Bradley Fenner, was offered in a written format. It mentioned that plans had begun for a national gathering of representatives of Uniting Church institutions to take place in 2008, with the support of the National Secretariat and the Director of Christian Education. Along the line of exchanges, there was a link with Isabella Thoburn College, in Lucknow, India, aiming at the organization of a service and spirituality project in that country this same year. Westminster School, host to the 2005 Fourth IAMSCU Conference in Australia, expressed its interest in sharing aspects of this experience to help in the preparation for the next conference. One of the subjects that the board discussed was the idea of an electronic journal where debates on IAMSCU concerns could take place. Members were reminded that the IAMSCU’s website, located within GBHEM site, could host this space, as technology and resources were available. There was however, the need of an editor responsible for inviting people to participate and maintaining a translation service for documents written in languages other  than English. These documents should also be published in their original language. other language. The Global Education Fund was also brought to the attention of the board and several developments were shared. It was highlighted that funds are important for the education of people and that educated leaders make a great difference in developing countries. Irons (IAMSCU 2007, 7) said: “When people have had education they rise in leadership. We already know it works. Its time to do it and do it in a more cooperative and broader way”. way”. One of the important goals of IAMSCU is the promotion of international exchanges and the board took time sharing information on what has been happening in this area. There had been informal exchanges but many had been fostered by GBHEM. There had been opportunities for exchange and service projects had been used to bring students together from different cultures. An important issue is that through some of these connections new exchanges had been brought about. People discovered they could trust others and engage in the process. Most of the second day of the meeting was dedicated to the planning of the 2008 Fifth IAMSCU Conference in Argentina. There were many suggestions on the themes that should be included in program and it was emphasized that characterization of real Methodist education, educational opportunities, Latin American needs and local reality concerns should receive a special consideration. There was general consensus that the main theme of the Conference should focus on the possibility of developing leadership to change the future and that Methodist educators should view themselves as change agents. Potential speakers were

also suggested to address these possible themes and a committee was appointed to organize

 

44

the program of the Conference with these ideas in mind. It was also agreed to raise the delegates’ registration fee from US$150 to US$250. The board felt it necessary to elect new people to be included in its constituency and unanimously elected Ovidio Torres from Argentina, – to complete the term of Humberto Santoni – and Amós Silva do Nascimento from Brazil. Nascimento had been elected to the WMC in 2006. IAMSCU always wanted to made sure it had a representative at the WMC. Having the chair of the WMC Education Committee as a member of IAMSCU board would foster the connection between both associations. The strategic plan for IAMSCU and its possible role as an institutional accreditation agency for educational institutions outside the US were two other issues discussed but no decisions were reached.

Honolulu, Hawaii, 2008, meeting of the Board of Directors Document defines benefits to affiliated institutions The next meeting of the board was held at the Hyatt Regency Waikiki hotel in Honolulu, Hawaii (IAMSCU 2008, 1-6) on February 12-13, 2008. It was an unusual meeting as it was started with a workshop on science, technology, ethics and internet business. Under the title of International Workshop for Net Business Ethics, it was organized by the Open Research Center of the Graduate School of International Management of Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan (http://www.gsim.aoyama.ac.jp/ORC/ (http://www.gsim.aoyama.ac.jp/ORC/ iBiZ2008/purpose.html). It had the support of IAMSCU and of the GBHEM and brought together speakers and participants from the United States, Brazil, Japan, Germany, Zimbabwe, Canada and India. Its main theme was Global Technology, Ethics, and Social Responsibility, an Agenda for Interdisciplinary and International Research on Borderless Net Business . There was much enthusiasm about the issue and and it was proposed proposed that IAMSCU

should create two task forces, one on technology and another on ethics to promote the discussions developed in the workshop. This motion was approved unanimously. A result of the seminar was a bilingual publication in the second half of 2008 - the 32/33 issue of the Revista de Educação   (Journal of Education) published by COGEIME in partnership with

IAMSCU and GBHEM, which included presentations given in the two-day encounter. With the approval of the minutes of the April 18, 2007 meeting the suggestion was made that the book, An Uneasy Partner: the College and the Church,  on the issue of the interrelationship between educational institutions and the church be placed online, so that it could be a part of the library of every Methodist-related institution. The book deals with the sometimes uneasy relationship between the church and its educational institutions, and

demonstrates misunderstandings misunderstandings on both sides. The understanding that education can be part

 

45

of the mission of the church was highlighted highlighted..  A concern was raised on the evaluation of events supported by GBHEM, especially IAMSCU Conferences. The board was assured that there would be an evaluation form for the upcoming conference to be held in Argentina. A rgentina. As the financial report was being presented by Wanda Bigham, the question was raised concerning the benefits of becoming a member of IAMSCU. A list of benefits was circulated among the board Members and two of its members volunteered to finalize it. This list is included in the appendix of this report. Regional reports were then offered to the t he board on the situation of Methodist education in Australia, Central and South America, Africa, Asia and the t he United States. The main points in these reports were on racial relations, funding for the institutions, inter-institutional relationships, distance education, relationships with the United Methodist Church and international exchanges. One of the most important items on the agenda was the preparation for the 2008 Fifth IAMSCU Conference scheduled for July 10-13 in Rosario, Argentina. The discussion focused first on the names of the speakers and on the possibility of having parallel events, such as a meeting of the Education Committee of the WMC, of the iBiZ2008 group, or of IAMSCU task forces on ethics and technology. t echnology. The need for a special and serious program for students was discussed. The members of the board received a report on the preparations for the General Conference of the UMC by the GBHEM. The GBHEM had just launched a new website and was planning for the Higher Education Night that was scheduled for the Conference. They also received information on the next meeting of the World Methodist Council that was expected to be held in South Africa and on the next meeting of the Executive Committee scheduled to happen in Chile. Information brought to the board was that the Global Education Fund had to be renamed because since April 2007 three entities had been created with this same name. Its official name became Methodist Global Education Fund for Leadership Development (MGEFLD). The GBHEM expected to raise about US$10 million which would yield half a million a year. There was a report on the International Education Committee of the NASCUMC which focused on a proposed international exchanges initiative and brought with it the idea that it should be an IAMSCU program with the participation of both NASCUMC and the GBHEM. The board approved the proposal with the understanding that a draft of the program would be presented at the Fifth IAMSCU Conference. The board then then   dedicated some time to plan for this Conference.

 

46

The fact that some of the present board members were finishing their mandate according to the bylaws raised the need for both indicating new members and revising these bylaws. Some names were suggested and it was decided they should be contacted to see if they were interested in becoming members of the board. They should be invited to come to Rosario and the election would occur at the Conference. The strategic plan was still a very rough draft and ideas were raised and shared on how it should be developed and what it should include. Issues on communication, exchanges, leadership, professional development and others were discussed. However, it became clear that IAMSCU needed a better structure and that the question of financial resources had to be appraised realistically. The question of the nature of the institutions which should be members of IAMSCU was brought to the attention of the board, especially in those instances in which they were connected to united churches in their respective countries that “did not allow those institutions to function corporately as Methodist-related or within the Wesleyan tradition of schools, colleges, universities and theological schools” (IAMSCU 2008, 16). The board decided that its chair, in consultation with GBHEM staff, should “assign to specific individuals the task of researching the nature, effect and application of united churches or ecumenical organizational organizational structure on institutions that desire and hold membership in IAMSCU” (IAMSCU 2008, 6). A report would be prepared for the board of directors at its meeting in Rosario.

Rosario, Argentina, 2008: The Fifth IAMSCU Conference Theme: Methodist education shaping the future

The venue was the Universidad del Centro Educativo Latinoamerican Latinoamericano  o , Spanish name for the University of the Latin American Educational Center. The dates were July 10-13, 2008. It was there and then that the International Association of Methodist Schools, Colleges and Universities convened its Fifth Conference around the theme of leadership development, both for the church and the world. According to Linda Green (2008, 1) comments from the leaders were enthusiastic. She quoted outgoing IAMSCU president Murapa as saying that good leadership plays a critical role in the growth of the church as well as in academic and educational institutions, that the United Methodist General Conference had created a Global Education Fund for Leadership Development, and that IAMSCU “is an important vehicle through which to bring about that new, committed and enlightened leadership”. The

Conference was attended by 169 delegates and visitors from 17 countries (IAMSCU 2009, 2).

 

47

Members of the board of directors – Rosario, Argentina, Ar gentina, 2008

The board of directors met twice, on July 9 in the morning and on July 10 in the afternoon before the Conference started. Reports were given from the Australia, Central/South America, Africa, Asia, Mexico, United Kingdom and United States regions as well as from the WMC Education Committee, the iBiZ2008 International Workshop and the Institute of Higher Education on Global Ethics. Several proposals were also the subject of discussions, including changes in the bylaws, the definition of member institutions benefits, the student exchange program, the drafting of an institutional self-assessment tool and a document on Shared Values for Methodist Education. On the following day the board nominated individuals as new members and officers, discussed the location for its next meeting and for the 2011 IAMSCU Conference, and discussed the IAMSCU strategic plan. According to Ken Yamada, at this meeting, Vivian Bull and he presented an selfevaluation proposal to be applied to several institutions with the results presented to IAMSCU in a 2011 report. The pilot plan was accepted with the recommendation that it be tested. The Fifth Conference, under the theme of Methodist education shaping the future , was started the same evening with a processional march of all the delegations dressed in their characteristic robes and carrying the flags of their respective institutions. World Leadership, the Methodist Global Education Fund for Leadership Development, Individual Leadership, Global Ethics and Technology, the Methodist Global Ethics Initiative, Civility and Morality – A Global Perspective, Education for a New Global Reality, Partnerships for Methodist Educators, Sharing Best Practices for Leadership Development   were subjects addressed by invited

speakers and discussed in small groups (Fifth 2008). The board of directors brought to the floor the names of its new members and officers and these were elected for the 2008-2011 term. Ted Brown, was elected as the president. Other officers elected were Bradley Fenner and Ken Bedell, as vice president and secretary-treasurer respectively (Green 2008). Masayuki Ida and Claudia Lombardo were also elected as members of the new executive

 

48

committee. Other members were elected to compose the board: Leslie Garner, Socorro Brito de Anda, Sergei Nikolaev and Myron McCoy.

Honolulu, Hawaii, 2009, meeting of the Board of Directors Exchange programs: the Board wants to expand them The next meeting of the board, February 6-7, 2009, was held once again in Honolulu, Hawaii (IAMSCU 2009, 1-13) at the same s ame Hyatt Regency Waikiki hotel where it met in 2008. It was the first meeting for the new board members elected in Rosario and there was a time for their recognition at the beginning of the session. It was indicated that another member would be added to the board and that Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea should indicate someone to fulfill this position. position. This was an attempt attempt to recruit more women women to participate participate in the IAMSCU board of directors. Ewha Woman’s University is a traditional women’s university in Korea, recognized all over the world, so its more direct involvement in IAMSCU would be an important step towards t owards more gender representation. When the financial report revealed that many institutions had not paid their dues, dues,   a question  was raised: should they remain in the IAMSCU directory of institutions? Everyone question  agreed that all institutions should remain listed and a special mention in the directory should be reserved for those who were faithful in paying their dues. Next, the board discussed an evaluation survey made at the Rosario Conference. This discussion raised many ideas for the next conference and for the development of IAMSCU programs and relationships. It was mentioned that future speakers and panel participants should furnish a manuscript of their speeches not less than 30 days prior to the event. Not many any of the institutions from the United States participated in the IAMSCU conferences, but that those who did began to promote exchange progra programs ms of students and ffaculty. aculty. Regional reports were then presented to the board, covering the activities and relationships of Methodist and Methodist-related institutions in Central America, South America, Africa, Asia, Russia, United Kingdom and United States. The WMC Education Committee also brought a report to the board highlighting, among other issues, that it was “maintaining a constant dialogue with IAMSCU in order to define and differentiate our work” (IAMSCU 2009, Attachment 7, 3). The report recognized that many EC activities overlapped with those of IAMSCU but affirmed aff irmed that the association had “its specificity working with secular educational institutions while the EC focused f ocused on education in general at the church level”. The board also received a report on two workshops on business ethics on the borderless world created by the internet. The workshops, known as iBiZ 2008 and 2009, were conducted by the

 

49

Aoyama Gakuin University and held in Honolulu and Tokyo, respectively. Officers from IAMSCU participated as speakers in the second s econd one. A long period of discussions was dedicated to an analysis of developments in the area of student exchanges. Participants brought information on what was happening between several institutions and countries. It was recognized that there was some progress but that it would be necessary to address other related questions: the organization of a central staff to promote these exchanges, the need for more flexibility on the part of the institutions, program management, and language problems. Members of the board were also invited to become involved in the program. The board learned of a proposal on the reduction of WMC committees, which would eliminate the Education Committee, as a result from pressures coming from member churches of Council. After a long discussion it was decided to send a message to the WMC summarized in the affirmation that “while we can understand the need for refinement and consolidation of the (WMC) organizational structure, we believe that the cause of education is so central to t o the Wesleyan movement that it should be specifically represented in the organizational structure of the World Methodist Council” (IAMSCU 2009, 7). It went on to affirm that this would be an “unfortunate” decision for the future of the Methodist educational global enterprise. A report on the Methodist Global Education Fund for Leadership Development was also brought to the attention of the board. Information was shared on how the Fund had been helping institutions in several regions, especially Latin America and Africa. The Fund had helped in the exchanges program but there was a need to ensure a high quality standard. The hope was that the self-assessment tool c in Rosario would be effective in identifying these standards in each institution and verified in a report to IAMSCU in 2011. Because Bradley Fenner resigned as a member of the board due to the fact that he was no longer the head of a Methodist-related school in Australia, having moved to New Zealand where he became the principal of an Anglican School, a discussion on the need for recomposing the board’s membership was initiated. Several recommendations were made and the president decided to appoint a nominating committee. Upon receiving its report, the board approved the nomination of Masayuki Ida as vice president and Sergei Nikolaev as Lupita Salmon, David member of the executive committee. committee. The board also decided to contact Lupita  Runia, David Puloka and the president of Ewha University as potential board members and considered their names as approved if they would accept this invitation.

The planning for the next IAMSCU conference was a major discussion item of the agenda. After much discussion the board accepted the invitation from Shenandoah University, near Washington, DC, in the United States as the location for the conference in conjunction

with NASCUMC which would have its meeting on July 24-27, 2011. It became clear to the

 

50

board that it would be necessary to organize the conference in such a way that it would remain a truly international conference and not an US-oriented one. After much discussion about possible topics – global ethics, leadership, financing, quality education, the church and institutional relationship, current challenges, and responsible citizens – the main theme of the Conference was chosen: Methodist Education: Preparing Principled Leaders for Global Challenges  (IAMSCU  (IAMSCU 2009, 9). Discussions on sub-themes, invited as speakers, the program,

the methodology, the participation of students, and other issues followed. Another important item of the agenda was a discussion on the IAMSCU strategic plan. It had been approved in 2004 and revised in 2008. The board was much concerned with infrastructure issues and with membership dues. Several ideas were mentioned on how to structure a campaign to promote IAMSCU and raise the resources necessary to cover its needs. The members were organized into two subcommittees, one to deal with membership issues and the other to refine the proposals dealing with the Conference. The next board meeting would be on February 5-6, 2010, possibly in Germany, Panama, San Juan, Puerto Rico or Hawaii.

Honolulu, Hawaii, 2010, meeting of the Board of Directors Pilate project will test international student exchange program

Members of the board of directors - Honolulu, Hawaii, 2010

Another meeting of the board of directors occurred in Honolulu on February 5 to 6, 2010 (IAMSCU 2010, 1-10). The financial report was approved again with the concern that the number of schools not paying the annual fee of US$100 continued to be high. The possibility that the members of the board send messages to the institutions of their respective regions about the fee payment was discussed.

 

51

The student exchange program, characterized as “the first significant offer by IAMSCU” by the president, Ted Brown, was widely debated during the meeting. It would be based on a broad network where each institution had an international director, responsible for marketing and who would work with the students going to other institutions, as well as receive students from other institutions. The basic financing for the exchange would be minimal. The student should pay tuition at the home institution and the host should be willing to receive that student without an exchange fee. A pilot proposal was approved that would be developed in some institutions with the possibility that the program would be announced during the 2011 Conference, with the presence of students selected by the network. The report on The Global Education Fund  presented  presented by Yamada, was distributed and Bigham highlighted that “the marvelous thing is that the available funds were doubled when distributed to various areas of the t he world and utilized by the institutions.” The emphasis on the projects financed by the MGEFLD, in South America as well as in Central America, was their t heir relationship to improved quality. Regional reports were presented about Central America, Africa, Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom, Brazil, the United States and Australia. The education committee of the WMC, through their president, Amós Nascimento, also presented a report of their work, in which they are actually divided into three sub-committees: education, spiritual formation, and fundraising. Part of the encounter was reserved for the planning of the 2011 Conference. The invitation of NASCUMC that the Conference be held together with their annual gathering was accepted. For Brown, “[…] having a joint conference can facilitate inclusion of the NASCUMC institutions in IAMSCU.”  The expectation for this joint conference was to gather close to 60 representatives of NASCUMC and 150 from IAMSCU. The fact that IAMSCU is commemorating its 20 years was remembered as an opportunity to better promote it, by showing its benefits and the amplitude of its work. Several questions related to the program were debated: the inclusion of specific ac activities tivities for pre-university students and the debate on how Methodist youth could contribute with leadership. Names of world leaders who have used education to promote development were suggested as invited speakers, some of whom included the African Bishop Desmond Tuto, the president of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, the expresidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and the Director of the Haiti School, among others.

 

52

To occupy the position left by Bradley Fenner, the board of directors elected Philip Stewart, Director and Exchange Coordinator of Westminster School, Australia.

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2011, meeting of the Board of Directors Research on 20 years of IAMSCU presented The following meeting of the board of directors was held on February 3 to 5 in Rio de Janeiro. In the year that IAMSCU commemorated its 20 years, it returned exactly to Brazil, the country where it had held its first Conference, practically initiating its international activities in 1996. On the first day (Feb 4, 2011) 2011) the finacial report o off the previous period was heard and then the regional reports on Central America, Africa, Japan, India, England and Latin America (ALAIME) were given. Ken Yamada, coordinator of MGEFLD, reported on the progress and resources directed to the continents. Some of the examples that he cited included Africa, where the Fund allowed for the “conclusion of the building of the Peace, Leadership and Governance Institute in Africa University and the conclusion of the optic fiber f iber connection for the internet at the Learning Center Maputo in Mozambique” among other projects. In Asia it provided the “conclusion “conclusion of the evaluation of the ed educational ucational infrastructure infrastructure and technology and the needs of the United Methodist mission in Vietnam and Cambodia of the Ohio West Annual Conference.” In Europe the Fund financed the Moscow United Methodist Theological Seminary and provided assistance by creating a new model for viable and financial sustainability. There was also information about projects developed in Latin America and the United States. Afterward, the President of the EC-WMC, Amós do Nascimento presented a report. The board also received an initial report on the research of the 20 years of IAMSCU – EDUCATION IS OUR WORLD  – Retrospective View of IAMSCU and its Prospects  –

developed by the Center for Research and Documentation of Piracicaba, Brazil, in accord with the proposal approved by IAMSCU/MGEFLD and presented by its coordinator, Almir de Souza Maia. The initial version of the report in CD was distributed to those present and some printed versions were provided to the presidents of the various institutions. The coordinator of the research asked the board members to provide critiques and contribution to the report. The final version of the report would be distributed in CD to the participants of the Sixth Conference in Washington, DC. The members approved the initiative, and registered the importance of the publication. The meeting on February 5   was dedicated to the planning of the Sixth IAMSCU

Conference, which would be hosted together with the Annual Seminar of NASCUMC in Washington, DC, from July 24-28.

 

53

Washington, DC, USA, 2011: The Sixth IAMSCU Conference Theme:  Methodist Education: Preparing principled leaders for global challenges   The Sixth IAMSCU Conference will be held at Washington, DC, USA, on July 24-28, 2011. The encounter will have a special meaning meaning as it is being convened within the context of the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of IAMSCU and with NASCUMC participation. This is the first time these two organizations have met together and it will enable especially effective discussion of the central Conference theme Methodist Education: Preparing Principled Leaders for Global Challenge   by a greater number of Methodist educational

leaders. The Conference will officially open with an academic processional in the Washington National Cathedral on the 24. In the following days, the theme – Methodist Education: preparing principled leaders for global challanges – will be taken up through sub-themes, such as sustainability and the environoment, poverty and health, and social justice. Various exchange initiatives and the IAMSCU strategic plan will also be discussed. The context of Washington, DC will be used for special events and lecturerers from around the world, which will make of this 20th Anniversary Conference an historical even eventt for Methodist Educatores, as the program below shows.

Methodist Education: Education: Preparing Principled L Leaders eaders for Global Challenges   󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁗 󰁈󰁯󰁴󰁥󰁬 󰁗󰁡󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁴󰁯󰁮, 󰁄C 󰁓󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁡󰁹, 󰁊󰁵󰁬󰁹 24, 2011 0800 0830 0900 1200

B󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁦󰁡󰁳󰁴 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁎A󰁓C󰁕󰁍C 󰁎󰁥󰁷 CE󰁏󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁓󰁰󰁯󰁵󰁳󰁥󰁳 󰁎A󰁓C󰁕󰁍C 󰁎󰁥󰁷 CE󰁏 󰁏󰁲󰁩󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮

󰀱󰀴󰀳󰀰

󰁒󰁥󰁨󰁥󰁡󰁲󰁳󰁡󰁬 󰁯󰁦 󰁐󰁲󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁰󰁬󰁥󰁳 󰁒󰁥󰁧󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 C󰁬󰁯󰁳󰁥󰁳 󰁏󰁰󰁥󰁮󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁮󰁶󰁯󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 C󰁯󰁮󰁶󰁯󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 (󰁎󰁏󰁔󰁅: 󰁆󰁵󰁬󰁬 A󰁣󰁡󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁩󰁣 󰁒󰁥󰁧󰁡󰁬󰁩󰁡 󰁒󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁥󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁤)

1500 1630

󰁒󰁅󰁇󰁉󰁓󰁔󰁒A󰁔󰁉󰁏󰁎

󰁔BD 󰁓󰁴󰁵󰁤󰁩󰁯 2 󰁓󰁴󰁵󰁤󰁩󰁯 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰀭󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮

󰁎A󰁓C󰁕󰁍C 󰁎󰁥󰁷 CE󰁏 󰁏󰁲󰁩󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁤󰁪󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁳

󰁓󰁰󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁲: D󰁲. J󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁳 󰁔. L󰁡󰁮󰁥󰁹, L󰁡󰁮󰁥󰁹, 󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁭󰁥󰁲

󰁗󰁡󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁴󰁯󰁮 󰁎󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁃󰁡󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁤󰁲󰁡󰁬

󰁗󰁡󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁴󰁯󰁮 󰁎󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 C󰁡󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁤󰁲󰁡󰁬

󰁡󰁭󰁢󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁡󰁤󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁓󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁒󰁥󰁰󰁵󰁢󰁬󰁩󰁣 󰁯󰁦 K󰁯󰁲󰁥󰁡 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 E󰁭󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁳 󰁯󰁦 E󰁭󰁯󰁲󰁹

 

54

󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁹, 󰁕󰁓A 1900

A󰁬󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁤󰁥

󰁒󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮

󰁍󰁯󰁮󰁤󰁡󰁹, 󰁊󰁵󰁬󰁹 25, 2011 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁐󰁲󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁰󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁌󰁥󰁡󰁤󰁥󰁲󰁳

0700 0700 0815

1000 1030

B󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁦󰁡󰁳󰁴 B󰁵󰁦󰁦󰁥󰁴 󰁎A󰁓C󰁕󰁍C B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 B󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁦󰁡󰁳󰁴 󰁗󰁯󰁲󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁰 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁐󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹

󰁓󰁰󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁲: D󰁲. D󰁩󰁡󰁮󰁡 C󰁨󰁡󰁰󰁭󰁡󰁮 󰁗󰁡󰁬󰁳󰁨, 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 E󰁭󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁡, 󰁗󰁥󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁹 C󰁯󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁥, 󰁕󰁓A B󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁫 󰁐󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁒󰁥󰁳󰁵󰁭󰁥󰁳

G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰀭󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 A󰁲󰁥󰁡 󰁓󰁴󰁵󰁤󰁩󰁯󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭 1 G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭

G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰀭󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 A󰁲󰁥󰁡 G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭

󰁐󰁡󰁮󰁥󰁬 F󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁯󰁲: F󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁯󰁲: D󰁲. J󰁡󰁮 L󰁯󰁶󰁥, C󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁬󰁥󰁲 󰁓󰁣󰁨󰁯󰁯󰁬 󰁓󰁣󰁨󰁯󰁯󰁬 󰁯󰁦 󰁔󰁨󰁥󰁯󰁬󰁯󰁧󰁹, E󰁭󰁯󰁲󰁹 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁹, 󰁕󰁓A 󰁐󰁡󰁮󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁳:   D󰁲. H󰁩󰁲󰁯󰁭󰁩 󰁎󰁡󰁧󰁡󰁯, H󰁩󰁲󰁯󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁭󰁡 J󰁹󰁯󰁧󰁡󰁫󰁵󰁩󰁮 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁹, JA󰁐A󰁎   D󰁲. 󰁍󰁡󰁲󰁣󰁩󰁯 󰁤󰁥 󰁍󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁥󰁳, 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁡󰁤󰁥 󰁕󰁮󰁩 󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁡󰁤󰁥 󰁍󰁥󰁴󰁯󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁡 󰁤󰁥 󰁓󰁡󰁯 󰁐󰁡󰁵󰁬󰁯, B󰁒A󰁚IL •



  󰁒󰁥󰁶. D󰁲. J. C. 󰁐󰁡󰁲󰁫, 󰁍󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴



1200 1330

󰁔󰁨󰁥󰁯󰁬󰁯󰁧󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁬 󰁔󰁨󰁥󰁯󰁬󰁯󰁧󰁩󰁣 󰁡󰁬 󰁓󰁥󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹, K󰁏󰁒EA L󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁨/󰁓󰁭󰁡󰁬󰁬 G󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁰󰁳 I󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 L󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁓󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁩󰁯󰁮 I󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 E󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁏󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁵󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳/󰁔󰁯󰁵 󰁏󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁵󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳/󰁔󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁳 󰁲󰁳

A󰁬󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁤󰁥 G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭 󰁗󰁡󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁴󰁯󰁮, DC, C󰁩󰁴󰁹 H󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁬󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴󰁳 󰁔󰁯󰁵󰁲 (󰁦󰁲󰁥󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁧󰁥 󲀓 󰁭󰁵󰁳󰁴 󰁢󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁤󰁶󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥) 󰁯󰁲 E󰁸󰁰󰁬󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁗󰁡󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁴󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁮 󰁹󰁯󰁵󰁲 󰁯󰁷󰁮 (󰁷󰁥󰁥󰁫󰁬󰁹 󰁍󰁥󰁴󰁲󰁯 󰁐󰁡󰁳󰁳 󰁡󰁶󰁡󰁩󰁬󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 $32.50)

󰁔󰁵󰁥󰁳󰁤󰁡󰁹, 󰁊󰁵󰁬󰁹 26, 2011 󰁓󰁵󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁢󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁅󰁮󰁶󰁩󰁲󰁯󰁮󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 0700 0815

1000 1030

B󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁦󰁡󰁳󰁴 B󰁵󰁦󰁦󰁥󰁴 󰁗󰁯󰁲󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁰 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁐󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹

󰁓󰁰󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁲: D󰁲. 󰁔󰁯󰁮󰁹 C󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁳󰁥, C󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁳󰁥, 󰁣󰁯󰀭󰁦󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁲 󰁯 󰁯󰁦󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 A󰁳󰁳󰁯󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 A󰁤󰁶󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦 A󰁳󰁳󰁯󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁓󰁵󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁢󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁩󰁮 H󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁥󰁲 E󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 (AA󰁓HE), 󰁕󰁓A B󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁫 󰁐󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁒󰁥󰁳󰁵󰁭󰁥󰁳

󰁐󰁡󰁮󰁥󰁬 F󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁯󰁲: F󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁯󰁲: D󰁲. 󰁍󰁡󰁲󰁫 D󰁡󰁶󰁩󰁥󰁳, 󰁏󰁫󰁬󰁡󰁨󰁯󰁭󰁡 󰁏󰁫󰁬󰁡󰁨󰁯󰁭󰁡 C󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁹, 󰁕󰁓A 󰁐󰁡󰁮󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁳:   D󰁲. 󰁐󰁡󰁵󰁬 J. F󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁹󰁮, G󰁲󰁥󰁥󰁮 󰁍󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁡󰁩󰁮 C󰁯󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁥, 󰁕󰁓A   D󰁲. J󰁡󰁫󰁥 󰁓󰁣󰁨󰁲󰁵󰁭, 󰁓󰁯󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁷󰁥󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁮 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁹, 󰁕󰁓A   D󰁲. A󰁭󰁯󰁳 󰁓󰁩󰁬󰁶󰁡 󰁤󰁯 󰁎󰁡󰁳󰁣󰁩󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁯, 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁗󰁡󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁴󰁯󰁮, 󰁔󰁡󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁡, •





G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰀭󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 A󰁲󰁥󰁡 G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭

G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰀭󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 A󰁲󰁥󰁡 G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭

B󰁒A󰁚IL/󰁕󰁓A   D󰁲. 󰁐󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁬󰁡 󰁍󰁡󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁫󰁡󰁮󰁪󰁡󰁰, A󰁦󰁲󰁩󰁣󰁡



 

55

󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁹, AF󰁒ICA 1200 1200

L󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁨 󰁎A󰁓C󰁕󰁍C B󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁍󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 (F󰁯󰁲 󰁎A󰁓C󰁕󰁍C CE󰁏󰁳

󰁏󰁮󰁬󰁹) E󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁏󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁵󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳/󰁔󰁯󰁵 󰁏󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁵󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳/󰁔󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁳 󰁲󰁳

1800

󰁒󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮

A󰁬󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁤󰁥 󰁓󰁴󰁵󰁤󰁩󰁯 2 󰁍󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁴 󰁖󰁥󰁲󰁮󰁯󰁮 (H󰁯󰁭󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 G󰁥󰁯󰁲󰁧󰁥 󰁗󰁡󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁴󰁯󰁮). A󰁤󰁵󰁬󰁴󰁳 $25.00; C󰁨󰁩󰁬󰁤󰁲󰁥󰁮 $10.00 󰁔BD

󰁗󰁥󰁤󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁤󰁡󰁹, 󰁊󰁵󰁬󰁹 27, 2011 󰁐󰁯󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁴󰁹󰀯󰁈󰁥󰁡󰁬󰁴󰁨 0700 0815

1000 1030

B󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁦󰁡󰁳󰁴 B󰁵󰁦󰁦󰁥󰁴

G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰀭󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 A󰁲󰁥󰁡 G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭

󰁗󰁯󰁲󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁰 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁐󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹

󰁓󰁰󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁲: A󰁭󰁢󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁡󰁤󰁯󰁲 I󰁢󰁲󰁡󰁨󰁩󰁭 G󰁡󰁭󰁢󰁡󰁲󰁩, 󰁕󰁎 D󰁥󰁰󰁵󰁴󰁹 G󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹 B󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁫 󰁐󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁒󰁥󰁳󰁵󰁭󰁥󰁳

G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰀭󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 A󰁲󰁥󰁡 G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭

󰁐󰁡󰁮󰁥󰁬 F󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁯󰁲: F󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁯󰁲: B󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁯󰁰 E󰁭󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁯 󰁐. 󰁎󰁡󰁣󰁰󰁩󰁬 󰁎󰁡󰁣󰁰󰁩󰁬 (󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁤), 󰁍A󰁎ILLA 󰁐󰁡󰁮󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁳:   D󰁲. E󰁬󰁩󰁺󰁡󰁢󰁥󰁴󰁨 C󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁬󰁥󰁳, I󰁳󰁡󰁢󰁥󰁬󰁬󰁡 󰁔󰁨󰁯󰁢󰁵󰁲󰁮 C󰁯󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁥, I󰁎DIA   D󰁲. 󰁖󰁡󰁬󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁥 󰁍󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁧󰁯󰁭󰁥󰁲󰁹󰀭󰁒󰁩󰁣󰁥, 󰁍󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁧󰁯󰁭󰁥󰁲󰁹󰀭󰁒󰁩󰁣󰁥, 󰁍󰁥󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁲󰁹 󰁍󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁬 C󰁯󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁥, 󰁕󰁓A   D󰁲. D󰁯󰁵󰁧󰁬󰁡󰁳 󰁍󰁥󰁥󰁫󰁳, 󰁖󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁲󰁢󰁩󰁬󰁴 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁹, 󰁕󰁓A L󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁨 •





1200 1330

󰁉A󰁍󰁓C󰁕 B󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁍󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧

1330

󰁓󰁰󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁲: D󰁲. A󰁬󰁭󰁩󰁲 󰁤󰁥 󰁓󰁯󰁵󰁺󰁡 󰁍󰁡󰁩󰁡, C󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁲󰁥 C󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁲󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 D󰁯󰁣󰁵󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 D󰁯󰁣󰁵󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯 󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁒󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁡󰁲󰁣󰁨, B󰁒A󰁚IL E󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁏󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁵󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳/󰁔󰁯󰁵 󰁏󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁵󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳/󰁔󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁳 󰁲󰁳

1900

B󰁡󰁮󰁱󰁵󰁥󰁴

A󰁬󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁤󰁥 G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭

E󰁸󰁰󰁬󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁗󰁡󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁴󰁯󰁮, DC, 󰁯󰁮 󰁹󰁯󰁵󰁲 󰁯󰁷󰁮. (󰁷󰁥󰁥󰁫󰁬󰁹 󰁍󰁥󰁴󰁲󰁯 󰁐󰁡󰁳󰁳 󰁡󰁶󰁡󰁩󰁬󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁡 󰁶󰁡󰁩󰁬󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 $32.50) 󰁯󰁲 󰁥󰁸󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁏󰁬󰁤 󰁔󰁯󰁷󰁮 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁡 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁧󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁰. A󰁬󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁤󰁥

󰁓󰁰󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁲: D󰁲. J󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁳 E. 󰁗󰁩󰁮󰁫󰁬󰁥󰁲, G󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹, 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁍󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴 G󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 C󰁨󰁵󰁲󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁓󰁯󰁣󰁩󰁥󰁴󰁹, 󰁕󰁓A

󰁔󰁨󰁵󰁲󰁳󰁤󰁡󰁹, 󰁊󰁵󰁬󰁹 28, 2011 󰁓󰁯󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁊󰁵󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 0700 0830

0930 0945

B󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁦󰁡󰁳󰁴 B󰁵󰁦󰁦󰁥󰁴 󰁐󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹

󰁓󰁰󰁥󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁲: D󰁲. A󰁺󰁡󰁲 󰁎󰁡󰁦󰁩󰁳󰁩, I󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁩󰁡󰁮 󰁡󰁣󰁡󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁩󰁣 󰁡󰁣󰁡󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁩󰁣 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁢󰁥󰁳󰁴󰁳󰁥󰁬󰁬󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲, I󰁒A󰁎/󰁕󰁓A B󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁫 󰁐󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁒󰁥󰁳󰁵󰁭󰁥󰁳

󰁐󰁡󰁮󰁥󰁬 F󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁯󰁲: F󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁯󰁲: D󰁲. 󰁒󰁵󰁫󰁵󰁤󰁺󰁯 󰁍󰁵󰁲󰁡󰁰󰁡, 󰁖󰁩󰁣 󰁖󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁥

G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰀭󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰀭󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁲󰁥󰁡 G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭

G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭 G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭

C󰁨󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁬󰁬󰁯󰁲 (󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁤), A󰁦󰁲󰁩󰁣󰁡 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁹, AF󰁒ICA 󰁐󰁡󰁮󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁳:

 

56

  󰁍󰁳. 󰁍. G󰁡󰁲󰁬󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁡 B󰁵󰁲󰁴󰁯󰁮, C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁮



󰁓󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁵󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁗󰁯󰁭󰁥󰁮, 󰁕󰁓A   D󰁲. K󰁡󰁨󰀭J󰁩󰁮 J󰁥󰁦󰁦󰁲󰁥󰁹 K󰁵󰁡󰁮, 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁔󰁨󰁥󰁯󰁬󰁯󰁧󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁬 󰁔󰁨󰁥󰁯󰁬󰁯󰁧󰁩󰁣 󰁡󰁬 󰁓󰁣󰁨󰁯󰁯󰁬, D󰁲󰁥󰁷 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁹, 󰁕󰁓A   󰁒󰁥󰁶. G󰁵󰁩󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁯 󰁙󰁯󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁫󰁡󰁷󰁡, H󰁥󰁡󰁤󰁭󰁡󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁍󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴 C󰁯󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁩󰁯 A󰁭󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁣󰁡,





C󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁡󰁯 H󰁩󰁧󰁨C󰁨󰁵󰁲󰁣󰁨 󰁓󰁣󰁨󰁯󰁯󰁬 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁐󰁥󰁲󰁵󰁶󰁩󰁡󰁮 󰁍󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴 󰁐E󰁒󰁕 1045 1130

󰁙󰁯󰁵󰁴󰁨 󰁐󰁲󰁯󰁧󰁲󰁡󰁭 󰁒󰁥󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁐󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁗󰁯󰁲󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁰 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁐󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁵󰁮󰁩󰁯󰁮

1230

󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁣󰁨󰁥󰁲: B󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁯󰁰 J󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁳 E. E. 󰁓󰁷󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁯󰁮, 󰁓󰁲., H󰁯󰁬󰁳󰁴󰁯󰁮 A󰁮󰁮󰁵󰁡󰁬 C󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥, 󰁕󰁓A A󰁤󰁪󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁮

G󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁒󰁯󰁯󰁭

The promising movement carries on It is certainly impossible to summarize in a few pages twenty years of development of an international association such as IAMSCU. Each one of the board of directors meetings or its international study conferences was an event in itself. Hours and hours of discussions and interventions plus the one thousand ideas put together in many speeches or exchanged both in working groups at formal occasions or in the intervals of the meetings – which many times are the real places where things happen! – would demand a great many number of written volumes or recorded media. The descriptions above are a mere recovery of many important moments and decisions which took place during these years, as a sample and a taste of what happened. It is expected that they are a portrait of what IAMSCU came to be since its founding Conference, and will serve as an introduction to its history in the years ahead, preparing the association to face the challenges that are awaiting it in the near future. Two decades after those small beginnings in Singapore, 1991, the small seed planted there grew to become an immense tree. The 100 institutions listed at that time are now 775. The promising movement is carrying on. Its future is dependent on a careful appraisal of what has been done, on a daring view of its potential, and on wise decisions that should be taken in the near future. 

 

57

6 EVALUATION AND PROSPECTS Twenty years after the creation of the International Association of Methodist Schools, Colleges, and Universities (IAMSCU), this is a time to celebrate, document, analyze, and have a retrospective critical look that takes into account the perspective of those who contributed in some way to the dream and the creation creation of the association or have contributed contributed to IAMSCU at different times times..  One of the goals of this research research project project is to provide this reflection and analysis. To this end, we heard some of the leaders who are part of this history: its three presidents, members of the board of directors and other officials connected with the association. They were people who saw IAMSCU I AMSCU arise and witnessed the challenges to make it become a recognized association which Methodists schools would eventually identify themselves. What were IAMSCU’s characteristics in these twenty years? What were its major contributions? Why haven’t some of its programs programs and projects projects come to completion? Why some programs were never proposed or implemented? What was the essential factor that led the number of Methodist institutions affiliated with the IAMSCU to grow so significantly? What follows is an assessment based on answers to questionnaires sent to many leaders of Methodist education around the world as well as interviews with the coordinator of this research project. Roger Ireson, the first president of IAMSCU (1991/2002), recalls that one of the points that concerned him at the time of the first talks with international educators, before the establishment of the Education Committee of the World Methodist Council (WMC) and IAMSCU, was the fact that education education was not much emphasized emphasized by World Methodism. Despite the historic Wesleyan W esleyan commitment to education, no exchanges had been started, not even between American and

British schools, in times when the

concept of globalization globalization was beginning. beginning. To think, therefore, therefore, of a body capable of dealing dealing with Methodist education in an international dimension was certainly a daring proposal (Ireson 2010). That is how Ted Brown, IAMSCU’s third president (2008/2011) and president of Martin Methodist College in Pulaski, Tennessee (USA) analyzes the decision: IAMSCU was a courageous experiment. Imagine setting out to bring such a diverse and dispersed group of institutions together

toward some common good – what an amazing undertaking. I think of those who took on that wonderful challenge as true

 

58

pioneers. Of course, they had had Wesleyan e educational ducational values o on n which to build and a connection to the World Methodist Council from which to gain strength. And they had faith (Brown 2010).

Almir Maia, one of IAMSCU founders, a member of the steering committee and the board of directors (1991/2008), its former vice president (2005/2008) and president (19862002) of the Methodist University of Piracicaba, Brazil, believes that even though it appeared late, the creation of IAMSCU also opens up new prospects for broadening and strengthening the Methodist educational presence in times of globalization. Its purposes are based on the understanding of the Methodist mission and philosophy which have inspired generations of educators around the world. This testimony is given by the significant presence and performance of a network of hundreds and hundreds of schools, colleges, and universities around the world. It is IAMSCU’s IAM SCU’s role to stimulate, propose, and organize alternative programs, projects, and activities for this global education network” (Maia 2010).

Rukudzo Murapa, the second president of IAMSCU (2002/2008) and exvice-chancellor of Africa University, agreed that with the passage of 20 years, IAMSCU now enters a period of sustainability and growth, in which it is necessary to focus on “adding value to the fulfillment of the mission of its institutions.” Among other points, there is a need for the creation of a strong network, of exchange programs, of opportunities for collaborative publications and research (Murapa 2010). But this was paradoxically the greatest challenge and contribution of IAMSCU all these years: to create the basis for a network involving Methodist institutions, to facilitate their proximity and to establish channels of dialogue and identification. This is an opinion reinforced by Brown: “What could be more important for IAMSCU than providing a venue [the conferences] where Methodist educational leaders can gather around these critical topics for meaningful discussion? That has been our primary mission (Brow (Brown n 2010). John Barrett,

another of IAMSCU founders,

its vice president

(1991/2001), a member of its steering committee and of the board of directors (1991/2005), first president of the Education Committee of the WMC (1991/2001) and presently president of the Executive Committee of the WMC, underscores

the

fact

that

the entity

has

encouraged

institutions to think about what it means to be a Methodist-related Methodist-related school or college:

“This is especially important because, although the foundations have existed for

many years, there has been a tendency for them to move away from their original and central mission (in some cases deliberately, in others without realizing it)”. Bringing with him the broad perspective derived from his many years of experience as

an educator in the United Kingdom and as current President of the Anglo-Chinese International School in Singapore, Barrett states that IAMSCU really “has provided a framework

 

59

for encouraging the church worldwide to think about how to support its schools and colleges and also to reflect on whether and where it wishes to establish new schools” (Barrett, 2010). Amós Nascimento, chairman of the Education Committee of the World W orld Methodist Conference (2006/2011) and member of the board of directors (2007/2011), believes that the overall role of IAMSCU and of the EC-WMC is to take advantage of the current context of the global processes and put into practice this [Methodist] historical view. In a sense, although these initiatives are somewhat late, they are still relevant. However, it is still important to compensate for the lost time, to reflect on the historical experiences and promote actions that would update the Wesleyan view (Nascimento, 2010).

In both cases, it is possible to observe not only an optimism concerning the future of the organization, but also a critical perspective, indicating processes that need to be considered as possible obstacles to IAMSCU’s development and which still remain as important challenges to the organization. These are opinions opinions that are now pointing pointing to various types types of analyses. After the first ten years of the founding of IAMSCU it was Ireson who first advanced an assessment on the entity: The Methodist movement started a powerful new instrument in the International Association of Methodist Schools, Colleges, and Universities. Through this association educators and students around the world have been together for a common purpose. In many ways, the association realizes the hope of Wesley that students would be instructed in “religion “r eligion and learning together (Ireson 2003).

The exchange and the relationship that developed between the educational institutions are certainly some of the most valued issues among all those who more intensely or recently followed or participated in the life of IAMSCU. From the smallest to the largest institutions, this is something that speaks to the community as a whole, including teachers, faculty, students, and staff. The answers to interviews and questionnaires are unanimous: many people and institutions benefited much from this exchange and approximation between the schools, whether they derive from the personal or institutional relationships created. Rui Josgrilberg, president of the School of Theology of the Methodist Church in Brazil (1983/1997, 2002/2010), highlights the great importance of IAMSCU in its role of arousing mindfulness of Wesleyan identity in the schools. I think that IAMSCU was instrumental in raising the awareness of our institutions in Brazil, Latin America, and the world of their Wesleyan identity, their roots in Kingswood, and the theological and missionary perspective connected to education, as education has a soteriological dimension in the Wesleyan thought. The overall themes have been discussed more emphatically in a perspective consistent with our philosophy (Josgrilberg 2010).

 

60

This point is complemented by Claudia Lombardo, an Argentinean educator, president of ALAIME (Latin American Association of Methodist Institutions of Education) (2007/2011) and with experience in three Methodist-related institutions in Argentina (Juana Manso School and ISEDET in Buenos Aires, and the Universidad del Centro Educativo Latinoamericano     in Rosario). She agrees with Josgrilberg albeit with a different emphasis. “IAMSCU collaborates with the development of the task of our institutions, with the ongoing construction of our Methodist identity and the profile that our institutions should develop to bear a Christian witness permanently” (Lombardo 2010). 2010). A similar position is expressed by Job Romero, current president of the Universidad Madero  in   in Mexico and member of the Board (2005/2008). He adds that IAMSCU has made it possible “to discover that every Methodist school is not an isolated effort, but integrates a great educational, social, and spiritual design” (Romero 2010).  As the testimonies above corroborate, the impact of IAMSCU’s activities was felt most strongly at a local dimension in several regions of the world, highlighting the pluralism of shared views. Masayuki Ida, business professor at Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan, and vice president of IAMSCU (2008/2011), highlights it this way: tens of Methodist schools in Japan have now a chance to think of our future” (Ida 2010). And in Zimbabwe, Murapa shows the clear hope that the entity will facilitate the creation of a regional body of Methodist schools to become supportive of each other and able to develop the best leaders: the last few years have witnessed the mushrooming of Methodist higher education institutions in many African Conferences. IAMSCU could play a role in bringing these institutions in an African association such as NASCUMC in the USA so that they can learn from each other and share resources such as staff, teaching materials, etc. (Murapa 2010).

Bradley Fenner, was very active in IAMSCU I AMSCU to the point of becoming its vice president (2008/2009) during his tenure as principal of Westminster School in Australia. He touches on another key point concerning the role of IAMSCU, which he pinpoints as its power to enable the coming together of people from many different backgrounds and cultures:  in my eight years of involvement with IAMSCU, I never failed to be inspired by the meetings and an d events that I have attended. attended. form formal al processes, processes , planning, initiatives, and conferences been Whilst really the worthwhile, I also enjoyed the inspiration of meeting other people working working in Methodist edu education. cation. Simply in hearing the stories of some wonderful people, I have returned to my own work

refreshed and reinvigorated. It has also been rewarding and fulfilling to see the way

 

61

that people from very different backgrounds have been brought together by their shared commitment to education within the Methodist tradition (Fenner 2010).

This experience of being near to people from different countries but united by a Methodist commitment to education was also highlighted by Ovídio Torres, President of the Universidad del Centro Educativo Latinoamericano in Rosario, Argentina, who was also one of the founders of IAMSCU and a member of the steering committee and of the board of Directors (1991/2005, (1991/2005, 2007/2011): 2007/2011): “In these times times the

internationalization internationalization   opened new

frontiers to us and we have expanded our mission: new friends have appeared and they have enriched our knowledge” (Torres 2010). Brown also draws on the importance of connections opened by IAMSCU to talk about the growth of the Methodist educators themselves. It is impossible for me to think about IAMSCU without addressing the importance of its informal network. network. While the co conferences nferences an and d board me meetings etings are significant formal occasions, there is a level of informal interaction across the globe that is at least as important. I now have close friends and and educator colleagues colleagues who I depend on for their connections connections and good counsel. counsel. Without IAMSCU, my scope of of understanding of Methodist education would be so much more limited. Even more significant, this informal network has resulted in numerous ad hoc   and ongoing programs programs that have added vitality to our campus for our students. students. For example, the president of the Methodist seminary in Moscow, Russia was on our campus [Martin College] speaking to students. students. This is a connection that would have been difficult, if not impossible, without IAMSCU IA MSCU (Brown 2010).

Brown provides a series of examples that indicate very clearly how connections created through IAMCSU have had a profound impact on campuses across the world. As a matter of fact, examples of agreements and exchanges among several other institutions confirm his view. For instance, during the 1990s, the Methodist University of Piracicaba (UNIMEP), Brazil, took advantage of these connections to bring IAMSCU members to its campus, created study abroad programs in the United States in partnership with institutions such as Emory & Henry College and Evansville University as well as visits and academic contacts with Duke University and Emory University. Similarly, the Universidad del Centro Educativo Latinoamericano in Rosario, Argentina, became a hub for the study of Spanish,

attracting students from Methodist-related institutions around the world. These opinions are reinforced by Wanda Bigham, a member of the board of directors (1998/2003, 2005/2011), Secretary/Treasurer (2005/2010), Assistant General Secretary of GBHEM (2003-2010) and Interim Associate General

Secretary,

Division

of

Higher

Education,

GBHEM

(Oct.2005/Jan.2006, Sept.2008/Jun.2010), who evaluates the benefits offered to IAMSCU-related institutions and their communities:

 

62

the benefits have been great [...] and have included friendships and partnerships of Methodist educators around the world; exchanges of faculty, administrators, and students; increase in understanding of our differences and our commonalities; pride in our joint accomplishments; sharing of ideas; and joint projects (Bigham 2011).

In fact, there was the expectation that IAMSCU would act as an information agency, able to make exchanges possible, open channels for talks, facilitate agreements, and even identify funding sources for its members, following up on the t he exchanges it helped to create. According to Marcio de Moraes, Superintendent of COGEIME (2009/2011) and member of the IAMSCU Board of Directors (2009/2011), (2009/2011), […] in these twenty years, IAMSCU has sought to bring together and promote cooperation among Methodist institutions of education throughout the world but I think we were not able up to now to turn this challenge into a reality. We lack a management of the talents existing in the various institutions. We also were not able to establish attainable attainable goals, though seemingly s small mall ones to promote effective exchange and mobility of teachers, students, and staff, both technical and administrative (Moraes 2010).

Indeed, many university presidents share this same expectation, which will certainly be an important issue in the future. Because universities are affiliated to many other institutions and need to not only define their priorities, but also show positive results to their boards, students, and community, IAMSCU will be challenged to provide a variety of new programs worldwide. One of the most pointed reasons that prevent this from f rom happening with some efficiency is the still prevailing lack of knowledge about IAMSCU among institutions around the world. Many of the leaders consulted through this research indicated that the entity is not sufficiently known in detail throughout most of the worldwide Methodist community community.. Gerald Lord, associate general secretary of GBHEM (2009/2012), says he did not have detailed information about IAMSCU. He remembers that he worked for nineteen years on the accreditation of church institutions throughout nearly all the United States. “I’ll have to say that (IAMSCU) is not well known in my experience […] I’m not sure that it is commonly known and understood even among Methodist institutions” (Lord 2010). Far away from the USA, Murapa says that until his election as President, “a large number of Methodist-related institutions had never heard of IAMSCU” (Murapa 2010). And Luis de Souza Cardoso, executive secretary of COGEIME (2008/2009), and vice president of ALAIME, echoes this concern.

 

63

It surprises me, for example, the fact that many Methodist institutions do not know or fail to pay attention to the existence of IAMSCU. First, I think we need to find a way to give more visibility to the organization. This could be done by actions that are relatively simple, inexpensive and easy to manage, such as the creation of a news bulletin or online journal. It is also fundamental to the identity of IAMSCU to have its own website (Cardoso (C ardoso 2010). 

This is a challenge that becomes all the more stronger when considering the new themes and agendas in debate around the world. According to Ely Eser Barreto César, former vice-president of Academic Affairs of the Methodist University of Piracicaba, who was also member of the executive committee of the World Methodist Council (1981/2002) and a member of the IAMSCU steering committee and the board of directors (1991/2005) (César 2010), it would be IAMSCU’s function to develop programs – possibly in partnership with one or more local institutions, acting as an antenna to capture a part of this global agenda – and reverberate them through regional associations or through specific member institutions, aiming at inducing the whole Methodist educational system in the world to contribute to the reinforcement of the global agenda for human development. If IAMSCU is able to generate an environment of global commitment in the processes of re research search and training of professionals or researchers, we, a as s secular institutions, will be responding to the secular challenges that were present in the Wesleyan project of the 18th century (César 2010).

Nascimento, with a purposeful perspective, indicates projects that could be developed in a practical way:  a policy of communication which could include the churches and which guarantees increased visibility of IAMSCU and its events; an expansion in the composition of its board of directors, to ensure the representation of students, st udents, teachers, and technicians from the member institutions so that they would feel more identified with the entity; the offering of specific services to institutions, from the organization of events to the support of academic and research programs (Nascimento 2010). Maia, who took part in a special committee to develop a proposal for the strategic planning in IAMSCU in 2004, reaffirms the importance of pondering the future of the organization in a strategic, long-term planning. Besides highlighting those issues that need to be faced for the institutionalization of IAMSCU – such as legitimacy, sustainability, operationalization, operationaliza tion, capillarity and autonomy – he insists on the t he importance of coordination with regional organizations. organizations. “IAMSCU should think globally and act locally, using local and regional associations of Methodist education such as ALAIME, NASCUMC, COGEIME and others to be created”, as stated in the 2005 Australia Conference (Maia 2010).

It is in the midst of these assessments that its former presidents and GBHEM executives admit that IAMSCU did not achieve all of its goals in the past twenty years.

 

64

Established at the GBHEM headquarters in Nashville, the organization always used the technical infrastructure and support offered by the Methodist complex in operation there. Because for many years a single person could hold executive positions in the GBHEM and IAMSCU and because the activities of both organizations organizations were closely related, there was not a clear cut separation between them. “The GBHEM has indeed played an effective role in IAMSCU’s development since its inception. I believe – and this is a regret that I have – that it would have been very important for me to be more daring and to have tried to establish […] a staff person, devoted just to IAMSCU (Del Pino 2010)”, says former general secretary of the GBHEM, Jerome King Del Pino Pino (2001/2010), (2001/2010), who was also a member of the IAMSCU board board of directors (2005/2010). He goes on to say that IAMSCU developed throughout its twenty years of existence without an appropriate team, and did not have “those resources that it needed in order to do all that its mission (statement) claims that it should do”. Murapa believes that to lead IAMSCU from Africa, where he lives, with its infrastructure located in the US, was a great limitation: “The major challenge that I faced was not being able to work closely with the IAMSCU secretariat based at GBHEM in Nashville. I believe that this is going to remain a major handicap for an IAMSCU President who is not based in the USA” (Murapa 2010).  Brown turns to the past to identify what he thinks is tthe he solution: for instance, just the idea of the student exchange program […] Why not have an association and a network that you form and invite the students to go into the network and go anywhere? To do the network you would need a network administrator, a person who controls traffic, if nothing else. We said initially, the Board [GBHEM] in Nashville will provide a part-time person. Perhaps that grows into a full time person […]. But having the Board in Nashville to do it continues to hamper, to make it more difficult for IAMSCU to become what it needs to become, because we are relying on really just one member in a sense, in the Methodist Church […] We really need to be thinking about staffing IAMSCU properly and having the due structure that would support an ongoing staff. I think this is worthy of attention as we do some long-term thinking that ought to be part of what we are talking about IAMSCU […]. And may be not so long term (Brown 2010).

However, behind these findings lies a larger debate about the necessary autonomy of IAMSCU, both in financial or administrative terms and in regard to human resources. This does not mean breaking relations with the Church. This is something that Ireson never questioned. It was never IAMSCU’s intention to be owned or subject to the United Methodist Church or the World Methodist Council, but work collaboratively with both. It was clear from the outset that IAMSCU would be the responsibility of its member institutions. Their leaders representatives would be responsible to determine its future, its programs, and and support systems. This independence is still a goal to be achieved (Ireson 2010).

It is not a matter of financial sustainability only, although this is an item that needs to be addressed since the system of a common and annual fee to be paid by all members was

 

65

not successful and not enough over the years. Bigham is emphatic when she says that no institution can be a dynamic one without sufficient financial resources. IAMSCU would not have existed except for their leadershp [Ireson and Yamada] and engagement and without the small budget and personnel support that have been provided through the years by GBHEM. In addition to the small amount of funding provided by GBHEM, dues are assessed each year. The additional funds provided by effective GBHEM organization. as well as those from the dues areofnot enoughtotoengage developalla vibrant and […]gained It has been goal IAMSCU Methodist institutions and individuals around the world. That requires money (Bigham 2011).

Some, as Fenner, see the need for the financial issue to be directly linked to matters of administration and personnel: personnel: I think the key to the further development of IAMSCU’s enormous potential is expanding the level of resourcing. resourcing. This would requi require re an investme investment nt by those institutions and individuals who are passionate about this and who could support zation IAMSCU financially. But I believe that one of of the strategic goals for the o organi rganiz should be to broaden the financial base to enable more to be achieved. This should involve appointing a dedicated executive director to operate within a secretariat. Many at IAMSCU institutions, or potential IAMSCU members, are relatively limited in resources. Linking these poorer and institutions institutions with wealthier ones assist to in enabling them to work together also assist those with lesscould resources participate in IAMSCU programmes (Fenner 2010).  2010). 

The emphasis on the issue of having exclusive human resources – especially that of a full time executive officer – earned the attention of Maia: the association needs to be fully operational and for this to happen it needs physical space and a working and instrumental infrastructure. More than that, IAMSCU must rely on fullfull-time high level human resources. It needs at least an executive director and the corresponding operational support staff.

It's an opinion shared by Cardoso: no larger scale projects were pursued (although they have been dreamed of) [...] because there was not a more structured administration, with the necessary dedication time required for that. On the other hand it also must be taken into consideration the economic difficulties for maintaining IAMSCU. The annual fee is almost negligible for the needs. It would have to develop a bolder management project for the administration of the organization (Cardoso 2010).

Others think, however, that there are specific issues that also need to be tackled simultaneously. For example, the emergence of new leaders throughout the process of autonomy. Which autonomy are we talking about? Murapa focuses his analysis on the continent of his origin, but his words can be interpreted more broadly to include other countries: in the coming years, a major challenge for Methodist education, particularly in Africa, is sustainability […] IAMSCU can assist in the development of a new crop of leaders

with clarity of vision, commitment to Methodist education and entrepreneurial skills consistent with Methodism (Murapa 2010).  2010). 

 

66

Having in mind the recent history of the relationships between the Methodist schools and the Church, Lord states: states:   “This generation has not had that kind of intellectual and theological understanding of higher education within the context of the Church”. This is a priority, however, that needs to be tackled in an effective way, especially because of the requirements that a future autonomy might generate. It is something that must be seen as a warning, the way Ireson analyses the issue: the day may be coming – hopefully not, but in the worst case, anyway – when the churches will get out of education and set the institutions free. At that moment IAMSCU is critical, because it is the only thing that can bring these two things together. One of my concerns is including new current leaders of universities into the movement to work for transition, so that there is more than just us (Ireson 2010).

These are challenges that accompany the future spaces to be defined by Methodist education. Nobody doubts the importance and permanence of Methodist schools, despite the challenges of a world in transformation. It is certainly there, in that changing world, that the Methodist educational mission must offer its contribution. Certainly, schools have to quickly respond to the new questions raised by society in the XXI century. Fenner recalls that it will be up to the schools s chools to face the same challenges posed to organized religions to ensure continuing relevance in a world which can at times seem to be aggressively secular. At the same time, I believe that Methodist education is well placed to have a significant impact, given the Methodist church’s heritage of outreach, concerns about social justice and valuing education itself. I believe there is a sto story ry which is there to be told and which can provide a valid underpinning for our educational programmes, even where they involve students and families who come from other faith traditions, or even secular and anti-religious backgrounds (Fenner 2010).

Barrett points out that t hat some fundamental reflections should be made beforehand: beforehand: What does it mean to be a Methodist institution? Are they simply good schools founded and held? maintained Methodists andrecognizable in which Methodist servicesabout are occasionally Or is by there something and distinctive Methodist institutions, which marks them out from others? Do they have a special and distinctive ethos? (Barrett 2010).

Barreto César suggests ways to insert the Methodist schools in the discussions and expectations of the globalized world, so they can respond to existing opportunities. The challenges arise in the very globalization processes. Both the World Bank and the UN itself are giving priority to combating hunger, poverty, and misery among many actions. As the world society becomes more sophisticated, any indifference to global policies related to the issue of hunger is becoming more and more unacceptable. The institutions born out of Methodism Methodism should choose choose this problem as the axis of their programming, by highlighting the presence of this theme in professional courses, including it as an element of dialogue in their research processes, and in the graduate training of their researchers.

He also mentions issues such as the Agenda 21 adopted by the UN that for over more

than twenty years brought the issue of sustainable development into the core of global debates, and should also be incorporated into the commitments of the Methodist institutions. 

 

67

The different programs of Methodist educational institutions should develop a radical critique of educational and investigative processes that are self-centered or focused on exclusively individualistic interests belonging to the neoliberal model, so many times questioned in these times after the global economic and financial crisis that drags on since 2008 (César 2010).

These are commitments that Methodist education should embrace, especially in developing countries, where education has much to grow, analyzes Bigham. Education is the answer to many of the world’s ills: poverty, poor health, and lack of effective leaders, to name just just a few. These are, in fact, the focus focus areas identified by the United Methodist Ch Church urch to s solve olve problems and meet needs. We, the educators, have a gift for the world (Bigham 2011).

The synthesis – an optimistic one – comes from Ken Yamada, in his years of experience in worldwide work with Methodist education: the Methodist education community is uniquely and strategically positioned to make a notable difference and a contribution toward peace in the world. Today, education became became a commodity, commodity, something you can buy. And the p purpose urpose of education is becoming to increase one’s earning capacity. Education must be civilizing and give the the reason for be being. ing. The new liberalism and market eco economy nomy created a huge gap between rich and and poor. The Methodist Methodist education mus mustt generate principled leaders who can serve to make this world a better place for everyone to live in (Yamada ( Yamada 2010). 

 

68

7 THE LEGAL ASPECT

The dream of creating an entity that would bring together Methodist institutions was happening, but it was necessary to give it the format of an organization apt at attaining its goals. What would the legal nature of this association be? In which country would it be established? Issues like these demanded the attention of the pioneers dedicated to the creation of IAMSCU. To know the legal aspects of the Association, the coordination of this research interviewed Dr. Kent M. Weeks, Attorney at Law with Weeks, Anderson & Baker, based in Nashville, TN/USA, who has advised and monitored IAMSCU’s formation since its inception (Weeks 2000). We highlight here the key points relating to its organization and institutionalization. IAMSCU was established in 1991, but was formally constituted as an association in October 1998 only. In its first six to t o seven years of operation several legal issue issues s related to the Association, such as the drafting of the Charter and its bylaws, were discussed by the Board of Directors since they were fundamental fundamental to its organization. organization. Synthetically, it is possible to say that the IAMSCU is an association of institutions related to Methodist education. It has a non-profit and a public interest nature, has charitable, educational and scientific purposes. The legal model of IAMSCU is similar to that of the National Association of Schools and Colleges of the United Methodist Church (NASCUMC). NASCUMC has a local dimension (USA) while IAMSCU has a global dimension. It is an association independent from the World Methodist Council and from its Education Committee, but maintains fraternal ties with them. The Association receives logistical support from the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (GBHEM) of The United Methodist Church (USA). The membership of Methodist or Methodist-related institutions in IAMSCU is a voluntary one and is dependent on the institution’s own decision. IAMSCU is headquartered in the USA and, according to the laws of that country, was incorporated in the state of Tennessee. Its legal instruments are its Charter and its Bylaws, which also define the purposes of IAMSCU:

  to increase the availability of education opportunities throughout the world;   to improve the quality of education;   to enable Methodist and Methodist-related educational institutions and those with



 

a Methodist tradition to cooperate through the development of common understandings and shared educational programs;

  to carry on, perform and do any other act or thing necessary or germane to the



carrying out of the foregoing f oregoing purposes.

 

69

IAMSCU is administered by the Board of Directors. These are elected on recommendation of the Nominating Committee. The number of members of the Board shall not be less than t han three (3) and no more than twenty (20). In 2010 there were 16 directors. Their term of office is three years, and they may be reappointed consecutively up to three times, according to the Bylaws. The annual meeting of the Board of Directors is held on the last working day of the fourth f ourth month after the close of each fiscal year. The Directorship of the Association is made up of a President, a Vice President and a Secretary-Treasurer, elected by a majority vote of the members of the Board of Directors. Each officer is elected for (3) three years. The organizational structure also has an Executive Committee, composed of the President, Vice President, Secretary/Treasurer and two members elected by the Board of Directors. The Executive Committee has powers delegated by the Board of Directors, and may indicate permanent and temporary committees to address issues at its discretion. IAMSCU may raise resources in the USA and use them to meet its goals. It is important to highlight that its organizational model caters to its expansion and developmen development. t. The Charter (Annex 2) is one of the formal documents of IAMSCU and summarizes its legal aspects.

 

70

8 CONCLUSIONS

Having in mind the results of the documental research and its goals, it is possible to reach some conclusions, which are starting points for further reflections and contributions to IAMSCU. They are arranged in five groups as follows. f ollows.

Creation of IAMSCU The creation of IAMSCU is universally considered an important initiative and a landmark for Methodist education worldwide, connecting the institutions, strengthening the bonds of Methodist identity between the schools and their leaders.

Retrospective analysis  The performance of IAMSCU was limited to the realization of certain events, such as conferences - held every three years - annual meetings of the board, publication of the directory, promotion of exchanges, and so on. The conferences are considered the main event sponsored by the association, with significant participation of the educational leadership from various countries. Around 860 educators participated in the five conferences promoted by 2008. Next to them have been meetings for students, students, with a limited number of participants and countries. Over the twenty years the number of institutions subscribing to the association has been increasing. From the initial 100 in 1991 they reached 775 in 70 countries in 2010. During this period, three presidents - Roger Ireson, Rukudzo Murapa and Ted Brown - headed the organization and leaders from several countries participated on the board of directors.

The support from the GBHEM Throughout these years, IAMSCU received logistical, financial and personnel support from the GBHEM of the United Methodist Church of the USA, located in Nashville, TN.

Evaluative analysis 

As can be seen from the evaluative analysis by the leaders who participated in this research, it is possible to identify in IAMSCU two dimensions connected with its work and

 

71

conceptually identified as its potentials and weaknesses that may interfere with the accomplishment of its objectives.

Potential:    to help institutions to better define define what it means to be a Methodist institution; institution;



  to strengthen th the e identity and practice of the Wesleyan vision in overall terms;



  to provide refle reflection ction and debate debate on issues relevant relevant to Methodist education, education, through the



Conferences and the encounter of leaders and educators;   to legally expand within an adequate legal framework that provides space for



adjustments.

Weaknesses:   lacks sustainability and financial autonomy;



  lacks an infrastructure of its own and exclusive human resources, resources, which would ensure ensure



the conditions for the development of its goals;   is little known in the Methodist educational educational environment environment and other educational educational entities in



the area;   has not connected the M Methodist ethodist institutions and du duly ly promoted cooperation cooperation between



them as was the initial expectation;   does not have a master p plan lan or a strategic development development plan to guide its its programs,



projects and actions;   lacks feasible goals, however small.



Prospective analysis  The different approaches of the leaders went beyond the assessment. They raised suggestions and proposals related to the needs of IAMSCU that should be considered in discussions of its future f uture planning. planning. IAMSCU needs:   to institutionalize in terms of sustainability, sustainability, legitimacy, representativeness, representativeness, visibility, visibility,



capillarity, and autonomy;   to have a basic staff of qualified personnel personnel to meet the institutional institutional demands and a full-



time executive secretary to manage programs and projects approved by the board of directors;   to develop a long-term long-term strategic development plan (ten (ten years);



  to encourage the creation of of regional associations associations and work work with their support; support;





  to relate to churches and o organizations rganizations – such as the Edu Education cation Committee of the WMC – linked to the Methodist tradition;

  to create oppor opportunities tunities for the discussion of general themes themes of interest to its members



and the global agenda promoted by international organizations (environmental

 

72

preservation, hunger, peace, racial and

religious tolerance, human

rights,

sustainability, among others);   to reflect on a renewe renewed d vision of the mission and on the meaning of a Methodist Methodist



institution;   to encourage a commitmen commitmentt to a differentiated education over ag against ainst a market-



oriented education.

 

73

REFERENCE LIST

Barrett, J. (2010) Answer to Questionnaire. UK. Received on September 20, 2010. Bigham, W. (2011) Answer to Questionnaire. Alexander City, AL. Received on January 12, 2011. Brown, T. (2010) Interview with Almir Maia. Pulaski, TN. October 19, 2010. --- (2010) Answer to Questionnaire. Questionnaire. Pulaski, TN. Received on September 29, 2010. Cardoso, L. (2010) Answer to Questionnaire. São Paulo, SP. Received on November 2, 2010. César, E. (2010) Answer to Questionnaire. Piracicaba, SP. Received on October 19, 2010. Charter. IASMCU, October 10, 1998. Charter. Del Pino, J. (2010) Interview with Almir Maia. Franklin, TN. October 20, 2010. Fenner, B. (2010) Answer to Questionnaire. Questionnaire. Auckland. Received on December 16, 2010.0 Fifth IAMSCU Conference. Agenda , 10-13 July 2008. First IAMSCU Conference. Agenda , 7-9 August 1996. Fourth IAMSCU Conference. Agenda, 16-20 July, 2007. Green, L. (2008). “Methodist educators focus on shaping future leaders”. A UMNS Report. Available at  http://www.umc.org/site/apps http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lw /nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1L L4KnN1L tH&b= 4441053&ct=5831819&notoc=1. 4441053&ct=5831 819&notoc=1. Access: December 2010.  2010.  Hels, S. (1997) “Education “Education for World Citizenship - Report of the Education Seminar”. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth World Methodist Conference. WMC, 202-205. Ashville, 1997. IAMSCU (1992) Steering Committee Meeting , 23 September 1992. --- (1993) Steering Committee Meeting , 5-7 August 1993. --- (1994) Steering Committee Meeting , 28 September 1994. --- (1996) Steering Committee Meeting , 9 August 1996. --- (1997) Steering Committee Meeting , 25 March 1997. --- (1998) Board of Directors Meeting , 22 July 1998. --- (1999) Board of Directors Meeting , 25 September 1999. --- (2002) Board of Directors Meeting , 22 September 2002. --- (2003) Board of Directors Meeting , 27-28 July 2003. --- (2004) Board of Directors Meeting , 21-22 June 2004. --- (2005a) Board of Directors Meeting , 29 January 2005. --- (2005b) Board of Directors Meeting , 11 July 2005. --- (2006) Board of Directors Meeting , 21-22 July 2006.

(2007) Board of Directors Meeting , 18 19 April 2000. --- (2008) Board of Directors Meeting , 12-13 February 2008.

 

74

--- (2009) Board of Directors Meeting , 6-7 February 2009. --- (2010) Board of Directors Meeting, 5-6 February 2010.  Ida, M. (2010) Answer to Questionnaire. Tokyo. Received on September 29, 2010. Ireson, R. (1997) Circular letter. Nashville,TN. Received on September 19, 1997. --- (2001) Circular letter to School Presidents. Nashville, TN. January 18, 2001. education: celebrating a unique commitment to the future”. future”. In --- (2003)  (2003) “John Wesley and education: Journal of Education, 12. Edited by COGEIME,33-46. São Paulo, Jun.2003. --- (2010a) “Reflections on Questions of Dr. Almir Maia”. Answer to Questionnaire. Questionnaire. Nashville, TN. Received on October 18, 2010. --- (2010b) Interview with Almir Maia. Nashville, TN. October 18, 2010. Josgrilberg, R. (2010) Answer to Questionnaire. Questionnaire. São Bernardo do Campo, SP. Received Rec eived on November 5, 2010. Lombardo, C. (2010) Answer to Questionnaire. Questionnaire. Rosario. Received on October 11, 2010. Lord, G. (2010) Interview with Almir Maia. Nashville, TN. October 20, 2010. Maia, A. (2009) Methodist Education and Leadership Development in Latin America: from past experiences do future perspectives. Piracicaba, 2009.  2009.  --- (2010) Interview given to Beatriz Elias. Piracicaba, SP. November 20, 2010. Moraes, M. (2010) Answer to Questionnaire. São Bernardo do Campo, SP. Received on October 25, 2010. Muneto, S. (1999) “Living under under A-Bomb Cloud.” Testimony. In: Board of Directors Meeting, Hiroshima, September 25, 1999. Murapa, R. (2010) Answer to t o Questionnaire. Johannesburg. Johannesburg. Received on November 8, 2010. Nascimento, A. (2010) Answer to Questionnaire. Tacoma, WA. Received on November 27, 2010. Romero, J. (2010) Answer to t o Questionnaire. Puebla. Received on September 24, 2010. Second IAMSCU Conference. Agenda, 17-23 July 1998. Third IAMSCU Conference. Agenda , 11-14 July, 2005. Weeks, K. (2010) Interview with Almir Maia. Nashville, TN. October 18, 2010. XVI WMC meeting (1991) Proceedings , 24 July-3 August 1991. Yamada, K. (2010) Interview with Almir Maia. Franklin,TN. October 20, 2010. --- (2010) Answer to Questionnaire. Nashville, TN. Received on August 23, 2010. 

 

75

ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS

AL –  Alabama (State) ALAIME –  Asociación Latinoamericana de Instituciones Metodistas de Educación BC – British Columbia CDR – Center for Documentation Documentation and Research COGEIME –  Instituto Metodista de Serviços Educacionais   DC –  District of Columbia EC-WMC – Education Committee-World Methodist Methodist Council GBGM –  General Board of Global Ministry GBHEM –  General Board of Higher Education and Ministry IAMSCU –  International Association of Methodist Schools, Colleges and Universities  IEP – Instituto Educacional Piracicabano   /Piracicabano Educational Educational Institute MA – Massachusetts (State) MGEFLD –  Methodist Global Education Fund for Leadership Development NASCUMC –   N National Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities of the United

Methodist Church PA – Pennsylvania (State) RJ –  Rio de Janeiro (State) SP –  São Paulo (State) TN – Tennessee (State) UCEL –  Universidad del Centro Educativo Latino Americano   UK –  United Kingdom UMC –  United Methodist Church UN – United Nations  UNIMEP –  Universidade Metodista de Piracicaba USA –  United States of America VA –  Virginia (State) WA – Washington (State) WMC –  World Methodist Council

 

76

ANNEXES ANNEX 1 󰁉󰁎󰁔󰁅󰁒󰁎A󰁔󰁉󰁏󰁎A󰁌 A󰁓󰁓󰁏C󰁉A󰁔󰁉󰁏󰁎 󰁏󰁆 󰁍󰁅󰁔󰁈󰁏󰁄󰁉󰁓󰁔 󰁓C󰁈󰁏󰁏󰁌󰁓, C󰁏󰁌󰁌󰁅󰁇󰁅󰁓, A󰁎󰁄 󰁕󰁎󰁉󰁖󰁅󰁒󰁓󰁉󰁔󰁉󰁅󰁓 B󰁙󰁌A󰁗󰁓 A󰁒󰁔󰁉C󰁌󰁅 󰁉 B󰁏A󰁒󰁄 󰁏󰁆 󰁄󰁉󰁒󰁅C󰁔󰁏󰁒󰁓 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 1. 󰁇󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬 󰁐󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁲󰁳. 

󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁦󰁦󰁡󰁩󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁮󰁡󰁧󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁩󰁴󰁳 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁥󰁸󰁥󰁲󰁣󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁡󰁭󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁯󰁮 󰁢󰁥󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁦 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁰󰁲󰁩󰁶󰁩󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁥󰁳 󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁹 󰁥󰁸󰁥󰁲󰁣󰁩󰁳󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁳 󰁡 󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁹, 󰁥󰁸󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴 󰁡󰁳 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁬󰁡󰁷, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳. 󰁗󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁬󰁩󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁯󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁯 󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁩󰁣󰁩󰁴, 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁣󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁴󰁹, 󰁷󰁨󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁬, 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁩󰁸󰁥󰁤, 󰁢󰁹 󰁧󰁩󰁦󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁢󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁥󰁳󰁴 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁹; 󰁴󰁯 󰁨󰁯󰁬󰁤 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁤󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁴󰁹 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁣󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁤󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁤󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁳 󰁳󰁥󰁴 󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁨 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳; 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁲󰁩󰁢󰁵󰁴󰁥 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁴󰁹 󰁩󰁮 󰁦󰁵󰁲󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁳 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁩󰁴󰁳 C󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁳 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁯󰁦 󰁍󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴, 󰁍󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴󰀭󰁲󰁥󰁬󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁥󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁩󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁳󰁥 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁡 󰁍󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁤󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁯 󰁣󰁯󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁧󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁶󰁥󰁬󰁯󰁰󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁯󰁮 󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁥󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁧󰁲󰁡󰁭󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 2. 󰁎󰁵󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲, 󰁔󰁥󰁮󰁵󰁲󰁥, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁑󰁵󰁡󰁬󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳. 

󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁵󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 (3) 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁭󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁮 󰁴󰁷󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁹 (20). 󰁐󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤, 󰁨󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁶󰁥󰁲, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁵󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁯󰁲 󰁤󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁢󰁹 󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷, 󰁢󰁵󰁴 󰁮󰁯 󰁤󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁥󰁦󰁦󰁥󰁣󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁮 󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁵󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁵󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁢󰁥󰁬󰁯󰁷 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 (3). A󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁩󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁬󰁹 󰁥󰁸󰁰󰁩󰁲󰁥, 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁡 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 IA󰁍󰁓C󰁕 󰁰󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹 C󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁡 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 (3) 󰁹󰁥󰁡󰁲󰁳. D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁵󰁲󰁡󰁬 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁷󰁨󰁯 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁡󰁴󰁴󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁧󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁷󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁹󰀭󰁯󰁮󰁥 (21) 󰁹󰁥󰁡󰁲󰁳, 󰁢󰁵󰁴 󰁮󰁥󰁥󰁤 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁢󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁓󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁔󰁥󰁮󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁥. E󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁯󰁬󰁤 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁬 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁥󰁸󰁰󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁢󰁥󰁥󰁮 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁱󰁵󰁡󰁬󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁥󰁤, 󰁯󰁲 󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁬 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁥󰁡󰁲󰁬󰁩󰁥󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁯󰁶󰁡󰁬 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥, 󰁯󰁲 󰁤󰁥󰁡󰁴󰁨. A 󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁲󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤 󰁨󰁩󰁭󰁳󰁥󰁬󰁦 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁥󰁬󰁦; 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁮󰁯 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁳󰁥󰁲󰁶󰁥 󰁭󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 (3) 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 (3) 󰁹󰁥󰁡󰁲 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁳. F󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥, 󰁳󰁥󰁲󰁶󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁡 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭 󰁯󰁦 󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 (3) 󰁹󰁥󰁡󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁢󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁳 󰁡 󰁦󰁵󰁬󰁬 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭. A 󰁢󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁷󰁨󰁯 󰁩󰁳 󰁮󰁯 󰁬󰁯󰁮󰁧󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁯󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁩󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁬󰁥󰁴󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭 󰁢󰁵󰁴 󰁩󰁳 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁧󰁩󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 3. 󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮.

󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁤󰁥 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. A󰁬󰁬 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁡󰁧󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁳󰁵󰁢󰁭󰁩󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁧󰁧󰁥󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁵󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁣󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁤󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. 󰁔󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁩󰁮 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁭󰁵󰁳󰁴 󰁢󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁢󰁥󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁳󰁥󰁴 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥󰁧󰁩󰁮 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁳󰁬󰁡󰁴󰁥. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 4. 󰁄󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁵󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁥󰁤 󰁄󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁵󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁥󰁤 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁩󰁴 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁤󰁥󰁥󰁭 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲. E󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁵󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁥󰁤 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁡 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 (3) 󰁹󰁥󰁡󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁵󰁢󰁪󰁥󰁣󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁷󰁡󰁬. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁩󰁰󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁩󰁮 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁢󰁵󰁴 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁮 󰁯󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 5. A󰁮󰁮󰁵󰁡󰁬 󰁍󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁮󰁵󰁡󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁨󰁥󰁬󰁤 󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁬󰁡󰁳󰁴 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁤󰁡󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁴󰁨 󰁭󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁨 󰁦󰁯󰁬󰁬󰁯󰁷󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁬󰁯󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁥󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁦󰁩󰁳󰁣󰁡󰁬 󰁹󰁥󰁡󰁲, 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁤󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁩󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁮󰁤

󰁦󰁯󰁬󰁬󰁯󰁷󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁬󰁯󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁦󰁩󰁳󰁣󰁡󰁬 󰁹󰁥󰁡󰁲 󰁡󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁮󰁵󰁡󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁬󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁢󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁢󰁥󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧. I󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁢󰁥 󰁨󰁥󰁬󰁤 󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁡󰁹 󰁤󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁩󰁮

 

77

󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁡󰁮󰁮󰁵󰁡󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁡󰁤󰁪󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁣󰁡󰁵󰁳󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁨󰁥󰁬󰁤 󰁡󰁴 󰁡 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁳󰁯󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁦󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁶󰁥󰁮󰁩󰁥󰁮󰁴. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 6. 󰁒󰁥󰁧󰁵󰁬󰁡󰁲 󰁍󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳.

󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁵󰁬󰁡󰁲 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁨󰁥󰁬󰁤 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁯󰁤󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁹 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁭 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁡󰁹 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁬󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁢󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁢󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁢󰁥󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧. 󰁒󰁥󰁧󰁵󰁬󰁡󰁲 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁨󰁥󰁬󰁤 󰁡󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁰󰁬󰁡󰁣󰁥 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁥. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 7. 󰁓󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁍󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳.

󰁓󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁣󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁥󰁳󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 (3) 󰁡󰁤󰁤󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁦󰁩󰁸 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁬󰁡󰁣󰁥, 󰁥󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁓󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁔󰁥󰁮󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁥, 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁬󰁡󰁣󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁯󰁬󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 8. 󰁎󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥.

󰁎󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁧󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁮 󰁡󰁴 󰁬󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁴 󰁦󰁩󰁶󰁥 (5) 󰁤󰁡󰁹󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁩󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁹 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁮 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁹 󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁡󰁩󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁥󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁴 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁡󰁤󰁤󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁳, 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁲󰁡󰁭, 󰁯󰁲 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁰󰁨󰁯󰁮󰁥. 󰁬󰁦 󰁭󰁡󰁩󰁬󰁥󰁤, 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁥󰁭󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁷󰁨󰁥󰁮 󰁤󰁥󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁓󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁩󰁬, 󰁳󰁯 󰁡󰁤󰁤󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁤, 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁧󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁡󰁩󰁤. I󰁦 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁩󰁳 󰁧󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁮 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁲󰁡󰁭, 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁥󰁭󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁷󰁨󰁥󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁲󰁡󰁭 󰁩󰁳 󰁤󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁲󰁡󰁰󰁨 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁡󰁮󰁹, 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁴, 󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁦, 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁵󰁬󰁡󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁮󰁥󰁥󰁤 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁢󰁥 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁷󰁡󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁥󰁸󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁭󰁡󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁦󰁦󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁲 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 9. 󰁗󰁡󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁎󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥.

A 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁷󰁡󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁵󰁴󰁥, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳 󰁢󰁥󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁦󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁷󰁡󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲 󰁭󰁵󰁳󰁴 󰁢󰁥 󰁩󰁮 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁦󰁩󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁤󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁵󰁴󰁥󰁳. 󰁎󰁯󰁴󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁯󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁡 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󲀘󰁳 󰁡󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁡󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁩󰁰󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁮 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁷󰁡󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴 󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁵󰁮󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁢󰁥󰁧󰁩󰁮󰁮󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁴󰁬󰁹 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁲󰁲󰁩󰁶󰁡󰁬 󰁯󰁢󰁪󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁨󰁯󰁬󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁤󰁯󰁥󰁳 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁦󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁮 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 10. 󰁑󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭.

A 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁯󰁴󰁡󰁬 󰁮󰁵󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁩󰁮 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁴󰁥 󰁡 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁡󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. I󰁦 󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁮 󰁡 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁡󰁴 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁡 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁡󰁤󰁪󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁦󰁵󰁲󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥, 󰁩󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁰󰁬󰁡󰁣󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁩󰁳 󰁡󰁤󰁪󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁦󰁩󰁸󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡󰁴 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁤󰁪󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁩󰁳 󰁴󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁮, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁩󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁯󰁤 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁤󰁪󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁤󰁯󰁥󰁳 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁥󰁸󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁲󰁴󰁹 (30) 󰁤󰁡󰁹󰁳 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁯󰁮󰁥 (1) 󰁡󰁤󰁪󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 11. 󰁅󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁲󰁯󰁮󰁩󰁣 󰁍󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤, 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁩󰁰󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁩󰁮 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁢󰁹 󰁭󰁥󰁡󰁮󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁴󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁰󰁨󰁯󰁮󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁩󰁭󰁩󰁬󰁡󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁵󰁮󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁩󰁰󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁢󰁹 󰁭󰁥󰁡󰁮󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁩󰁰󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁣󰁡󰁮 󰁨󰁥󰁡󰁲 󰁯󰁮󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲; 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁩󰁰󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁮 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁳󰁵󰁡󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁳󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁴󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁩󰁮 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧. 󰁍󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁢󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁢󰁥 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁡󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁢󰁹 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁮 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁸󰁩󰁥󰁳. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁴󰁬󰁹 󰁦󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁥󰁤 󰁡 󰁣󰁯󰁰󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁵󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁤󰁥󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁤 󰁯󰁦 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁵󰁮󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁩󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁬󰁵󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁳󰁥󰁥󰁫󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁩󰁲 󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳

󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥.

 

78

󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 12. 󰁍󰁡󰁮󰁮󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 A󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧.

E󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁯󰁮󰁥 (󰁬) 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁭󰁡󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁬󰁹 󰁳󰁵󰁢󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁡 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁡󰁴 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡󰁴 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁡 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁥󰁸󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴 󰁡󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁢󰁥 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁹 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁬󰁡󰁷, 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 13. A󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁗󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁡 󰁍󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 . A󰁮󰁹 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁲󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁴󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁮 󰁡󰁴 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁢󰁹

󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁯󰁲 󰁢󰁹 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁯󰁦 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁴󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁮 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁩󰁦 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥, 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁡󰁳󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥, 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁯 󰁩󰁮 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁳󰁥󰁴󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁯 󰁴󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁮, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁲 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁦󰁩󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁵󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. 󰁓󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁳󰁡󰁭󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁣󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁥󰁦󰁦󰁥󰁣󰁴 󰁡󰁳 󰁡 󰁵󰁮󰁡󰁮󰁩󰁭󰁯󰁵󰁳 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁳󰁵 󰁣󰁨 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 14. 󰁖󰁡󰁣󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁥󰁳.

A󰁮󰁹 󰁶󰁡󰁣󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁹 󰁯󰁣󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁲󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁬󰁵󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁶󰁡󰁣󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁯󰁶󰁡󰁬 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁣󰁡󰁵󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁡󰁵󰁳󰁥, 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁦󰁩󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁲󰁭󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁡󰁬󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁧󰁨 󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁮 󰁡 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁥󰁸󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁳. A 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁤󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁦󰁩󰁬󰁬 󰁡 󰁶󰁡󰁣󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁹 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁳󰁥󰁲󰁶󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁵󰁮󰁥󰁸󰁰󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭 󰁯󰁦 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁤󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁯󰁲 󰁩󰁮 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥, 󰁯󰁲, 󰁩󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥 󰁩󰁳 󰁮󰁯 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁤󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁯󰁲, 󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁬 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁥󰁸󰁴 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. A󰁮󰁹 󰁳󰁥󰁡󰁴 󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁦󰁩󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁮 󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁥 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁵󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁦󰁩󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁡 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭 󰁯󰁦 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁵󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁮󰁬󰁹 󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁬 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁥󰁸󰁴 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 15. C󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁥󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮.

󰁎󰁯 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁩󰁶󰁥, 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁬󰁹 󰁯󰁲 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁬󰁹, 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁥󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁳󰁥󰁲󰁶󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁡 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 16. 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁵󰁭󰁰󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 A󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 .

A 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁷󰁨󰁯 󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁡󰁴 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁴 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁳 󰁴󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁵󰁭󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁮, 󰁵󰁮󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁵󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁯󰁲 󰁵󰁮󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁨󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁦󰁩󰁬󰁥 󰁡 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁮 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁳󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁢󰁥󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁤󰁪󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁯󰁦, 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁷󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁢󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁭󰁡󰁩󰁬 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁭󰁭󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁬󰁹 󰁡󰁦󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁤󰁪󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧. 󰁓󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁲󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁬󰁹 󰁴󰁯 󰁡 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁷󰁨󰁯 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁦󰁡󰁶󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 17. 󰁒󰁥󰁭󰁯󰁶󰁡󰁬.

A󰁮󰁹 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁯󰁶󰁥󰁤 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁡󰁵󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁣󰁡󰁵󰁳󰁥 󰁢󰁹 󰁡 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. F󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁳󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󲀜󰁣󰁡󰁵󰁳󰁥󲀝 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁡󰁮 󰁦󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁶󰁩󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁦󰁥󰁬󰁯󰁮󰁹, 󰁤󰁥󰁣󰁬󰁡󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁵󰁮󰁳󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁤 󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁴 󰁯󰁲󰁤󰁥󰁲, 󰁡󰁤󰁪󰁵󰁤󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁢󰁡󰁮󰁫󰁲󰁵󰁰󰁴󰁣󰁹, 󰁮󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁣󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥, 󰁦󰁡󰁩󰁬󰁵󰁲󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 (3) 󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤, 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁴 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁪󰁵󰁤󰁩󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁒󰁥󰁭󰁯󰁶󰁡󰁬 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁡󰁬󰁳󰁯 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁴󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁯󰁶󰁡󰁬 󰁡󰁳 󰁡󰁮 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁳 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 18. 󰁒󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮.

A 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁨󰁥 󰁲 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁰 󰁡󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁮 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. A 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁥 󰁥󰁦󰁦󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁲, 󰁩󰁦 󰁮󰁯 󰁤󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁩󰁳 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁥󰁤, 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁩󰁰󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁴 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁰󰁡󰁬 󰁰󰁬󰁡󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳. A󰁒󰁔󰁉C󰁌󰁅 󰁉󰁉 󰁏󰁆󰁆󰁉C󰁅󰁒󰁓

󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 1. 󰁎󰁵󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁡 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁡 󰁖󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹󰀭󰁔󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁥󰁲, 󰁥󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁯󰁦 󰁷󰁨󰁯󰁭 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁣󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁤󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 A󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁬󰁥. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁡󰁬󰁳󰁯 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲󰁳

 

79

󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁩󰁴 󰁭󰁡󰁹, 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥, 󰁤󰁥󰁥󰁭 󰁮󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁯󰁲 󰁤󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁲󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥. E󰁸󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹󰀭󰁔󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁥󰁲, 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁴󰁷󰁯 󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁨󰁥󰁬󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁢 󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁳󰁡󰁭󰁥 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 2. 󰁅󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁔󰁥󰁲󰁭 󰁯󰁦 󰁏󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁲󰁭󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁡󰁭󰁯󰁮󰁧 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁰. E󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁯󰁬󰁤 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁡 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 (3) 󰁹󰁥󰁡󰁲󰁳, 󰁯󰁲 󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁬 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁥󰁡󰁲󰁬󰁩󰁥󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁯󰁶󰁡󰁬 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥, 󰁯󰁲 󰁤󰁥󰁡󰁴󰁨. 󰁎󰁯 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁳󰁥󰁲󰁶󰁥 󰁭󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁮 󰁴󰁷󰁯 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 (3) 󰁹󰁥󰁡󰁲 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 3. 󰁒󰁥󰁭󰁯󰁶󰁡󰁬 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁏󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥.

A󰁮󰁹 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁯󰁶󰁥󰁤 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥, 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁯󰁲 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁣󰁡󰁵󰁳󰁥, 󰁡󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁢󰁹 󰁡 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 4. 󰁖󰁡󰁣󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁥󰁳.

A 󰁶󰁡󰁣󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁹 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁢󰁥󰁣󰁡󰁵󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁤󰁥󰁡󰁴󰁨, 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁯󰁶󰁡󰁬, 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁱󰁵󰁡󰁬󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁦󰁩󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁦󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁡 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁶󰁡󰁣󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁹 󰁨󰁡󰁳 󰁢󰁥󰁥󰁮 󰁦󰁩󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁵󰁮󰁥󰁸󰁰󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁣󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁤󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 5. 󰁒󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮.

A󰁮 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁡󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁮 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁲, 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁡󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. A 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁥 󰁥󰁦󰁦󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥, 󰁯󰁲, 󰁩󰁦 󰁮󰁯 󰁤󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁩󰁳 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁥󰁤, 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁩󰁰󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁴 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁰󰁡󰁬 󰁰󰁬󰁡󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 6. 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴.  

󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁨󰁩󰁥󰁦 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁏󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁬󰁤 󰁮󰁯󰁲󰁭󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁡 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁨󰁩󰁥󰁦 󰁥󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁩󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬, 󰁷󰁨󰁥󰁮 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥 󰁡󰁴 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. H󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮, 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁺󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁤󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁳, 󰁭󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁧󰁡󰁧󰁥󰁳, 󰁢󰁯󰁮󰁤󰁳, 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁳, 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁩󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁲󰁵󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁳 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁨󰁡󰁳 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁺󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁥󰁤; 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁭 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁤󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁣󰁲󰁩󰁢󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 7. 󰁖󰁩󰁣󰁥󰀭󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴.

I󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁢󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁥󰁶󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁤󰁥󰁡󰁴󰁨, 󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁢󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁹, 󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁦󰁵󰁳󰁡󰁬 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁣󰁴, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁖󰁩󰁣󰁥󰀭 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁭 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 (󰁰󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁩󰁦 󰁮󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁡󰁲󰁹, 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁳󰁵󰁡󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳), 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁷󰁨󰁥󰁮 󰁳󰁯 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁢󰁥 󰁳󰁵󰁢󰁪󰁥󰁣󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁴󰁲󰁩󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁖󰁩󰁣󰁥󰀭󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁭 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁤󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁢󰁥 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁨󰁩󰁭 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 8. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹󰀭󰁔󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁥󰁲.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹󰀭󰁔󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁥󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁫󰁥󰁥󰁰 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁵󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁩󰁮 󰁯󰁮󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁭󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁢󰁯󰁯󰁫󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁴 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥; 󰁳󰁥󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁴 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁤󰁵󰁬󰁹 󰁧󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁮 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁣󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁤󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁳󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁳 󰁲󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁬󰁡󰁷; 󰁢󰁥 󰁣󰁵󰁳󰁴󰁯󰁤󰁩󰁡󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁤󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮; 󰁫󰁥󰁥󰁰 󰁡 󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁴 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁡󰁤󰁤󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁥󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁤󰁤󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁦󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹󰀭󰁔󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁥󰁲 󰁢󰁹 󰁥󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹󰀭󰁔󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁥󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁡󰁬󰁳󰁯 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁧󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁣󰁵󰁳󰁴󰁯󰁤󰁹 󰁯󰁦; 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁢󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁰󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁩󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲, 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁳󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮; 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁧󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁩󰁰󰁴󰁳 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁯󰁮󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁤󰁵󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁰󰁡󰁹󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁳󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁣󰁥 󰁷󰁨󰁡󰁴󰁳󰁯󰁥󰁶󰁥󰁲, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁤󰁥󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁩󰁴 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁭󰁯󰁮󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁡󰁭󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁮 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁢󰁡󰁮󰁫󰁳; 󰁡󰁮󰁮󰁵󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁹 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁡 󰁦󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁢󰁯󰁯󰁫󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁮󰁵󰁡󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳; 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬

󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁭 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹󰀭󰁔󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁤󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁢󰁥 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁨󰁩󰁭 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. 󰁔󰁨󰁥

 

80

C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁰󰁡󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁩󰁵󰁭󰁳 󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁹 󰁢󰁯󰁮󰁤󰁳 󰁦󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁥󰁤 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹󰀭 󰁔󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁥󰁲. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 9. 󰁖󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮.

󰁕󰁮󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁲󰁤󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁦󰁵󰁬󰁬 󰁰󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁮 󰁢󰁥󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁦 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁣󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁡󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁨󰁯󰁬󰁤󰁥󰁲󰁳, 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁰󰁳, 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁩󰁮 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁨󰁯󰁬󰁤 󰁳󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁥󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁲󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁰󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁯󰁷󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁰 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁳󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁭󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁥󰁸󰁥󰁲󰁣󰁩󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁦 󰁩󰁴 󰁨󰁡󰁤 󰁢󰁥󰁥󰁮 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁢󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁥󰁲 󰁬󰁩󰁫󰁥 󰁰󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁰󰁥 󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮󰁳. A󰁒󰁔󰁉C󰁌󰁅 󰁉󰁉󰁉 󰁅󰁘󰁅C󰁕󰁔󰁉󰁖󰁅 C󰁏󰁍󰁍󰁉󰁔󰁔󰁅󰁅 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 1. 󰁍󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁰.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁖󰁩󰁣󰁥󰀭󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹󰀭󰁔󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁥󰁲, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁷󰁯 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁗󰁥󰁬󰁬 󰁡󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦fi󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁥󰁭 󰁮󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁲󰁩󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲 󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁩󰁮󰁧. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁤󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹, 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁲󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁥󰁶󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲, 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲, 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁰󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁩󰁢󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁩󰁭󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁭󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁬󰁡󰁷. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 2. A󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥, 󰁗󰁨󰁥󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁩󰁳 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁩󰁮 󰁳󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁥󰁸󰁥󰁲󰁣󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁧󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁥󰁸󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁥󰁸󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁩󰁦 󰁡󰁮󰁹, 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁬󰁩󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳. A󰁬󰁬 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁴󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁮 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁬󰁬 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁵󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁲󰁩󰁢󰁵󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤. H󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁶󰁥󰁲, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁗󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁥󰁡󰁬󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁗󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁢󰁹 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁥󰁸󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁳 󰁩󰁳 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁳󰁯 󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁥󰁡󰁬󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥; 󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁥󰁡󰁬󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁨󰁡󰁰󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮; 󰁳󰁥󰁬󰁬󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁬󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁵󰁢󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁹 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁴󰁹 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁥 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁴󰁳 󰁴󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁮 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁵󰁳󰁵󰁡󰁬 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁵󰁬󰁡󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳; 󰁯󰁲 󰁶󰁯󰁬󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁩󰁬󰁹 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁶󰁩󰁮 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁶󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁶󰁯󰁫󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡 󰁶󰁯󰁬󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 3. 󰁍󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳. 

󰁒󰁥󰁧󰁵󰁬󰁡󰁲 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁨󰁥󰁬󰁤 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁡󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁰󰁬󰁡󰁣󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 fi󰁸 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁢󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁓󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁣󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁏󰁲 󰁢󰁹 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥, 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 (3) 󰁤󰁡󰁹'󰁳 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥, 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁬󰁡󰁣󰁥, 󰁤󰁡󰁴󰁥, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁗󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁗󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁬, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁩󰁦 󰁭󰁡󰁩󰁬󰁥󰁤, 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁤󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁥󰁭󰁥󰁤 󰁥󰁭󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁗󰁨󰁥󰁮 󰁤󰁥󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁓󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁩󰁬, 󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁧󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁡󰁩󰁤, 󰁡󰁤󰁤󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁡󰁴 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁡󰁤󰁤󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁳. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 4. 󰁑󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁍󰁡󰁮󰁮󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 A󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧.  

A 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁴󰁥 󰁡 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁡󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁯󰁦; 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁭󰁵󰁳󰁴 󰁢󰁥 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁺󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁲󰁭󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳 (󰁷󰁨󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁮󰁯󰁴) 󰁡󰁴 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡󰁴 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁡 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 5. A󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁗󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁡 󰁍󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧.

A󰁮󰁹 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁲󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁴󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁮 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁡󰁴 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁴󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁮

󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁩󰁦 󰁡 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁩󰁮 󰁗󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁳󰁥󰁴󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁯 󰁴󰁡󰁫󰁥󰁮, 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥.

 

81

󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 6. 󰁐󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁤󰁵󰁲󰁥.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 fi󰁸 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁯󰁷󰁮 󰁲󰁵󰁬󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁤󰁵󰁲󰁥, 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 I'󰁬1󰁬6󰁓 󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁫󰁥󰁥󰁰 󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁵󰁬󰁡󰁲 󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁵󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁩󰁮󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁭󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁥󰁸󰁴 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁨󰁥󰁬󰁤 󰁡󰁦󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁢󰁥󰁥󰁮 󰁨󰁡󰁤. A󰁒󰁔󰁉C󰁌󰁅 󰁉󰁖 C󰁏󰁍󰁍󰁉󰁔󰁔󰁅󰁅󰁓 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 1. C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤.

A󰁬󰁬 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁩󰁳󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁷󰁯 (2) 󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳, 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁲󰁯󰁬 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁳󰁥󰁲󰁶󰁥 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁬󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁧󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁤󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁭 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳, 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁭󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁡󰁩󰁮 󰁡 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁡󰁮󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁩󰁲 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁵󰁬󰁡󰁲󰁬󰁹 󰁳󰁵󰁢󰁭󰁩󰁴 󰁡 󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁦󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁥󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 2. 󰁓󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁭󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁡󰁩󰁮 󰁡 󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 3. 󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥.

󰁔󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁴 󰁬󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁴 󰁳󰁥󰁶󰁥󰁮 (7) 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳, 󰁦󰁯󰁵󰁲 (4) 󰁯󰁦 󰁷󰁨󰁯󰁭 󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁴󰁷󰁯 (2) 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 IA󰁍󰁓C󰁕 󰁰󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁯󰁮󰁥 (1) 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. I󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁢󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁭󰁡󰁫󰁥 󰁮󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁣󰁲󰁩󰁢󰁥󰁤 󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁩󰁮. 󰁡)  󰁖󰁡󰁣󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁥󰁳. 󰁖󰁡󰁣󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁣󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁲󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡󰁭󰁯󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁦󰁩󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. 󰁢)  󰁐󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁲󰁳. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁮󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁰 󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤, 󰁷󰁨󰁯 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 IA󰁍󰁓C󰁕 󰁰󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁡󰁲󰁹 C󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥. 󰁣)  󰁐󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁤󰁵󰁲󰁥. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴 󰁰󰁲󰁩󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. E󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁯󰁣󰁣󰁵󰁲 󰁢󰁹 󰁭󰁡󰁩󰁬 󰁯󰁲 󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁲󰁯󰁮󰁩󰁣 󰁢󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁯󰁴. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁎󰁯󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁦󰁩󰁸 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁯󰁷󰁮 󰁲󰁵󰁬󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁤󰁵󰁲󰁥, 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁲󰁵󰁬󰁥󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁢󰁥 󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁵󰁬󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁤󰁵󰁲󰁥 󰁧󰁯󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁮󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳, 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁷󰁡󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 4. 󰁏󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁢󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁩󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁵󰁬󰁡󰁲 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁥󰁭󰁥󰁤 󰁮󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁯󰁲 󰁤󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁲󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁥󰁮󰁨󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁩󰁳󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁩󰁮 󰁣󰁡󰁲󰁲󰁹󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁤󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁦󰁵󰁲󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. A󰁮󰁹 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁯 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁰󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁤󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁳󰁵󰁢󰁪󰁥󰁣󰁴 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁣󰁡󰁳󰁥󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁬󰁩󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁳󰁥󰁴 󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁨 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁔󰁥󰁮󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁥 󰁎󰁯󰁮󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁦󰁩󰁴 󰁎 󰁯󰁮󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁦󰁩󰁴 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 A󰁣󰁴, 󰁡󰁳 󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 5. 󰁇󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬 󰁐󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁳󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁓󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁓󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳.

󰁡)  󰁕󰁮󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁩󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁩󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳. 󰁢)  A 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮 󰁡󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁢󰁹 󰁧󰁩󰁶󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁮 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁩󰁲󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁩󰁳 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁩󰁮󰁧. 󰁣)  󰁔󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁯󰁶󰁥 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁳󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁷󰁨󰁥󰁮, 󰁩󰁮 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁪󰁵󰁤󰁧󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁢󰁥󰁳󰁴 󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁴󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁷󰁩󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁳󰁥󰁲󰁶󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁯󰁶󰁡󰁬. 󰁤)  󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁦󰁩󰁬󰁬 󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁶󰁡󰁣󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁩󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳. 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳. 󰁥)  󰁍󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁣󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁩󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁩󰁲󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁐󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴. E󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴 󰁡󰁳 󰁯󰁦󰁴󰁥󰁮 󰁡󰁳 󰁩󰁳 󰁮󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁴󰁯 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁭 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳. 󰁦󰁵 󰁮󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳. 󰁦)  E󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁡󰁤󰁯󰁰󰁴 󰁲󰁵󰁬󰁥󰁳 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁯󰁷󰁮 󰁧󰁯󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁮󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥, 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁲󰁵󰁬󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁮󰁯󰁴

󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁬󰁡󰁷, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 C 󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳. 󰁧)  A 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁵󰁴󰁥 󰁡 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁢󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁡󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧

 

82

󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁡󰁴 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡󰁴 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁡 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. 󰁕󰁮󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤, 󰁡 󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁩󰁲󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁱󰁵󰁥󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁢󰁥󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. 󰁨)  E󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁩󰁮󰁶󰁩󰁴󰁥 󰁡󰁤󰁤󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁡󰁤󰁤󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁵󰁡󰁬󰁳 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁥󰁸󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁩󰁮 󰁡 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁡󰁲󰁥󰁡 󰁴󰁯 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁩󰁳󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. 󰁓󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁵󰁡󰁬󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁢󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁤󰁥󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁥󰁸󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁸󰁣󰁬󰁵󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁥󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁳󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 6. A󰁤 󰁈󰁯󰁣 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁲 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁤 󰁨󰁯󰁣 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁩󰁴 󰁢󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁥󰁶󰁥󰁳 󰁮󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁴󰁯 󰁩󰁮󰁶󰁥󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁧󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁤󰁶󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤. A󰁤 󰁨󰁯󰁣 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁬󰁩󰁭󰁩󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁩󰁲 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁡󰁳󰁫󰁳 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁮󰁯 󰁰󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁣󰁴 󰁥󰁸󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴 󰁡󰁳 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁹 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤. 󰁓󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁬 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁹 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁣󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁬󰁩󰁳 󰁨󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁩󰁲 󰁴󰁡󰁳󰁫󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁬 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁧󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 E󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 C󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥. A󰁒󰁔󰁉C󰁌󰁅 󰁖 C󰁏󰁎󰁔󰁒AC󰁔󰁓, 󰁌󰁏A󰁎󰁓, C󰁈󰁅C󰁋󰁓, A󰁎󰁄 󰁄󰁅󰁐󰁏󰁓󰁉󰁔󰁓 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 1. C󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁳.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁺󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲󰁳, 󰁡󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁳, 󰁴󰁯 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁣󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁥󰁸󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁴󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁤󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁩󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁲󰁵󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁡󰁭󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁯󰁮 󰁢󰁥󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁦 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮; 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣 󰁩󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 2. 󰁌󰁯󰁡󰁮󰁳.

󰁎󰁯 󰁬󰁯󰁡󰁮󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁯󰁮 󰁢󰁥󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁦 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁮󰁯 󰁥󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁢󰁴󰁥󰁤󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁵󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁮󰁡󰁭󰁥, 󰁵󰁮󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁺󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁡 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. 󰁓󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣 󰁩󰁮󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁳. I󰁮 󰁮󰁯 󰁥󰁶󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁨󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁶󰁥󰁲, 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁯󰁷󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁩󰁦 󰁡󰁮󰁹, 󰁢󰁥 󰁰󰁬󰁥󰁤󰁧󰁥󰁤 󰁯󰁲 󰁵󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁳 󰁳󰁥󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁬󰁬󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁯󰁢󰁬󰁩󰁧󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 3. C󰁨󰁥󰁣󰁫󰁳, 󰁄󰁲󰁡󰁦󰁴󰁳, 󰁥󰁴󰁣.

A󰁬󰁬 󰁣󰁨󰁥󰁣󰁫󰁳, 󰁤󰁲󰁡󰁦󰁴󰁳, 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁲󰁤󰁥󰁲󰁳 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁡󰁹󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁭󰁯󰁮󰁥󰁹, 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁥󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁢󰁴󰁥󰁤󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁵󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁮󰁡󰁭󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲󰁳, 󰁡󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁳, 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁭󰁡󰁮󰁮󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁢󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁵󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 4. 󰁄󰁥󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁳.

A󰁬󰁬 󰁦󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁥󰁭󰁰󰁬󰁯󰁹󰁥󰁤 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁮 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁢󰁡󰁮󰁫󰁳, 󰁴󰁲󰁵󰁳󰁴 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁡󰁮󰁩󰁥󰁳, 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁤󰁥󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁳󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴. A󰁒󰁔󰁉C󰁌󰁅 󰁖󰁉 󰁆󰁉󰁓CA󰁌 󰁙󰁅A󰁒

󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁦󰁩󰁳󰁣󰁡󰁬 󰁹󰁥󰁡󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 C 󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥󰁧󰁩󰁮 󰁯󰁮 J󰁡󰁮󰁵󰁡󰁲󰁹 1 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁥󰁮󰁤 󰁯󰁮 D󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 31 󰁯󰁦 󰁥󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁹󰁥󰁡󰁲. A󰁒󰁔󰁉C󰁌󰁅 󰁖󰁉󰁉 󰁓󰁕󰁐󰁐󰁏󰁒󰁔󰁉󰁎󰁇 󰁏󰁒󰁇A󰁎󰁉󰁚A󰁔󰁉󰁏󰁎

󰁓󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁯󰁲󰁧󰁡󰁮󰁩󰁺󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁥 G󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 H󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁥󰁲 E󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁍󰁩󰁮󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁲󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁍󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴 C󰁨󰁵󰁲󰁣󰁨 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁕󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁓󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁦󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁦󰁦 󰁳󰁵󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴

󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮.

 

83

A󰁒󰁔󰁉C󰁌󰁅 󰁖󰁉󰁉󰁉 󰁉A󰁍󰁓C󰁕 C󰁏󰁎󰁆󰁅󰁒󰁅󰁎C󰁅

󰁔󰁨󰁥 IA󰁍󰁓C󰁕 C󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁩󰁳 󰁮󰁯󰁲󰁭󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁹 󰁨󰁥󰁬󰁤 󰁥󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁲󰁥󰁥 󰁹󰁥󰁡󰁲󰁳. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁤󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁥 󰁩󰁳 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁴󰁲󰁩󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁗󰁯󰁲󰁬󰁤 󰁍󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁴 C󰁯󰁮󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥. A󰁒󰁔󰁉C󰁌󰁅 󰁉󰁘 󰁗A󰁉󰁖󰁅󰁒 󰁏󰁆 󰁎󰁏󰁔󰁉C󰁅

󰁗󰁨󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁶󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁩󰁳 󰁲󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁧󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁮 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲, 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁭󰁢󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁳󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳, 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁔󰁥󰁮󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁥 󰁎󰁯󰁮󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁦󰁩󰁴 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 A󰁣󰁴, 󰁡 󰁷󰁡󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁯󰁦 󰁩󰁮 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥, 󰁷󰁨󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁢󰁥󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁦󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁩󰁮, 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁥󰁭󰁥󰁤 󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁩󰁶󰁡󰁬󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁧󰁩󰁶󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥. A󰁒󰁔󰁉C󰁌󰁅 󰁘 󰁉󰁎󰁄󰁅󰁍󰁎󰁉󰁆󰁉CA󰁔󰁉󰁏󰁎 󰁏󰁆 󰁄󰁉󰁒󰁅C󰁔󰁏󰁒󰁓 A󰁎󰁄 󰁏󰁆󰁆󰁉C󰁅󰁒󰁓 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 1. 󰁒󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁉󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁓󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁡󰁲󰁤󰁳 󰁯󰁦 C󰁯󰁮󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁴.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁤󰁶󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁤 󰁥󰁸󰁰󰁥󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁳 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁸󰁩󰁭󰁵󰁭 󰁥󰁸󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁬󰁡󰁷 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁎󰁯 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁹 󰁬󰁩󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁯󰁮󰁥󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁤󰁡󰁭󰁡󰁧󰁥󰁳 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁢󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁣󰁨 󰁯󰁦 󰁦󰁩󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁤󰁵󰁴󰁹 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁸󰁩󰁭󰁵󰁭 󰁥󰁸󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁬󰁡󰁷 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲󰁳, 󰁥󰁭󰁰󰁬󰁯󰁹󰁥󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁭󰁡󰁹, 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁢󰁥 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁤󰁶󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁤 󰁥󰁸󰁰󰁥󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁳 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁸󰁩󰁭󰁵󰁭 󰁥󰁸󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁬󰁡󰁷 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁰󰁡󰁹󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁩󰁳 󰁤󰁥󰁥󰁭󰁥󰁤 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁵󰁡󰁬 󰁢󰁥󰁴󰁷󰁥󰁥󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲, 󰁥󰁭󰁰󰁬󰁯󰁹󰁥󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁢󰁥󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁥󰁤. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 2. 󰁄󰁥󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁒󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁉󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮.

A󰁮󰁹 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁲󰁥󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁩󰁮 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁬 󰁷󰁨󰁯 󰁨󰁡󰁳 󰁢󰁥󰁥󰁮 󰁷󰁨󰁯󰁬󰁬󰁹 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁦󰁵󰁬, 󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥, 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁥󰁦󰁥󰁮󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁣󰁩󰁶󰁩󰁬 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁲󰁩󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁳󰁵󰁩󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁤󰁥󰁳󰁣󰁲󰁩󰁢󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 1 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁲󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁦󰁵󰁲󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁡󰁬 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳. E󰁸󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴 󰁡󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁩󰁭󰁭󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁬󰁹 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥, 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁲 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 1 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁤󰁥 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁣󰁲󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁢󰁵󰁴 󰁯󰁮󰁬󰁹 󰁩󰁦 (1) 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳, 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁢󰁹 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁷󰁨󰁯 󰁷󰁥󰁲󰁥 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁳󰁵󰁩󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁦󰁩󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁨󰁡󰁳 󰁭󰁥󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁬󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁴 󰁳󰁥󰁴 󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁨 󰁩󰁮 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁬; 󰁯󰁲 (2) 󰁩󰁦 󰁮󰁯 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁢󰁴󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁤󰁵󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥, 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁰󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁡󰁬 󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁬 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁤󰁥󰁬󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁩󰁲 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁮 󰁯󰁰󰁩󰁮󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁴 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯 󰁮 󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁩󰁲󰁣󰁵󰁭󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁳 󰁢󰁥󰁣󰁡󰁵󰁳󰁥 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁨󰁡󰁳 󰁭󰁥󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁡󰁲󰁤. 󰁎󰁯󰁴󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁯󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁮󰁯 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁲󰁥󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁩󰁮 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 I 󰁷󰁨󰁯 󰁨󰁡󰁳 󰁢󰁥󰁥󰁮 󰁭󰁡󰁤󰁥 󰁡 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁹 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁳󰁵󰁩󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁲󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁤󰁥󰁳󰁣󰁲󰁩󰁢󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 1 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁣󰁬󰁡󰁩󰁭, 󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁵󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁡󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁢󰁥󰁥󰁮 󰁡󰁤󰁪󰁵󰁤󰁧󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁬󰁩󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁮󰁥󰁧󰁬󰁩󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁩󰁳󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁴 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁭󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁤󰁵󰁴󰁹 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁥󰁲󰁶󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁣󰁡󰁰󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁥󰁳󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁵󰁮󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁥󰁸󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁥󰁸󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁴 󰁩󰁮 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁳󰁵󰁩󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁷󰁡󰁳 󰁢󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁤󰁥󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁥 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁬󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁴, 󰁤󰁥󰁳󰁰󰁩󰁴󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁤󰁪󰁵󰁤󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁬󰁩󰁡󰁢󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁹, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁶󰁩󰁥󰁷 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁩󰁲󰁣󰁵󰁭󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁡󰁳󰁥, 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁳 󰁦󰁡󰁩󰁲󰁬󰁹 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁹 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁥󰁸󰁰󰁥󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁤󰁥󰁥󰁭 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 3. A󰁤󰁶󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁅󰁸󰁰󰁥󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁳.

E󰁸󰁰󰁥󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁳 󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁤󰁥󰁦󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡 󰁣󰁩󰁶󰁩󰁬 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁲󰁩󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁳󰁵󰁩󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁰󰁡󰁩󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥

C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁤󰁶󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁦󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁳󰁵󰁩󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧, 󰁯󰁮󰁬󰁹 󰁩󰁦 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁺󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣 󰁣󰁡󰁳󰁥 (󰁡) 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁢󰁹 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁷󰁨󰁯 󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁳󰁵󰁩󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮 󰁡 󰁦󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁲

 

84

󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁨󰁡󰁳 󰁭󰁥󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁬󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁴 󰁳󰁥󰁴 󰁦󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁨 󰁩󰁮 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 1; 󰁯󰁲 (󰁢) 󰁩󰁦 󰁮󰁯 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁢󰁴󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨 󰁤󰁵󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥, 󰁵󰁰󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁯󰁰󰁩󰁮󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁮 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁰󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁬󰁥󰁧󰁡󰁬 󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁳󰁥󰁬 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁴 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁥󰁲 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁩󰁲󰁣󰁵󰁭󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁳 󰁢󰁥󰁣󰁡󰁵󰁳󰁥 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁨󰁡󰁳 󰁭󰁥󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁤󰁡󰁲󰁤, 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁩󰁶󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁮 󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁲󰁴󰁡󰁫󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁢󰁹 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁮 󰁢󰁥󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁦 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁥󰁩󰁶󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁤󰁶󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁡󰁹 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁭󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁴 󰁩󰁦 󰁨󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁥 󰁩󰁳 󰁵󰁬󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁬󰁹 󰁦󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁤 󰁮󰁯󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁯 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁲, 󰁷󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁳 󰁧󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁤, 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁭󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁴 󰁳󰁯 󰁡󰁤󰁶󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁴 󰁩󰁳 󰁩󰁮 󰁥󰁸󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁯 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁨󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁥 󰁩󰁳 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁬󰁥󰁤. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 4. 󰁒󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁉󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 C󰁵󰁭󰁵󰁬󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥.

󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 A󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁬󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁤󰁤󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁯 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁲󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲, 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁢󰁥 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁴󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁢󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷, 󰁡󰁧󰁲󰁥󰁥󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴, 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁤󰁤󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁴󰁯 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁳󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁭󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁡󰁩󰁮 󰁩󰁮󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁮 󰁢󰁥󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁦 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮 󰁷󰁨󰁯 󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁷󰁡󰁳 󰁡 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲, 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲, 󰁥󰁭󰁰󰁬󰁯󰁹󰁥󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁥󰁲󰁶󰁥󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁳󰁡󰁭󰁥 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁣󰁡󰁰󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁣󰁡󰁰󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁥󰁳󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮, 󰁮, 󰁡󰁧󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁳󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁬󰁩󰁡󰁢󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁧󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁳󰁴 󰁨󰁩󰁭 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁩󰁮󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁲󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁨󰁩󰁭 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁩󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁣󰁡󰁰󰁡󰁣󰁩󰁴󰁹, 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁲󰁩󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁵󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨, 󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁡󰁲󰁤󰁬󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁷󰁨󰁥󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁷󰁯󰁵󰁬󰁤 󰁨󰁡󰁶󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁯󰁷󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁯 󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁭󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁹 󰁨󰁩󰁭 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁡󰁧󰁡󰁩󰁮󰁳󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁬󰁩󰁡󰁢󰁩󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 A󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁬󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥. A󰁒󰁔󰁉C󰁌󰁅 󰁘󰁉 C󰁏󰁎󰁆󰁌󰁉C󰁔󰁓 󰁏󰁆 󰁉󰁎󰁔󰁅󰁒󰁅󰁓󰁔 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 1. 󰁇󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬󰁬󰁹.

E󰁸󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴 󰁡󰁳 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁬󰁡󰁷, 󰁮󰁯 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁮 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁡 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁥󰁲 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁨󰁡󰁳 󰁡 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁯󰁮󰁡󰁬 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁤󰁶󰁥󰁲󰁳󰁥 󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁴 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁶󰁯󰁩󰁤 󰁯󰁲 󰁶󰁯󰁩󰁤󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁥󰁬󰁹 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁯󰁮, 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁯󰁬󰁥󰁬󰁹 󰁢󰁥󰁣󰁡󰁵󰁳󰁥 󰁨󰁥 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁨󰁥 󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁡󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁩󰁰󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁳 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁨 󰁥󰁲 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁩󰁳 󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁦: 󰁡)  󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁦󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁳 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁤󰁩󰁳󰁣󰁬󰁯󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁫󰁮󰁯󰁷󰁮 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁦󰁡󰁣󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁴 󰁩󰁳 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁵󰁴󰁥󰁳, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁺󰁥󰁳, 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁢󰁹 󰁡 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁳󰁵󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁩󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥, 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁤 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁯󰁲 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳; 󰁯󰁲 󰁢)  󰁔󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁩󰁳 󰁦󰁡󰁩󰁲 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁡󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁴 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁩󰁭󰁥 󰁩󰁴 󰁩󰁳 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁺󰁥󰁤 󰁯󰁲 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁥󰁤, 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁹 󰁡󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁦󰁡󰁩󰁲󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁥󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁥󰁳 󰁦󰁡󰁩󰁲󰁮󰁥󰁳󰁳. 󰁓󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 2. 󰁑󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁒󰁥󰁱󰁵󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁳.

E󰁸󰁣󰁥󰁰󰁴 󰁡󰁳 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁷󰁩󰁳󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁬󰁡󰁷, 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁯󰁮 󰁯󰁲 󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁤󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 󰁤󰁥󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁮󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁲󰁵󰁭 󰁡󰁴 󰁡 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁡 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁯󰁦 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁺󰁥󰁳, 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁥󰁳 󰁡 󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁳󰁡󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮. A󰁒󰁔󰁉C󰁌󰁅 󰁘󰁉󰁉 A󰁍󰁅󰁎󰁄󰁍󰁅󰁎󰁔󰁓

󰁔󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁡󰁬󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁤, 󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁤, 󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁥󰁡󰁬󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁮󰁥󰁷 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳 󰁡󰁤󰁯󰁰󰁴󰁥󰁤, 󰁢󰁹 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁦󰁦󰁩󰁲󰁭󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁶󰁯󰁴󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡 󰁭󰁡󰁪󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁩󰁲󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁴 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁲󰁥󰁧󰁵󰁬󰁡󰁲 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁰󰁥󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁯󰁡󰁲󰁤 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡󰁴 󰁬󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁴 󰁳󰁥󰁶󰁥󰁮 (7) 󰁤󰁡󰁹󰁳 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁮 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁨󰁡󰁳 󰁢󰁥󰁥󰁮 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁤. 󰁔󰁨󰁥 C󰁯󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁥 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁡󰁮󰁹 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁯󰁦 D󰁩󰁲󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁴 󰁷󰁨󰁩󰁣󰁨 󰁡󰁮 󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁴󰁯 󰁴󰁨󰁥 B󰁹󰁬󰁡󰁷󰁳 󰁩󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁢󰁥 󰁡󰁰󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁶󰁥󰁤, 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁴 󰁡 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁭󰁥󰁥󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁩󰁳 󰁴󰁯 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁩󰁤󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴. 󰁓󰁵󰁣󰁨 󰁮󰁯󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁥 󰁳󰁨󰁡󰁬󰁬 󰁢󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁰󰁡󰁮󰁩󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁡 󰁣󰁯󰁰󰁹 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁵󰁭󰁭󰁡󰁲󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴 󰁯󰁲 󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁥 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁧󰁥󰁮󰁥󰁲󰁡󰁬 󰁮󰁡󰁴󰁵󰁲󰁥 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁤󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴.

 

85

ANNEX 2 State of Tennessee Charter of INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF METHODIST SCHOOLS, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

The undersigned person under the Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation Act adopts the following Charter for the above named corporation. 1) The name of the corporation is INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF METHODIST SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, AND UNIVERSITIES. 2) The corporation is a public benefit co corporation. rporation. 3) The name and address of the corporation's initial registered office and agent is Kent M. Weeks, 2021 Richard James Road, Suite 350, Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee 37215. 4) The name and add address ress of the incorporator of the corporation is Kent M. Wee Weeks, ks, 2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 350, Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee 37215. 5) The address of the principal office of the corporation is Board of Higher Education and Ministry, 1001 19th Ave. S. (P.O. Box 871), Nashville, Tennessee 37202. 6) The corpo corporation ration is not for profit. 7) The corpo corporation ration will not have members. 8) The corporation is organized ex exclusively clusively for charitable, educational and scientific scientific purposes within the meaning of Section 5ol(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the diode's), including the receipt and acceptance of property, whether real, personal or mixed, by gift or bequest from any person or entity; the retention and administration of such property in accordance with the terms of the corporation's Charter and Bylaws and, specifically, for the following purposes: a) To increase the ava availability ilability of education opportunities throughou throughoutt the world. b) To improve the quality of education. c) To enable Methodist and Metho Methodist-related dist-related educational institutions and those with a Methodist tradition to cooperate through the development of common understandings and shared educational programs. d) To carry on, perform and do any othe otherr act or thing necessary or germane to the carrying out of the foregoing purposes. In general, to engage in any activity and exercise any and all powers, rights and privileges afforded a not-for-profit corporation under the Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation Act, as amended or supplemented from time to time. 9) The affairs and activities of the corporation shall be managed by a Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall be entitled and authorized to do any and all things and take any and all actions in the name of the corporation and on behalf of the corporation as are not inconsistent with the purposes of the corporation and as may be allowed under the laws of the State of Tennessee, as amended from time to time. The manner in which directors shall be chosen and removed from the office, the qualifications, mowers, duties, compensation, and tenure of office of directors, the number of directors, the manner of filling vacancies on the Board of Directors, and the manner calling and holding meetings of the Board of Directors shall be as set forth in the t he Bylaws. 10) The directors may at any time voluntarily dissolve the corporation. Upon the dissolution of the corporation, the Board of Directors shall, after paying or making provisions for the payment of all the liabilities of the corporation, dispose of all of the assets of the corporation exclusively for the purposes of the corporation in such manner, or to such organization or organizations organized and operated exclusively for charitable, educational, religious, literary or scientific purposes, as shall at such time qualify as an exempt organization or organizations under Section 501(c) (3) of the Code or the Corresponding provisions of any future federal law, as the Board of Directors shill determine. Any assets not so disposed of shall be disposed of by a court having equity jurisdiction in the county in which the principal office of the corporation is then located exclusively for such purposes, or to such organization or organizations, as said court shall determine, which are organized and operated exclusively for such purpose. 11) No part of the net earnings of the corporation shall inure to the benefit of, or be distributable to, Its directors, officers, or other private persons, except that the corporation shall be authorized and

empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the purposes set forth in Paragraph 8 hereof. No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall be the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation; and the corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the

 

86

publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these articles, the corporation shall not carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried en (a) by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under Section 50l(c)(3) of the Code (or the corresponding provision of any future United States Internal Revenue law), or (b) by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under section 170(c) (2) of the Code or the corresponding provisions of any future federal tax law. 12) No director of this corporation shall be personally liable to the corporation or its members for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director, except: (a) for any breach of a director's of loyalty to the misconduct corporation; or (b) aforknowing ants or omissions by the any law; director faith or which duty involve intentional violation of or not (c) in forgood unlawful distributions pursuant to 548-58-304 of the Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation Act as amended from time to time. 13) To the extent permitted by the provisions of T T.C.A. .C.A. 48* 58-501, et s seq. eq. of the Te Tennessee nnessee Nonprofit Corporation Act as amended from time to time, this corporation shall indemnify and advance expenses to any person for the defense of any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative and whether formal or informal, including counsel fees actually and necessarily incurred as a result of such proceeding or action or any appeal therein, and against all fines, judgments and amounts paid in settlement thereof, provided that such action or proceeding be instituted by reason of the fact that such person is or was g director of this corporation. c orporation. This corporation may, to the extent permitted by the provisions of T.C.A. 48-58-501 et. sec. of the Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation Act, as amended from time to time, indemnify and advance expenses to an officer, employee, or agent of the corporation who is not a director to the same extent as a director and may also indemnify and advance expenses to an officer, employee or agent to the extent, consistent with public policy, determined by the Board of Directors. The rights to indemnify and advancement of expenses set forth in this section are contractual between the corporation and the director, officer, employee or agent being indemnified and are mandatory subject only to an unsecured obligation to repay the corporation in the event the Board of Directors sustains the burden of proving that such rights were not permitted by law. This Charter shall be effective upon the filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Tennessee. Dated: October 10, 1998 Kent M. Weeks, Incorporator 

 

87

ANNEX 3 BENEFITS OF MEMBERSHIP IN IAMSCU THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, AND UNIVERSITIES OF THE METHODIST CHURCH 1. CEOs will receive the IAMSCU e-Newsletter informing them of topics of interest to those who are preparing Christian leaders for a global society, as well as information about upcoming meetings. 2. Formal and informal opportunities for exchanges of faculty, staff, and students for semester or yearlong study or for short-term courses and service projects. 3. Contact information for your institution and its CEO will w ill be available on-line. 4. Methodist educational institutions may link the Web page to the listing at www.gbhem.org. 5. The Division of Higher Education at the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry will serve as a point of contact for your school. We receive many requests for contact information from people who want to know how to reach Methodist educational institutions in countries around the world. 6. Your school, college, university, or theological school will be listed included in the on-line IAMSCU membership directory located at the www.gbhem.org Web site. (This is available to all Methodist institutions regardless of membership status.) 7. Institutions may place free announcements of job openings for faculty, chaplains, staff, and administrators at the www.umc.org Web site. 8. Key administrators, faculty, staff, trustees, and students will be invited to participate in IAMSCU conferences and special workshops. Personnel at member institutions i nstitutions receive reduced registration fees at IAMSCU conferences. 9. Administrative personnel will be invited to participate in a variety of professional development opportunities, including conferences and on-line list serves where they can share and learn from their colleagues around the world. 10. The Division of Higher Education of GBHEM serves as an advocate for Methodist education. 11. Grants are available to selected member institutions through the Global Leadership Fund to facilitate educational opportunities around the world. 12. Private email listserv will be provided to member institutions.

(Available at http://www.gbhem.org/site/c.lsKSL3POLvF/b.3463101/k.88E7/ International_ Association of_Methodist_Schools_Colleges__Universities.htm) of_Methodist_Schools_Colleges__Universities.htm)

 

88

ANNEX 4 SHARED VALUES FOR METHODIST EDUCATION Embodied in vibrant communities which enable people to live their lives to the full and transform society for the better, to the glory of God.

Methodist educational institutions have a distinctive approach to education, embodying clear Christian ethical values. That is why: o We challenge, inspire, and support our students as individuals to grow intellectually, personally and spiritually, and achieve their best; o We encourage a questioning approach which searches for the real truth through reason, research and debate based on freedom of thought and expression; o We promote high academic standards and the development of talents through a variety of activities because we believe each person has God-given gifts to develop; o We affirm that education is about the acquisition of wisdom and humility as well as the acquisition of academic qualifications and offer Jesus Christ as a model of what it means to grow towards our full humanity; o We work to promote social justice and to counter prejudice and intolerance in whatever form that takes by encouraging mutual respect re spect and understanding; o We encourage an appreciation of working together and of the importance of forgiveness, reconciliation, and renewal in establishing happy communities; o We encourage environmental awareness, recognizing mankind’s responsibility for the welfare of the world God has created; o We encourage creativity as a way of nurturing the human spirit and improving the quality of life; l ife; o We prepare our students to be responsible citizens and leaders in a fast-changing and complex world, respecting not only the value of cultural diversity but also our common humanity; o We are committed to serving the needs of the local community in which the educational institution is situated, whilst also generating an understanding of the concept of service to all communities, national and international; o We encourage our students to refuse to accept that things have to be the way they are and to believe in larger possibilities for good because education should be an instrument for reforming and reshaping society for the better; o We recognize that education is a life-long process and that the more we are given, the more is expected from us. (Available at http://www.gbhem.org/site/c.lsKSL3POLvF/b.3463101/k.88E7/ International_ Association of_Methodist_Schools_Colleges__Universities.htm) of_Methodist_Schools_Colleges__Universities.htm)

 

89

ANNEX 5

World map identifying the countries where Methodist education is present 

 

90

ANNEX 6

Folder IAMSCU

 

91

 

92

 

93

ANNEX 7 Leaflet - Sixteenth IAMSCU I AMSCU International International Conference and NASCUMC Meeting, Washington, DC, 2011 85

 

94

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close