See how, English: Rely comes from Chinese: Lai = trust .. (because they are same phonetically and have same meaning, no doubt they are cognates and in-fact same source of the word). Japanese: rai is the same word as Chinese lai, also connected through the kanji: 頼 (rai, lai). This only tells the kanjis were followed and so were the phonetics, given to how Japan does not L. China does, India does, Europe does. But that might be originated in the imperial pasts of these countries. If not its still an exception. But shin 信 (as said above) and rai 頼, as here from lai 頼 also get combined to form a new word shinrai, 信頼, in case of Japanese, with same meaning as both shin and rai, TRUST. shin = rai = lai = shinrai = rely = trust, shin = xin = (ya)kin. It is the same word. Can there even be an doubt? (of-course no-one knew this so far, and sorry, as a scientists its not my renunciation responsibility to make sure facts are known before, we investigate and we find amazing stuff, painstakingly)
also see the slight difference in shichi [7七] and the symbol in 死. The latter is used as a symbol for person asif one is sitting. 7七 is used anywhere there is nature’s elements present: eg 花hana=flower、脂abura=fat/oil、 指yubi=finger. One might be tempted to say in finger and fat the “sitting person is used” although my opinion is just think “7” = 7 elements of nature. Also note how English: 7 is a upside down Japanese [7七].
1. the languages are “read” into Roman. Roman without any particular rules not defined is arbitrary. That is it becomes neutral, devoid of biases from language rules. It unlocks the languages into their neutral forms.
The languages are basically a rule or lock defined to capture particular meanings from a vast arbitrary tract of phonetics and noise. eg roman: t corresponds to 4 locks in Indian Language system and two locks in Japanese. t as in tatami, t as in taberu are the soft t and heavy t in Japanese. But in Indian t as in tumhara, t as in tenis, t as in thoda and t as in beithak are 4 different locks, 2 soft and 2 heavy.
But in Roman they are all but t. Note that English is not Roman. English is simply a hidden phonetics where you know what the lock is, but you do not show it explicitly. eg time is English, but in Indian lock its thaim, with t in thaim same as the t locked in beithak.
ନା N+aa = Naa [or Na if N is vowleness_1 also written as N+a-bar in Hepburn]
ହିଁ iHn [i-vowel or as I said i-f’la, i-don + H-consone + n-special, n is a bowl witha dot or simply dot on top of consones or vowles, on top always, or top-right as a small-circle. This special-n is called anusar and the bowl-dot called chandra-bindu, chnadra=moon, bindu=dot/point] One must avoid special-m also represented through these same symbols. Its a fallacy. Since you have m-n alternation it does not mean you introduce the m-f’la or m-matra or m-dons into the alphabet. This has come up because there is no strict sense in Indian alphabet …
A vowel is a set of Roman letters [aeiou] which are assigned the lesser perceived or spoken voice/phonetics. These are analytical approaches of Language, where a small voice can gradually become very heavy and prominent due to social usage. Once they become so they actually lose their vowel nature from the analytical point of view and they must be studied again for their implications if one is to see how they are changing our epistemology [study of knowledge] without which they will produce falsified knowledge. Infact Vowels can alternate between them or into consonants like consonants alternate between them. Its the trickiest affair of Language.