Language desk
< December 14	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 15

Swedish help

Can anyone help me with the text in the accompanying image? I know what the overall structure of the diagram is, and what the gist of the meanings are, since this is a Scandinavian-language version of the Shield of the Trinity diagram; however, I'm curious as to some of the wordings which would appear to go beyond a simple translation of the usual basic diagram text (for an English-language version of the diagram, see File:Shield-Trinity.svg). Thanks! -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if anyone has any ideas as to its probable date (beyond my guess of sometime in the 19th-century), thank you. AnonMoos (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help with the date, but the words that appear are: Fadren 'the Father', Sonen 'the Son', (can't make out the one for the Holy Ghost, which is normally den Helige Anden, but here appears to say Iben Helige Anda which I don't understand; 'anda' would be a misspelling in modern Swedish), Tre äro ett 'Three are one', ett äro tre 'one is three', och de tre äro ett 'and the three are one', är 'is/are', Gud eller יְהֹוָה 'God or Jehovah'. For what it's worth, äro is archaic Swedish. --Diacritic (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be "Then Helige Anda", with an archaic spelling of the article den. Also, äro is third person plural, so "ett äro tre" seems to be an error, perhaps the decorator was not entirely literate and was just copying from memory?--Rallette (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And according to the website of the church, the ceiling is from 1804.--Rallette (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just symmetry "Tre äro ett, ett äro tre, och de tre äro ett" just sounds better than "Tre äro ett, ett är tre, och de tre äro ett". Obviously the whole point here is that the singular-plural thing isn't quite that simple! :) --Pykk (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the diagram is then actually a little "unorthodox" in not including a negative in the three links connecting the three outer nodes. Thanks for the info... AnonMoos (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uralic

Why are Finnish, Hungarian, and Estonian in a different language family from all other major European languages? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 07:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding tautological, because they're not descended from Proto-Indo-European. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Aeusoes said. They are Finno-Ugric languages and stem from a different source than the rest of the main European languages. --TomorrowTime (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what exactly is the story behind their difference? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 08:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is your next-door neighbor not your brother? What exactly is the story behind his not being your brother? Through a complex and lengthy chain of events, the Indo-European language family came to be where it is today. Through a different but equally complex and lengthy chain of events, the Finno-Ugric language family came to be where it is today. Pre-history being what it is, we don't have a whole lot of information about how these things happened, but, like the stories of you and your neighbor, we can imagine that the stories of these two language families were quite separate until the two families came into contact with each other. --Diacritic (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put it a little more cut-and-and-dry, we can imagine two ancient "homelands" (Ur-Heimats). The Indo-Europeans originated somewhere in central Eurasia, possibly east of what is now Ukraine. The Finno-Ugric peoples also had their homeland somewhere in what is now Russia, I believe (a huge possible expanse, I realize). Eventually they migrated, separately, into Finland, Hungary, while the Indo-Europeans migrated into Europe, Iran, and South Asia. Through invasion and intermarrying, both groups of languages became dominants in the places their respective ethnic groups settled. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish philology's most beloved crackpot, Sigurd Wettenhovi-Aspa, concluded that the Proto-Europeans were in fact "degenerated and acclimatized Fenno-Egyptians"...--Janneman (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is thought that the original homeland of the Proto-Finno-Ugric language was in what is now Russia in the taiga on either or possibly both sides of the Urals. From this original homeland, the language and its descendants spread to the east and west across the taiga. To the west, carriers of Finno-Ugric languages settled across what are now northwestern Russia, Estonia, Finland, and northern parts of Sweden and Norway. Meanwhile, speakers of Proto-Indo-European lived somewhere to the south, possibly in the steppes of what is now southern Russia bordering the Black Sea and the Caucasus, or possibly along the Black Sea in what is now Turkey. Speakers of Indo-European languages likewise spread east to what is now India and even western China and west into Europe. Eventually, Indo-European languages spread across almost all of Europe, except the Finnic-speaking far north and the land of the the Basques. Meanwhile a group of Finno-Ugric speakers had moved south onto the steppes of central Russia, possibly into a region earlier inhabited by Indo-European speakers. These were the ancestors of the Hungarians. The Hungarians then migrated gradually westward until, in the 10th century AD, they invaded and occupied what is now Hungary and some neighboring areas. They displaced or intermarried with earlier Indo-European (probably Slavic) speakers in that area. And that's why most of Europe speaks Indo-European languages, but a few parts speak Finno-Ugric languages. Marco polo (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any guesses?

"he was a man with pruttuial manners" Kittybrewster ☎ 11:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was presumably from here, the one and only google hit for that word. "Pruttuial" does not appear in Mrs Byrne's Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure and Preposterous Words, so I would hazard a guess that it's a mistake on the writer's part or a typo on someone else's part. But I cannot imagine what word the writer was actually meaning. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an idiosyncratic formation from 'Prut' - ". . . (Echoic, representing a slight explosive sound, as of breaking wind) An exclamation of contempt . . .", or, slightly more plausibly, 'Prutenic' - ". . . (obsolete) Prussian . . ." (both OED), but neither is likely in the context. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your pruttuial reply. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which sense do you mean that? :-) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the word in mind was "preternatural." The thesaurus lists preternatural as a word meaning something similar to "exceptional." Maybe unimpeachable, impeccable, or irreproachable. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prudential, presidential, crucial, brutal, Prussian, mutual ... probably not (x 6). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a candidate for the LLPO (Linguistic Lost Property Office), the final destination for words and expressions that have no discernible meaning but have nevertheless been used by real people in real life to mean ... something. You'll also find there things like "suitly emphazi". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has mentioned the pompatus of love in this context. Bus stop (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Til death do us part

What does this mean -- is it Old English? In modern English, it would seem to me that "'til death do us remain together" would make more sense. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until death parts us. I agree, it's not particularly grammatical to modern ears, but it dates back some years. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Old English, it's Early Modern English. TammyMoet is correct that it means "Until death parts us". Wedding ceremonies that use more modern language often replace the phrase with "Until we are parted by death". +An gr 13:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's an ossified remnant of the subjunctive mood, which is not normally used in modern English. "'Til death do us remain together" is ungrammatical, and I can't work out what it's supposed to mean. Algebraist 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But were it to be phrased "Til death do us re-unite", that would be perfectly regular, assuming one were to believe in an afterlife.

Incidentally, although this particular phrase is archaic (deliberately so because in religious or quasi-religious contexts dated language is culturally traditional), many English speakers and writers still regularly use the subjunctive mood. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Till death do us part" i.e. "till death parts us", is often replaced now by "as long as you (or we) both shall live". Because when one dies, the other is free to marry again. This sentiment obviously does not take potential divorce into account. The phrases about death re-uniting might be true but people often remarry when a spouse dies. How that figures into any potential afterlife is anybody's guess. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monogamy is a largely cultural phenomenon, and who knows what kind of culture an afterlife populated by a large number of people spanning large swaths of civilizations and history would create. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the Book of Common Prayer which was finalised in 1662, but much of the text dates from the 1540s. In the 1552 edition, it is rendered as "tyl death us depart"[1]. Sorry Baseball Bugs, the "as long as you both shall live" quote comes from the preceding section of the service. Interestingly, its latest replacement in the Church of England, Common Worship, retains the traditional wording for that phrase[2]. I assume they wanted to avoid alienating people by throwing away well-loved phrases. Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the American Episcopal Prayer Book that uses "until we are parted by death" [3]. +An gr 15:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't make sense to me. 'Until death DO us part' (i.e. 'until death parts us')? Why isn't the third person singular present indicative ('does') used here - after all, 'death' is a singular noun? (EDIT) Ignore me, I hadn't seen Algebraist's post above. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third person singular present subjunctive is used because the reference is to an uncertain and unspecified time in the future. +An gr 17:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Angr, I had just realized that. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(not an answer to the question above, just another point) Some people use "until death us do part", which I guess comes from a time when English word order was different. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the wording in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and in the 1928 U.S. Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, is "till death us do part", not "till death do us part". Alansplodge's comment above, with link, that the 1552 Prayer Book says "tyl death us depart" makes me wonder whether that sentence was reinterpreted somewhere along the way as "till death us do part". +An gr 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I always assumed that the "us do" version is older but the "do us" version sounds more natural to people today. I remember at my cousin's wedding some years back, the priest said "us do" and both my cousin and her husband said "do us" instead of repeating word-for-word. (We spent the rest of the night making fun of them for both having messed up their vows.) Hence my assumption that the "do us" version just came more naturally to them, or they were more used to hearing it, or something. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Maven's Word of the Day also thinks that "us do part" is a reinterpretation of "us depart", which was apparently a transitive verb meaning "separate" in the 1550s but no longer so in the 1660s. Knowing that it originally said "us depart" answers a question I've always had about this phrase, namely "Why is there do-support here? Why not simply until death us part?" And now I know. +An gr 21:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning Of

What is "national parity"?174.3.102.6 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equal representation for Czechs and for Slovaks Marco polo (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

word or article on making things appear retro

i am looking for a word or article on a type of phenomenon i've come across concerning design. i'll use two examples to explain it the best i can.

1. fake neon store signs.
back in the day many shops had this typical neon sign made of red neons for the word 'open' and a blue neon circling it. picture of this sign notice the space between the letter o. that space is there because of a technological limitation. neon tubes can't be formed into a perfect circle, so there is a space left. now that we have newer and cheaper lighting technologies like led's, there is no reason to retain that space. we can have led's go fully around the letter, closing the counter in the letter o. the thing is i've come across many led and other signs still retaining that neon sign look. example picture on many occasions i've seen brand new signs that are made to look like neons, including the details of their technological limitations. we have the technology to make the letters look any way we want, but many choose to make them look old and faulty.

2. large windows made to look like small panes put together.
many old houses had large windows that were made up of smaller panes of glass. they looked like this. i assume they did this because large panes were expensive or difficult to make. now that we have the technology to make large glass windows, we make fake plastic borders, placed on top of large windows to make them look like they are made from small panes of glass, like this.

so simply put, these are examples of a type of 'retrofication'. stylistic additions to make it look like it used to at the cost of aesthetics. is there a known word for this or an article concerning this phenomenon? any other examples you've come across? 74.58.149.102 (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No specific word (other than retro itself) is coming to mind, but I'll note that your "at the cost of aesthetics" is a debatable point. The opening paragraph of our article Muntin, which is relevant to your second example, makes it clear that the use of divided panes—even false ones—in windows is felt to be sylistically appropriate in certain kinds of structures. (Why we continue to build houses in versions, usually debased, of older styles like Tudor and Cape Cod rather than all living in streamlined house-of-the-future-today sorts of abodes is a different question.) Also relevant may be the often-remarked tendency of new technologies to appear with the stylistic trappings of the technologies they are replacing—early automobiles that resembled carriages and the like. Deor (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative shutters, ones that cannot open and close but are bolted to the outside purely for cosmetic effect. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could class them as kitsch depending on the quality. Nanonic (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclusterable Spanish consonants

Are there any Spanish words which have the consonants ll or ñ in a consonant cluster? --84.61.183.89 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:conllevar. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The French word wikt:borgne suggests that there might be a Spanish word with the letter ñ in a consonant cluster rñ, but I do not know such a word. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[The letters rgn are found in Auvergne, Bargny, Cavergno, Dargnies, Gargnano, Ergnies, Ergny, Hergnies, Largny-sur-Automne, Margno, Margny, Orgnac-l'Aven, Orgnac-sur-Vézère, Pargnan, Pargny, Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza, Sergnano, Tergnier, lorgnette, and wikt:épargne. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)][reply]

In general, 'n' is a nasal in all languages. So what does the diacritic mean for 'ñ'? —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Ñ. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, it is already a consonant cluster if it refers to a palatal nasal, as in a velar nasal in English (e.g. 'ing'). If the tilde in the orthography refers to a double consonant, like ‘nn’, then there are probably many words. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a double consonant and it's not a cluster, it's simply the orthographic representation for the single sound [ɲ]. Over the past several discussions it has become clear that you're not very conscious of the difference between sound and orthography. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you are saying. How does the sound ‘[ɲ]’ in English or in Spanish form without clustering consonants? However, whether further clustering within the ‘[ɲ]’ environment is possible or not is an other question. But I do not have further comment on this. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's one phone. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory class in phonetics. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a good thing to do. However, don’t you know a phone must be realized to be a phoneme? —Mihkaw napéw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

A phoneme is still a single sound, and in any case it doesn't change the fact that [ɲ] is not a consonant cluster. ([nj] is, [ɲ] is not.) Again...take a class. Or try reading a textbook—I would recommend A Course in Phonetics by Peter Ladefoged or Phonetics by Henning Reetz & Allard Jongman. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between orthography and sound is actually important here. Is the OP simply using the orthography as shorthand for the pronunciation? If so, a word like conyugar has the palatal nasal in a cluster, though it doesn't mark it as such (I can't think of any similar examples with the palatal lateral)Otherwise, there are no such cases since, as Spanish phonology states, the geminated consonants that have now become the palatal nasal and palatal lateral were lost in coda position way back in Vulgar Latin. So AFAIK there would be no orthographic instances of consonant clusters with <ll> or <ñ>. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except for cross-morpheme (and cross-syllable) clusters like the one in the "conllevar" example above. (I don't speak Spanish so I'm not aware of any others.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that there aren't any instances of orthographic <ll> or <ñ> in the syllable coda. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practically nothing begins with eñe either, except for a few foreign loans and colloquial words like ñuco, so the chances of one of these having an existing prefixed form with Cñ are slight. But I doubt it's actually unclusterable; in the right context, where it's okay to coin words, it would probably be possible to add a prefix like con- to a few of these.

Batlle is a family name and a town in Uruguay. But it's Catalan, and I don't know if it's actually pronounced "batlle" in Spanish. Ocllo isn't really fair, as it's Quechua, though local Spanish retains ll, so it might be pronounced as "ocllo". kwami (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Batlle, but words in Catalan with such palatal consonants in the coda (which is allowed in Catalan) that are borrowed into Spanish are not typically pronounced with the palatal. A word like any(that is, if it were borrowed; I don't recall any Catalan loanwords into Spanish off the top of my head) is either pronounced [an] or [ˈani]. I've seen the second pronunciation be described as spelling pronunciation. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Enllantar English Spanish Translation | Traductor ingles español: enllantar: "1. To rim, to shoe a wheel."

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cross-morpheme also on some level, ll aside there are very few orthographic geminates except again with cross-morphemic words, like in the word recuerdannoslos.Synchronism (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other Spanish consonants which are never part of a consonant cluster? --84.61.183.89 (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems the orthography 'ñ' in 'campaña' does not represent the sound 'ng' ([ɲ]) but closer to the sounds of 'nn'. Is this correct? —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mihkaw napéw, the article Ñ, which I linked earlier, explains its pronunciation. User:Rjanag also explained it. If you visit Pronunciations for español, you can hear how to pronounce the word español. If you visit Answers | Hot Questions, you might find someone whose teaching style is more compatible with your learning style. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

h? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:enhorabuena. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That and <ll> are the same as English <h>. The issue is not really whether or not they can "cluster", the issue is where they can and can't appear within a syllable. Spanish <ll> and English <h> can only appear in a syllable onset, and because they're relatively weak sounds they generally only appear in "clusters" when they were originally the beginning of a word and then something else was added on (as in con-llevar or en-horabuena; likewise with English boat-house, for instance). These are across syllable boundaries; you won't see true "clusters" where there are multiple consonants packed in the same syllable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Consonant cluster (which I linked already above) says the following.

Some linguists argue that the term can only be properly applied to those consonant clusters that occur within one syllable. Others contend that consonant clusters are more useful as a definition when they may occur across syllable boundaries. According to the former definition, the longest consonant clusters in the word extra would be /kst/ and /str/, whereas the latter allows /kstr/. The German word Angstschweiß /aŋstʃvaɪs/ (fear sweat) is another good example, with a cluster of five consonants: /ŋstʃv/.

I had the broader definition in mind when I searched for examples. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you usually infer irrelevant issues and draw very strong conclusions. You know very well that many people (even very well educated) cannot simply put thinks together to make sense about what you are saying. And you are very skilled on that. So why don’t you try to explain something simply, like--I do not think the editor is correct (if you want to disagree on something strongly), because here is an example how the matter in question should be--rather than giving prominence to a personal nonsense? —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a good point, Rjanag. The discussion about Mihkaw's level of expertise should probably go at User talk:Mihkaw napéw so we can focus here on the answers. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mihkaw napéw, Paragraph 1 of Ñ#History says: Historically, "ñ" arose as a ligature of "nn": the tilde was shorthand for the second "n", written over the first. (That refers to orthography and not to pronunciation.) Paragraph 2 says: In Spanish in particular it was kept to indicate the palatal nasal, the sound that is now spelt as "ñ". (Today, "ñ" is not pronounced as double n. That pronunciation is represented by an orthographic double n, as in wikt:connotación.)

The row of nasal consonants at International Phonetic Alphabet#Pulmonic consonants includes the retroflex nasal [ɳ], the palatal nasal [ɲ] (as in Spanish niño), and the velar nasal [ŋ] (as in English sing). Please notice the different shapes of the IPA symbols.

The study of languages and linguistics requires attention to detail. Concentration is generally easier in a quiet place without distractions. Read slowly. Linger over the words. Make handwritten copies. (See BBC NEWS | Technology | Multitaskers bad at multitasking.) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Spanish connotación pronounced with a geminate? It may just be orthographic. I've never seen gemination in Spanish. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phonetic symbols at http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/connotación indicate gemination, although I could not detect it in the audio file. However, I did detect gemination in the audio file at http://forvo.com/search/connotación/.

-- Wavelength (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sound file is computer generated. That might have something to do with it. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]