𝘽𝙞𝙧 𝙙𝙞𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙩 𝙨𝙖’â𝙙𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙞 𝙙𝙞𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙡ığı𝙣𝙙𝙖 𝙖𝙧ı𝙮𝙤𝙧, 𝙨𝙖’â𝙙𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙞 ş𝙪 𝙨𝙖𝙣’𝙖𝙩ı𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙖𝙝𝙨î𝙡𝙚 ç𝙖𝙡ışı𝙮𝙤𝙧; 𝙢𝙪𝙫𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙠 𝙙𝙖 𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙮𝙤𝙧. 𝙏𝙖𝙗î’î 𝙗𝙪 𝙨𝙖’â𝙙𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣 𝙠𝙖𝙧şı𝙨ı𝙣𝙙𝙖 𝙗𝙪𝙡𝙪𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙨ı 𝙡â𝙯ı𝙢 𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙣 𝙣â𝙢û𝙨𝙪 𝙙𝙖 𝙫𝙖𝙧. 𝙁𝙖𝙠𝙖𝙩 ş𝙪 𝙣â𝙢û𝙨 𝙗𝙞𝙧 𝙚𝙨𝙣â𝙛ı𝙣 𝙣â𝙢û𝙨𝙪𝙣𝙖 𝙝𝙞ç𝙗𝙞𝙧 𝙫𝙚𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙯. 𝘽𝙞𝙧 𝙚𝙨𝙣â𝙛 𝙞ç𝙞𝙣 𝙝𝙞𝙮𝙚𝙡 ü 𝙙𝙚𝙨â’𝙞𝙨𝙞 𝙞𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙠â𝙗 𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙖𝙠𝙯-ı 𝙖𝙝𝙙 𝙜𝙞𝙗𝙞 ş𝙚𝙮𝙡𝙚𝙧 𝙣â𝙢û𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙯𝙡𝙪𝙠𝙩𝙖𝙣 𝙢𝙖’𝙙û𝙙 𝙤𝙡𝙙𝙪ğ𝙪 𝙝â𝙡𝙙𝙚 𝙗𝙞𝙧 𝙣â𝙢û𝙨𝙡𝙪 𝙙𝙞𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙨𝙡𝙚ğ𝙞 𝙞𝙠𝙩𝙞𝙯â𝙨ı 𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙠 𝙗𝙪 𝙜𝙞𝙗𝙞 ş𝙚𝙮𝙡𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙥𝙚-𝙠â𝙡â 𝙢ü𝙧â𝙘𝙖’𝙖𝙩 𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙧. 𝘽𝙪 𝙝â𝙡𝙞 𝙣â𝙢û𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙯𝙡𝙪𝙠 𝙨𝙖𝙮ı𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙯. 𝘽𝙞𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙠 𝙗ü𝙩ü𝙣 ö𝙢𝙧ü𝙣ü 𝙝𝙞𝙮𝙚𝙡 ü 𝙙𝙚𝙨â𝙮𝙞𝙨-𝙞 𝙨𝙞𝙮â𝙨𝙞𝙮𝙮𝙚 𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙜𝙚ç𝙞𝙧𝙙𝙞ğ𝙞 𝙝â𝙡𝙙𝙚 𝙝𝙞ç𝙗𝙞𝙧 𝙠𝙞𝙢𝙨𝙚 𝘽𝙞𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙠’ı 𝙣â𝙢û𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙯𝙡𝙪𝙠 𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙢 𝙚𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞. 𝙕â𝙩𝙚𝙣 𝙣â𝙢û𝙨𝙡𝙪 𝙗𝙞𝙧 𝙯â𝙩 𝙞𝙙𝙞. Çü𝙣𝙠ü 𝙝â𝙞𝙯 𝙤𝙡𝙙𝙪ğ𝙪 ş𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙛-𝙞 𝙣𝙚𝙛𝙨 𝙫𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙫𝙠𝙞’-𝙞 ş𝙖𝙝𝙨î𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙞 𝙥𝙚𝙠 𝙜ü𝙯𝙚𝙡 𝙢𝙪𝙝â𝙛𝙖𝙯𝙖 𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙞… İş𝙩𝙚 𝙜ö𝙧ü𝙡ü𝙮𝙤𝙧 𝙠𝙞, 𝙣â𝙢û𝙨 𝙫𝙚 ş𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙛 𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙡𝙚𝙣 𝙝𝙖𝙨𝙡𝙚𝙩, 𝙢ü-𝙯𝙚𝙗𝙯𝙚𝙗 𝙫𝙚 𝙗𝙞𝙧 𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙠𝙚𝙯𝙙𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙠𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙪𝙧 𝙚𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙯, 𝙗𝙞𝙣 𝙮ü𝙯𝙡ü, 𝙨𝙚𝙗â𝙩𝙨ı𝙯 𝙗𝙞𝙧 𝙨ı𝙛𝙖𝙩𝙩ı𝙧. 𝘽𝙞𝙣â’𝙚𝙣-𝙖𝙡𝙚𝙮𝙝 𝙗ö𝙮𝙡𝙚 𝙗𝙞𝙧 𝙚𝙢𝙧-𝙞 𝙢ü𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙠𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙛𝙫î𝙯 𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙡𝙢𝙚𝙯…