Mind Your Language

“Mind your language, son!” is what my father used to say to me with some frequency when I was a boy. You can imagine what I must have been saying: imagine that on rainy days, when I was stuck inside mostly. I’d been listening to and learning from Charlie Brown, the comic book character, and all of his expletives. (“Rats!“) And during the dry season days in Viet Nam, where I was growing up, I was listening to and learning from my playmates, speaking words that you might not want to read aloud here even if you could.

So I thought I’d start blogging again. And I figured “Mind Your Language” was okay for a title. Alas! The title’s way too popular; it’s been taken by somebody else already who started a blog as “A lttle extra help for advanced students of English who have nothing to do of an evening but study.” Furthermore, it’d been taken by the group of bloggers at “The Guardian newspaper for its language blog,” as my pseudonymous blogger friend, named Theophrastus, has kindly pointed out. He looked more closely to see, and you can mind this too, how the URL for my new blog is “never mind the tagmemics.” Let me just suggest you never mind that for now. I’m just learning wordpress (and have blogspot as a backup and as more than a backup).

Thanks for reading. I may blog something else soon.

Advertisements

22 responses to “Mind Your Language

  1. Tagmemics has always struck me as wildly insulting for any language with a literary tradition — such as English or Arabic or Chinese or Russian or French — or even a tiny creole language such as Yiddish with its own literary tradition — or even an artificial language such as Esperanto. Tagmemics with its classic missionary focus of “move into the culture, figure out the key points, and blast out a translation, move on to the next project” is simply the opposite the way that great literature is produced.

    For me a sure sign that someone has taken the wrong road is when she starts praising translations that were performed by a committee. There are a few isolated examples of good literature in English written by committees (the Declaration of Independence, the KJV of the Bible, and I can’t think of a third) but they are exceptions that prove the rule that individual authors are much more likely to produce work of the highest literary standard.

    What is funny, of course, is that the SIL technique has been applied to English in recent years — translations such as the GNT, NIV/TNIV/NIRV, NLT, HCSB, fall firmly into this camp; and other translations which were modified with high speed from fine existing translations (e.g., the ESV) also reflected this approach.

    So, by comparing these translations with traditional literary translations (such as the Tyndale/Geneva/KJV) or contemporary literary translations (such as Fox/Alter/Barnstone) we can starkly assess the literary damage wreaked by the SIL approach. And it doesn’t look pretty.

  2. Tagmemics with its classic missionary focus of “move into the culture, figure out the key points, and blast out a translation, move on to the next project” is simply the opposite the way that great literature is produced.

    I guess you may have figured from my post that my father and I have had our differences. He was a classic missionary, though not trained by SIL nor tasked as a Bible translator. Thanks for sharing your assessments of Tagmemics and for opining that “we can starkly assess the literary damage wreaked by the SIL approach. And it doesn’t look pretty.”

    You’re now encouraging me to post on Pike’s theory and practices with respect to language. (If havoc is being wreaked by SIL or Wycliffe Bible translators, then I’m quite sure it has little to do with Pike’s legacy which is nearly moribund, replaced now by the so-called “Relevance Theory” that much more strikes “me as wildly insulting for any language with a literary tradition — such as English or Arabic or Chinese or Russian or French — or even a tiny creole language such as Yiddish with its own literary tradition — or even an artificial language such as Esperanto.” Maybe I’ll have to post on RT too.) If we’re going to talk about Tagmemics, then let’s remember to talk about how people outside SIL talked about it. I’m remembering how “materialist” anthropologist Marvin Harris viewed and used etic and emic so differently than Pike did, Harris viewing the neologisms as an outsider to missionary Bible translation, to say the least, but as an insider to the Western academic traditions we call anthropo-logic. I’m recalling how philosopher Willard V. O. Quine (who talked about his neologism gavagai to establish his “indeterminacy of translation” theory) used to talk about Pike’s “monolingual demonstrations.” They were, Quine observed, composed of “observation sentences.” (See also ” Indeterminacy, Empiricism, and the First Person” by John R. Searle in The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 84, No. 3 [Mar., 1987], pp. 123-146.) I’m also being reminded of how Allison Randal confesses, “I wouldn’t Know a Tagmeme if it Bit Me on the Parse” but how Larry Wall, who wasn’t a missionary or a Bible translator but who uses Tagmemics for his culture and his PC language PERL, says, and seems to believe, this:

    I also believe that, while languages can have efficiencies and deficiencies, the languages themselves are essentially amoral. Language is not the level at which we should enforce “good thoughts”, if we want our language to be maximally useful. You can’t enforce morality by syntax. In English it is just as easy to say “bless you” as it is to say “fuck you”. You may argue that in Perl it’s easier to use the verb “bless” because it’s built-in, but in actual fact, Perl lets you define “fuck” any way you choose. You can also “goto hell” if you like, which will of course work better if you’ve defined the label “hell”. [sic]

    I’m not sure how people who once liked Tagmemics of SIL would actually like any of that. Pretty is not necessarily what these outsider, Tagmemics insiders were after. And, yes, some things they talk about can be rather insulting. And yet I’m sure Alter, Barnstone, and Fox might not be so opposed once they get it. Let’s try that sometime.

  3. Theophrastus, You’ve stated something explicitly that, I think, only a few of us have believed implicitly without ever expressing it (well):

    the wrong road is … praising translations that were performed by a committee. There are a few isolated examples of good literature in English written by committees (the Declaration of Independence, the KJV of the Bible, and I can’t think of a third) but they are exceptions that prove the rule that individual authors are much more likely to produce work of the highest literary standard.

    First, let me ask you: What about the Masoretes? Isn’t their Hebrew biblical text rather exceptional?

    You may have already said somewhere else what you thought of the legendary Seventy translators of the “Septuagint” and of the LXX as a literary standard. But might there be anything to the legendary Talmudic historiography that claims the Greek text is really a Jewish one, one that has double meanings (i.e. Hebraic sophistry)? I’m thinking of how Naomi Seidman defines “Jewish” in her brilliant Faithful Renderings: Jewish-Christian Difference and the Politics of Translation and of how she defines “faithful” as something not so apparent to the outsider to the Jewish text. Seidman, as you know, cleverly quotes Matthew Arnold (from “On Translating Homer”) for one of her epigraphs:

    “Probably [all] would agree that ‘the translator’s first duty is to be faithful’; but the question at issue is, in what faithfulness consists.”

    Seidman doesn’t want her readers to misunderstand the question at issue; she goes on to say:

    “[F]aithful translation comes in more than one variety: Fidelity, in the sort of translation conducted under the watchful eye but uncomprehending ear of an Egyptian king, an SS guard, or even a benign gendarme, means faithfulness to one’s embattled community rather than to any abstract ideal of linguistic equivalence.”

    Seidman is suggesting that Jewish text production, even translation in particular cases, is communal, is collaborative, is creative and procreative in high literary fashion.

    Moving forward in history from the MT and the LXX, I also wonder about the kind of collaboration that Mary (Sidney) Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, may have had with her brother, Sir Phillip Sidney. His works are regarded as his alone, until he passes away. And then the completion of his poetic translation of the Psalms is thereafter simply attributed to her because, of course, he’s gone. It’s as if, in our histories, the two never worked together, never discussed together their methods of rendering and of versifying, never jointly imagined the whole of the project and never jointly sought its completion.

    What I’m wondering is whether you might agree that behind the ostensible single author of great works, there are coauthors unnamed? And, with translation, isn’t it the case that the translator (unless a translator of one’s own works, as Vladmir Nobokov was) is always a collaborator with the author? Wouldn’t Barnstone say the KJV translators were editors of Tyndale, Revisers and revisionists in a sense? Wouldn’t Alter say that his English for the translation of Moses’s Hebrew books is a rendering of, a mirroring of, not so naturally and not-every-day literary language — that he Alter is in a committee with Moses? And doesn’t Fox go further, calling on his readers? Sure, Fox declares as a single individual, “I have presented the text in English dress but with a Hebraic voice.” But when he says this in his Translator’s Preface, he has quoted Martin Buber saying generally, as to a plural “you” and not as only to a “thee or thou”: “Read aloud the words written in the book in front of you; hear the word you utter and let it reach you.” Fox explains how, in his translation, the reader will participate:

    “the reader will encounter a text which challenges him or her to rethink what these ancient books are and what they mean, and will hopefully be encouraged to become an active listener rather than a passive receiver.”

    The reason you say that the committee is on the wrong track, and why you must be allowed to say that, is precisely for something else Fox gets to. That something else that Fox gets to is not so much a problem with group production of a text or of its translation. Rather the issue is one of method, of approach, and of aim. Fox says:

    “Indeed, the premise of almost all Bible translations, past and present, is that the ‘meaning’ of the text should be conveyed in as clear and comfortable a manner as possible in one’s own language.”

    Notice how individualistic that is. But Fox goes on [with my italics for emphasis here]:

    “Yet the truth is that the Bible was not written in English in the twentieth or even the seventeenth century; it is ancient, sometimes obscure, and speaks in a way quite different from ours.”

    The problem of Bible translation, to me, has been one not so much a problem of committee (because I do think we could dig a bit deeper in our histories to find silent and silenced committee members who never ever have been acknowledged). The problem is “how” text and how translation is produced. When the goal is for it to read clearly for me and for my audience by my standard of clarity, when the goal is mainly and mostly to communicate the message I read into the text and want my readers to get out of it, then there’s “literary damage wreaked.”

  4. Well as the word מסורה suggests, the Masoretes were preserving, not innovating. Tyndale, of course, only translated less than half of the Bible before his death — and in both talent and the spelling of his surname Coverdale was only 4/9’s of a Tyndale (coverDALE). (The KJV translators had to make much greater changes to “cover” than “tyn”.) The Septuagint, by legend, was independently (but identically) translated 70 (or 72) times — in any case, there were no committee meetings that we know of. Regarding the Sidney Psalms — there is no puzzle here — Psalms 1-43 were translated by Philip, the remainder by Mary.

    Certainly corporate authorship exists — but I suspect that in most cases, there is one driving force with other assistants.

  5. I could provide many examples of works written by many authors, but you may not classify them as “good literature.”

    Also, isn’t one-driving-force-with-other-assistants what many Bible translation teams do?

  6. Fun play on “cover,” Theophrastus. It’s like a “cover band” that plays “cover songs.”

    Good follow-up question, Dannii!

    I think our notions of authorship really ought to be challenged. I’ll get to the Hebrew Bible below (and to David Rosenberg’s notion of author as individual collaborating). But the notion of authorship I’d like to challenge first is Kenneth Lee Pike’s notion in a poem, in this poem of his:

    Inkblot Poetry—A Query

    “Me, trying to say something?”
    “Oh, no—you’re just the author.
    Someone else must say
    What’s said … Right?”

    (Author’s rights
    Are semantically bankrupt,
    Faced by interpretive
    Staked-out claims
    Affirming that poems
    Are pretty inkblots
    Waiting readers’
    Dreamy impositions! …
    But
    reader “re-write” rights? …)

    “And when you are
    Saying I said—
    Are you then ‘saying’
    Something to me?”

    “No, just throwing words
    At other unhearing wordless ‘things’.”

    If you find the two contexts where Pike authors or writes this poem, then there are at least two purposes he’s intending by it. (The first is as one poem among many in a series of volumes of published poems of his, referred to here http://www.ethnologue.com/show_subject.asp?code=POE; the second is his more targeted railing against the “deconstructionism and postmodernist ideas ” of certain anthropologists and journalists, who had targeted some of his friends whom Pike himself calls “modern’ anthropologists” while quoting the postmodernists’ label “modern”; Pike’s poem is now here: http://www.sil.org/silewp/2001/001/silewp2001-001.html#condition).

    What is important here to note is that Pike’s poem is embedded in his prose. And notice how faux dialectic is embedded in his poem. Remember the irony of Sir Philip Sidney’s “Defense of Poesy” in which he uses, not poetry, but rhetorical prose, to defend poetry?

    What’s also interesting to me is how Pike would use poems in various contexts. More often than not (and perhaps always) he’d end his monolingual demonstrations with a lecture, with some Q and A from his audience on rare occasions, and with the recitation of one of his own poems. It was almost as if, for Pike, poetry added dimension to understanding or to comprehending the experience. The prose of a lecture and the back-and-forth of a post-lecture dialectic was not enough. Poetry goes beyond what the author and the audience can rightly get at by talk alone.

    So, I think, it’s quite ironic that Pike would use a poem to defend “Author’s rights.” Is he now, as author, forcing on us his readers what must be written (as if in stone, or as if some Roman saying “What I have written, I have written”)?

    —-

    I like how David Rosenberg so emphasizes the author of the Hebrew Bible. He gets at how much difference there must be in our reading when we come to understand the individual, the personal authorship of the Hebrew Bible author. And, yes, he’s saying there is a plurality of authors. But his point is that the text is not just an abstraction but is a work, a piece of art, a contract of literature, by an individual.

    And then, and yet, Rosenberg has the audacity to say that each author (i.e., of the Hebrew Bible) works collaboratively. This is to trouble his notion of the single personal author with statements like these:

    Just as Moses has transformed his Egyptian education, Exodus among other [individually authored] books is witness to the process of transformation. Most crucially, it’s a process that requires the time and discipline to wait, as more is revealed [to other writers and readers, interpreters of texts], and to persevere during forty years of a cosmic journey.

    Whether it took Moses four months or forty years to write the Torah, figuratively speaking, it also took more than four centuries to have it written down in its nearly final form. The Israelites had to establish [“as the word מסורה suggests” in other contexts] not only cities and governments in ancient Israel but also a Hebraic culture that could develop over time. So the key to the Torah is the ability to enter its cosmic narrative [through individual authorship also] in a wholly historical manner. That is, it recounts not a mythical time [as is often associated with the Greek myths, for example] but a reasonably historical reconstruction of what took place at the origin of the Covenant [with God as author, and Moses as scribe, but then Moses as author, and then others who have, over time, collaborated with Moses, even Jesus according to author, historian Rosenberg]. Certainly some things are representative rather than exact. (page 142, An Educated Man: A Dual Biography of Moses and Jesus)

  7. Pingback: Never Mind the Tagmemics « Mind Your Language

  8. Tagmemics with its classic missionary focus of “move into the culture, figure out the key points, and blast out a translation, move on to the next project” is simply the opposite the way that great literature is produced.

    Maybe if more people with linguistic and literary backgrounds would come help us…

  9. Michael, That’s quite a cry for help. What’s the mission of great literature?

  10. I think I understand your question, but can you clarify?

  11. Michael, I’m just wondering what you’d like help with. And does what you’re after have a “classic missionary focus” that’s compatible with “great literature”?

  12. Kurk wrote:
    Michael, I’m just wondering what you’d like help with.

    There are over 2,000 languages that don’t have any part of the Bible. I’d like some help to “blast out a translation” in those languages.

    But if I had my choice, I’d implement sophisticated literacy programs in each language aimed at developing a culture of good literature.

    I don’t know of any missionary who wants to “blast out a translation”. But the reality is that people are dying without ever having access to Scriptures in their own language. Once the first job is finished, of getting them Scriptures, we can stop “blasting” and start focus on the secondary goals, of developing their pool of literature. Why won’t more talented linguists and literacy specialists and classically educated people come and help us? It’s only 2,000 languages….

  13. I’d like some help to “blast out a translation” in those languages…. [for the language users to have] access to Scriptures in their own language. Once the first job is finished, of getting them Scriptures, we can stop “blasting”

    Michael,
    I understand that you are conceding that the job of giving the dying people speaking “over 2,000 languages” some translation of the Bible is somehow more urgent than “implement[ing] sophisticated literacy programs in each language.”

    Nonetheless,
    is it really okay to “blast out a translation” just as long as you avoid the so-called “strong heritage of literal translations” that you’ve noted Swahili has? How do you know SIL training (as good as it might be in, say, “Relevance Theory,”) is going to be adequate for most translators of the 2000 languages to do a fair enough job in blasting out? Is it just because the translators might avoid simply retranslating the KJV that makes the “blasting out” program preferable and sufficient?

    And once all 2000 non-literal translations of the Bible are completed, would the secondary literacy programs be easier to implement? Ever read The Violence of Literacy by J. Elspeth Stuckey?

    Where in the Hebrew Bible (or in the LXX or in the Greek NT) is there the mandate to blast out translations into every language? Aren’t such programs, rather, instituted by the likes of the conquering Greeks and colonized Egyptians of 250BC? By the Luthers, who advise avoiding the reading of Hebrew and giving the Bible to people in their own heart language as quickly as possible?

    “Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style… [O]nce he understands the Hebrew author… [then the German reader already] has the German words to serve the purpose[; therefore,] let him drop the Hebrew words, and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows… to make Moses so German that no one would suspect he was a Jew.” ?

    Really, if you were to convince “more talented linguists and literacy specialists and classically educated people ” to come and help you with the quick and dirty 2000 language Bible translation project, what Bible would you have them read first?

  14. Kurk wrote:
    I understand that you are conceding that the job of giving the dying people speaking “over 2,000 languages” some translation of the Bible is somehow more urgent than “implement[ing] sophisticated literacy programs in each language.”

    Absolutely.

    is it really okay to “blast out a translation” just as long as you avoid the so-called “strong heritage of literal translations” that you’ve noted Swahili has?

    I don’t understand. We’re not translating into Swahili.

    Where in the Hebrew Bible (or in the LXX or in the Greek NT) is there the mandate to blast out translations into every language?

    Good point. We should go into all the world and teach people Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Or just tell them what the Bible says and expect them to believe us.

    Are you being serious or just playing the devil’s advocate?

    Aren’t such programs, rather, instituted by the likes of the conquering Greeks and colonized Egyptians of 250BC?

    Conquerors generally enforce their own language, not translate things (the Bible) into the existing heart languages of the people they conquer. But thanks for the comparison.

    … to make Moses so German that no one would suspect he was a Jew.” ?

    I don’t agree with that.

    How do you know SIL training … is going to be adequate for most translators of the 2000 languages to do a fair enough job in blasting out?

    I don’t. SIL is doing what it can, though.

    Is it just because the translators might avoid simply retranslating the KJV that makes the “blasting out” program preferable and sufficient?

    I’m not sure you’ve followed what I wrote above. No one actually wants to blast out translations. We’d love to have cultures with rich literate heritages and a plethora of mother-tongue academics assisting in literacy and education, but that’s not the reality. SIL is not an organisation that is trying to monopolise Bible translation with its “blasting-out-relevance-theory” approach. It’s trying to get the Bible to the people on this planet who don’t have it.

    Really, if you were to convince “more talented linguists and literacy specialists and classically educated people ” to come and help you with the quick and dirty 2000 language Bible translation project, what Bible would you have them read first?

    What Bible would I have whom read first? In order to do what?

    I would have “talented linguists and literacy specialists and classically educated people” help in analysing the discourse of languages, and set up literacy and Scripture use programs. Currently, where I am, we have 3 linguists, 3 literacy workers, and 5 translation advisors working together on 9 related languages. It’s not ideal, but until more people come and help, this is all we’ve got.

  15. Are you being serious or just playing the devil’s advocate?… Currently, where I am, we have 3 linguists, 3 literacy workers, and 5 translation advisors working together on 9 related languages. It’s not ideal, but until more people come and help, this is all we’ve got.

    Michael,
    Thanks for the dialog! I’m not a devil or a missionary or advocate for the devil. I’m also not wanting to call into question your project or the urgency with which you seem to approach it. You may know that I’m a missionary’s kid, something I am not by choice. “Mission” and “mission-ary,” in my experience, may not necessarily always invoke the histories of those who find justification for their expansionist cause in sacred texts. But not all missionaries who are able to divorce the message that they propagate from worldly and mercenary colonization can also see how their efforts, nonetheless, are based in notions of participating in the speedy ushering in of the second coming of Christ. I’m using biblish and missionish language here. You understand what I’m saying. And you likely know not just a few missionaries who believe that once all 2000 languages have the Bible, then Jesus returns. That’s quite an urgent mission. Heart language bibles (theirs, not ours) become a means, for the missionary, to an end, that has little to do with how anyone in any language reads the Bible. In our heart language, Michael — is it English in post-colonial Australia or America — how do we find such a mission in the Hebrew Bible, or in the Greek?

    I think I hear you saying that the Swahili translation based on the King James english is inadequate. Haven’t you also said that quickly-“blasted” heart language bibles are preferable to no Bibles at all? I’m wondering where the line must be drawn. Why is it important for all 2000 languages to have “blasted out” (i.e., mediocre as if good enough) Bibles asap? Doesn’t this really change what a “heart language” is?

  16. Ah, I think I’m beginning to see some of your driving preconceptions regarding our work of Bible translation.

    Kurk wrote:
    You may know that I’m a missionary’s kid

    Yep. I’m actually a MGK myself.

    And you likely know not just a few missionaries who believe that once all 2000 languages have the Bible, then Jesus returns.

    Actually, I know not one, although I’m aware that there are people (bless their souls) who believe this. I can’t recall particularly discussing this with any of my immediate colleagues, but if this were part of our organisation’s psyche I would guess that it would come up every year at our branch conference, but it hasn’t. Perhaps there are some official SIL documents floating around that state these as our ends, but I’m unaware of any.

    So, no, I’ve never once felt inclined to look for ways to help a “speedy ushering in of the second coming of Christ.” Should I be more concerned about that?

    My personal motivation for Bible translation, in particular, has two important factors: the specific, and the general.

    The general (excuse the chiasm :)) is that I’m faced with the questions: what’s the greatest thing you could do with your life? And, why would you choose anything less? For me, the answer was to respond to the call of the Great Commission.

    More specifically, I felt that my gifts lay in language, and that I could best be used to translate the Bible for people who don’t have it. It’s hard to “make disciples of all nations” if they don’t understand what they’re supposed to follow. I think a big part of making disciples is helping people have a deep relationship with God, and I don’t think that that happens without having his message in one’s own language. Once you get out of the towns and cities in Tanzania, many don’t speak Swahili. For those who do, it’s a trade language, a pidgin/creole actually.

    I’m not motivated to “blast out” translations because of some eschatological acceleration, but because there are people here who don’t know God, or think that he’s a strange God of foreigners who only speaks a foreign language. It only takes one trip out to a Jita village to understand that the Jita people are excited to hear Scriptures in their own language, and that God cares enough about them to speak their language to them.

  17. Thanks Michael. You didn’t have to offer such an apology for your work as a Bible translator, but I’m very glad you did. For some reason, the Hebrew proverb we’ve labeled as Proverbs 14:10 comes to mind:

    לֵב–יוֹדֵעַ, מָרַּת נַפְשׁוֹ; וּבְשִׂמְחָתוֹ, לֹא-יִתְעָרַב זָר

    Doesn’t that mean something (chiasmistically) like:

    “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul; and in its joys there’s never meddling a stranger”?

    Aren’t our motives and motivations profound? Who am I to enjoy a driving preconception? I really appreciate the conversation.

    (I wonder about “knowing God” and about “Bible reading” in my “heart language.” I’m right now in the middle of reading Barbara Kingsolver’s The Poisonwood Bible. My daughter just finished it last night, and my wife is also reading it. It’s stirring much conversation. Have you read it? As an MGK, what do you think?)

  18. Pingback: Sunday Thoughts – 7/4 | The Church of Jesus Christ

  19. I just got back a couple weeks ago from our annual branch conference in Kenya. It was our Uganda-Tanzania Branch’s 10 year anniversary, so to mark the occasion we had some special guests there, including Freddy Boswell (Executive Director of SIL International) and Bob Creson (President of Wycliffe USA).

    I paid special attention to what they were saying because I was curious to see if our organisations were indeed driven by the belief that “once all 2000 [remaining] languages have the Bible, then Jesus returns.”

    For the first couple days there was a lot of talk about our Vision 2025: To see a Bible translation program in progress in every language still needing one by the year 2025. There were plenty of opportunities to mention the 2nd coming of Christ, but neither Freddy nor Bob referred to it. Then on about the 3rd day Bob was talking about Vision 2025 and why it’s important to us, and he said “our goal is to have a Bible translation program started by 2025, not finished. We have to be careful with that. We’ve been misquoted plenty of times as saying that we want to finish all the work of Bible translation by 2025 and then Jesus comes back and all that” and everyone had a laugh.

    So I guess that clarifies things for me.

    Btw, I haven’t read The Poisonwood Bible.

  20. Pingback: What Prose Says Also: Facing Text | Mind Your Language

  21. Pingback: Troubles with Jesi | Mind Your Language

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s