Pan-Germanic Logograms

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 5405
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Lambuzhao »

clawgrip wrote:Since my glyphs were rejected, I'd like to see someone else actually start making glyphs!


Who rejected them? In the best of worlds, they are just as valid as anyone else's. :wat:
Maybe it's just my opinion, but talking and talking about it won't get us very far.
:roll:

Probably the best thing to do is: first, make up a fairly sizable set of glyphs for noun, verb, and adjective morphemes, especially those that are easy to represent pictographically or ideographically, next maybe use them unaltered to represent semantically and phonetically similar words, and then next, once you have enough of them, you can figure out how you can manipulate them to differentiate different words written with the same glyphs, and how to mark declensions, conjugations, conjunctions, and so on. This is the most likely course of evolution for a logographic script anyway.
IMHO I cannot wait to see what you, I, or anyone else, can come up with! Let's get those creative juices flowing!
[:D]
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: 15 Nov 2013 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Ephraim »

Lambuzhao wrote:2) IMHO the 'classic' alphabetical runes would be used kana -like to write inflections a la Japanese hiragana, etc.
The main problem with using a true alphabet alongside the logograms is that Proto-Germanic endings can get ridiculously long, while they are often very short in the later Germanic languages. Of course, the long endings could continue to be written as in Proto-Germanic but it would look a bit strange, I think. Or they could be written phonetically like they are pronounced in the daughter languages, but then you lose the mutual intelligibility.

The Icelandic definite dative plural úlfunum could probably go back to an anachronistic form:
*wulf-amazjainamaz
> úlf-unum

Or why not:
*wulf-anjainanōn
> úlf-inn

Of course, the definite forms are a later North Germanic invention.

Or *-ijamaz > um
*brann-ij-amaz
> brenn-um
Lambuzhao wrote:
clawgrip wrote:Since my glyphs were rejected, I'd like to see someone else actually start making glyphs!


Who rejected them? In the best of worlds, they are just as valid as anyone else's. :wat:
I thought many of the glyphs looked nice. Especially the foot and eye glyphs had a runic feel to them, while looking a bit like what they represented.
User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 5405
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Lambuzhao »

Ephraim wrote:
Lambuzhao wrote:2) IMHO the 'classic' alphabetical runes would be used kana -like to write inflections a la Japanese hiragana, etc.
The main problem with using a true alphabet alongside the logograms is that Proto-Germanic endings can get ridiculously long, while they are often very short in the later Germanic languages. Of course, the long endings could continue to be written as in Proto-Germanic but it would look a bit strange, I think. Or they could be written phonetically like they are pronounced in the daughter languages, but then you lose the mutual intelligibility.

The Icelandic definite dative plural úlfunum could probably go back to an anachronistic form:
*wulf-amazjainamaz
> úlf-unum

Or why not:
*wulf-anjainanōn
> úlf-inn

Of course, the definite forms are a later North Germanic invention.

Or *-ijamaz > um
*brann-ij-amaz
> brenn-um
Before any Japanophiles/Japanophilologues jump on you, lemme just say that :jpn: formal polite verbs can be as long or longer. :jpn: Formal polite negative past verbs? Even yet still longer, and then some.

Easily.

And :jpn: uses combos of logograms (kanji) plus alphabetic/syllabic symbols (kana) 24/7.


Ephraim wrote:
Lambuzhao wrote:
clawgrip wrote:Since my glyphs were rejected, I'd like to see someone else actually start making glyphs!


Who rejected them? In the best of worlds, they are just as valid as anyone else's. :wat:
I thought many of the glyphs looked nice. Especially the foot and eye glyphs had a runic feel to them, while looking a bit like what they represented.
I thought many of the glyphs looked nice. Especially the foot and eye glyphs had a runic feel to them, while looking a bit like what they represented. [/quote]

100% of the same mind. I also dug his glyphs, and like I said, cannot wait to see more from clawgrip. [+1]
Clawsy just has this real eagle-eye for aesthetics that cannot be beat. :mrgreen:
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: 15 Nov 2013 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Ephraim »

Lambuzhao wrote:Before any Japanophiles/Japanophilologues jump on you, lemme just say that :jpn: formal polite verbs can be as long or longer. :jpn: Formal polite negative past verbs? Even yet still longer, and then some.

Easily.

And :jpn: uses combos of logograms (kanji) plus alphabetic/syllabic symbols (kana) 24/7.
I'm not too familiar with Japanese to be honest, but aren't the those verb forms long in writing because they're actually pronounced with many syllables? Doesn't kana represent the pronunciation of the modern language quite well?

If the alphabetic writing system would be fixed at the Proto-Germanic stage, it would represent the later languages quite poorly (although it would be possible to predict the pronunciation from spelling). Having long endings in writing is fine if you also pronounce them that way, but writing the common Old Icelandic ending "-inn" as "-anjainanōn" seems impractical. Well, the *jain-part perhaps could have it's own logogram.

Writing only consonants and long vowels is quite useful, because as a general rule, short vowels were lost in the later languages while long vowels often remained (there are many exceptions, of course).
User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 5405
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Lambuzhao »

If the alphabetic writing system would be fixed at the Proto-Germanic stage, it would represent the later languages quite poorly (although it would be possible to predict the pronunciation from spelling). Having long endings in writing is fine if you also pronounce them that way, but writing the common Old Icelandic ending "-inn" as "-anjainanōn" seems impractical. Well, the *jain-part perhaps could have it's own logogram.
Sorry. My point was that suffixes like /inn/ or /anjainanōn/ would not have their own logograms; they would be spelled out. Or, even if the concept of a definite article did have its own logogram, the case-morpheme would not; it would be spelled out. This is what happens with (modern) Japanese verbs.

A polite past verb e.g. wakarimashita 'understood' may be written with a kanji /wa(ku)/



And the rest /karimashita/ would be written with syllabic hiragana かりました /ka.ri.ma.si.ta/
User avatar
Adarain
greek
greek
Posts: 511
Joined: 03 Jul 2015 15:36
Location: Switzerland, usually

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Adarain »

The way I would imagine it is roots as single symbols, sometimes a combination of a sign with similar meaning and a phonetic indicator (roof could be wall + the first sound of roof), and then phonetic endings for inflections in futhark. The easiest symbols, of course, would be those directly from the futhark, which double as suffix symbol. Example with the root *haglaz "hail", name-giver of the rune ᚺ, in PGmc:

Singular:
ᚺᚨᛉ - haglaz
ᚺ - hagl
ᚺᚨᚾ - haglą
ᚺᚨᛋ - haglas
ᚺᚨᛃ - haglai
ᚺᛟ - haglō

Plural:
ᚺᛟᛉ - haglōz
ᚺᛟᛉ - haglōz
ᚺᚨᚾᛉ - haglanz
ᚺᛟᚾ - haglǫ̂
ᚺᚨᛗᚨᛉ - haglamaz
ᚺᚨᛗᛃᛉ - haglamiz

In the descendants, it would mostly be spelled just ᚺ, though in Icelandic, the paradigm remains as ᚺ, ᚺ, ᚺᛃ, ᚺᛋ; ᚺ, ᚺ, ᚺᚢᛗ, ᚺᚨ
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: 15 Nov 2013 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Ephraim »

I think the Elder Futhark would be perfect for a phonetic script with one important modification: don't write the short vowels! Also, endings reconstructed with a final nasal vowels should be written with a final *n, as it was originally pronounced. If necessary, you could add a diacritical mark to indicate a short vowel which caused umlaut (something like a Greek iota subscript for i-umlaut).

I also think it would be nice if many combinations merged into ligatures at a later stage. They would have been written with separate letters originally, though.

Imagine something like this:
Image

The ligatures would actually serve a semi-logographic role but they would be closesly connected to form and not to abstract grammatical meanings such as accusative or infinitive. I think this would help to keep the mutual intelligibility between different languages whilst saving some space.

My designs are perhaps not the greatest, but you get the idea (I borrowed the foot from clawgrip, of course).
Lambuzhao wrote:Sorry. My point was that suffixes like /inn/ or /anjainanōn/ would not have their own logograms; they would be spelled out. Or, even if the concept of a definite article did have its own logogram, the case-morpheme would not; it would be spelled out. This is what happens with (modern) Japanese verbs.
Right, I would basically agree with that.

The definite article -in- is probably from a demonstrative pronoun related to English yon, yonder and German jener. So it's not originally representing the concept of a definite article, although pronouns are somewhat abstract themselves.
Last edited by Ephraim on 21 Sep 2015 12:40, edited 1 time in total.
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: 15 Nov 2013 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Ephraim »

More examples of a way to treat the endings. Not saying the designs are that great. The fish is clawgrip's, although I probably messed it up.
Image

The ugly *d=ē=t-glyph could perhaps be split up into two: *d and *ē=t.

One of the motivations for creating the ligatures may have been that some letters had become silent, but writers still felt that they couldn't be dropped completely.

The letter ō=j would probably still be used to write the verb fish in English. It would be silent (as it is in the infinitive in Icelandic, *n=n is still /a/) but it differentiates the verb from the noun. English probably shouldn't use any singular case endings, although it could use *z for all singular forms (the 0-ending is a regular development from *-az).

The original phonetic value is actually based on a very archaic Proto-Germanic, as I think it was around 525 BC, at the time of the change of *ē > ā in Northwest Germanic according to Heikillä. This is close to the reconstruction found in Orel's Handbook to Germanic Etymology, but it differs from Ringes reconstruction on which Wiktionary is based. I think that reconstruction is anacronistic, although it is useful for most purposes (it has sound changes common to all Germanic languages even if they happened after the branches split).
clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2257
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by clawgrip »

I can think of a nice ligature/merger for d-e-t, but I am away from home for a couple days, so I can't post anything now.
User avatar
k1234567890y
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2400
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by k1234567890y »

Some examples from Urban Basanawa, a germanic conlang of mine with profound asian influence(note the pronunciation of words other than the proper names "管寧" and "華歆"):

管寧又ん華歆わるん共ん在ん働かん中ん彼等る畑、ゑん彼等見ああん一ん片ふぉん在んだ地、管寧拭あるう゚彼と如く一ん片ふぉん瓦又ん石、あく華歆取ああむ彼と上ぷだん彼投あるぷ彼と離き゚さあん。

中ん一ん他る日、ゑん管寧又ん華歆わるん在ん座いったん共ん在ん一ん蓆と読えいさん本す、一ん人だ乗いいど中ん一ん車行えん゚経か゚彼等る門、管寧ね注意だど彼と、彼行えん゚在ん読えいせぃん゚本す如く前る、あく華歆止ぷと読えいせぃん゚又ん行えん゚出とと見えいん彼、そう管寧切いいどだ蓆いん二ん又ん言か゚ど「汝びすとね我い友。」

Pronunciation(in IPA):

/'kanne: ɛn 'Kakɪn warn tə'samən an 'wɛrkən in i:r 'fɛɫt wɛn si: 'sa:n ɛn 'stɪk fɔn 'gɔɫt an də 'grʊnt 'kanne: 'swarf ɪt laɪk en 'stɪk fɔn 'tɛgəɫ ɛn 'sti:n ak 'Kaɪ̈kɪn na:m ɪt ʊp dan 'warp ɪt wɛç sa:n/

/ɪn ɛn 'ɔdər 'dax wɛn 'kanne: ɛn 'Kakɪn warn an 'sɪtən tə'samən an ɛn 'mat tə 'le:zən 'bu:ks ɛn 'man də 'ri:t ɪn ɛn 'wagən 'gɛŋk dʊrx i:r do:r 'kanne: nɛ hi:dət ɪt hɪ 'gɛŋk an 'le:ziŋk 'bu:ks laɪk bə'fo:r ak 'Kakɪn 'stɔpt 'le:ziŋk ɛn 'gɛŋk aʊt tə 'se:n dat so: 'kanne: 'sni:t də 'mat ɪn'twi:n ɛn 'saxt dʊ 'bɪst nɛ maɪ 'frɪnt/

maybe I should also post the conjugation table of examples of strong and weak verbs of Urban Basanawa:
Spoiler:
Example of strong verbs, using 見いんだん ("to find", Class III strong verb) as an example:

Infinitive: 見いんだん /'fɪndən/

Present
-1.sg: 見いんど /'fɪnt/
-2.sg: 見いんだすと /'fɪndəst/
-3.sg: 見いんだと /'fɪndət/
-1.pl: 見いんだと /'fɪndət/
-2.pl: 見いんだと /'fɪndət/
-3.pl: 見いんだと /'fɪndət/

Preterite:
-1.sg: 見あんど /'fant/
-2.sg: 見あんだすと /'fandəst/
-3.sg: 見あんだと /'fandət/
-1.pl: 見あんだん /'fandən/
-2.pl: 見あんだん /'fandən/
-3.pl: 見あんだん /'fandən/

Present participle: 見いんだんど /'fɪndənt/

Past participle: 見うんだん /'fʊndən/

Example of Weak verbs, using 作かん ("to make") as an example:

Infinitive: 作かん /'mɑ:kən/

Present:
-1.sg: 作く /'mɑ:k/
-2.sg: 作くすと /'mɑ:kst/
-3.sg: 作くと /'mɑ:kt/
-1.pl: 作くと /'mɑ:kt/
-2.pl: 作くと /'mɑ:kt/
-3.pl: 作くと /'mɑ:kt/

Preterite:
-1.sg: 作くと /'mɑ:kt/
-2.sg: 作くたすと /'mɑ:ktəst/
-3.sg: 作くと /'mɑ:kt/
-1.pl: 作くたん /'mɑ:ktən/
-2.pl: 作くたん /'mɑ:ktən/
-3.pl: 作くたん /'mɑ:ktən/

Present participle: 作かんど /'mɑ:kənt/

Past participle: 作くと /'mɑ:kt/
maybe we can think how to create a Pan-Germanic Logograms from this example.
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: 15 Nov 2013 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Ephraim »

The unstressed short vowels were often dropped in the later Germanic languages. This is one of the reasons why it's very practical to not write short vowels. This leads to the nominative singular of the masculine consonant-stem, a-stem, i-stem and u-stem being written the same. In Old Icelandic (as well as in many other Germanic languages), they're also pronounced the same, all ending in -r.

There can still be an optional system of indicating the short vowels using diacritical marks (compare Hebrew). These wouldn't normally be used, but it may be useful for learners and also in the rare cases where it's necessary to disambiguate forms. There should be a marker for *i, *a and *u, as well as zero. Ligatures may have multiple vowel slots.

The ansuz rune can be used to mark a final short vowel in Proto-Germanic. As there was no long *ā in Proto-Germanic Proper, this rune has no other use in endings.

The nominative and dative of some nouns can thus be written like this (with the optional vowel marks):
Image

Originally, all strong verbs must have had reduplicated past forms, as these descended from the PIE reduplicated perfect. In the attested Germanic languages, only Gothic reliably have reduplicated perfects and only for class 7 strong verbs. Proto-Germanic is commonly reconstructed with reduplication only for these verbs but it's not impossible that reduplication was more widespread in early PG.

In any case, reduplication of a glyph is a very useful way of indicating the strong past, as these forms often don't have any ending. This practice may have developed at a time when more verbs had reduplicated pasts, and also spread analogically to verbs that didn't have it. In the later stages, doubling the character indicates a vowel change.

The present endings in Proto-Germanic had multiple variants that differed in voicing, due to Verner's law. Different verbs took different endings depending on the position of stress in Pre-Proto-Germanic. The daughter languages levelled the alternation. As a general rule, North Germanic generalized the voiced endings and West Germanic the voiceless. Gothic seems to have followed North Germanic in having voiced endings, although the often became voiceless at a later stage due to final devoicing.

The verbs of the older Germanic languages can be written with mostly the same glyphs. There are only a few differences:
Image

Again, not sure if the glyphs the best design so feel free to redesign them.
User avatar
Znex
roman
roman
Posts: 1036
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 14:05
Location: Australia

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Znex »

The glyphs work great, although I feel like there's room for simplification; the glyphs are likely to be written more curvier than that in practice. Compare for instance cursive Chinese:
Image

with semi-cursive Chinese:
Image

with regular script Chinese:
Image
:eng: : [tick] | :grc: : [:|] | :chn: :isr: :wls: : [:S] | :deu: :ell: :rus: : [:x]
Conlangs: Hawntow, Yorkish, misc.
she/her
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Prinsessa »

Now, let's create the basic, original glyphs before we start going cursive. [:P]
User avatar
k1234567890y
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2400
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by k1234567890y »

Prinsessa wrote:Now, let's create the basic, original glyphs before we start going cursive. [:P]
maybe I can contribute some glyphs?
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: 15 Nov 2013 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Ephraim »

I imagine those glyphs are the "originals" that were carved in stone or other hard materials. Their basically modeled after the Elder Futhark, with only straight lines and no fully horizontal lines. In some inscriptions, the runes do have curved branches or bows (there is apparently a debate about which is the oldest) but I used all straight lines here because it was easier.

There are a few preserved runic manuscripts as well and the characters are still very close to what you would see carved on a stone:
Image

But after some time writing on paper or parchment, it's likely that cursive styles would develop. So that might be an interesting project for someone.

I do however imagine that the modern printed letters would be modeled after the old stone inscriptions rather than after handwritten cursive. Compare how the modern roman type capital letters are modeled after ancient roman inscriptional capitals.
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: 15 Nov 2013 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Ephraim »

k1234567890y wrote:
Prinsessa wrote:Now, let's create the basic, original glyphs before we start going cursive. [:P]
maybe I can contribute some glyphs?
Of course, if I may make some suggestions, how about:
<*nurþr-> ‘north’
<*wind-> ‘wind’
<*sunn->/<*sōwul> ‘sun’
<*stark-> ‘stiff, rigid; strong’
<*strang-> ‘tight, strict, straight; strong’
<*blē->/<*blēs-> ‘to blow’

I think the consensus is that the glyphs should be somewhat runelike.
User avatar
HinGambleGoth
sinic
sinic
Posts: 432
Joined: 01 Jul 2014 05:29
Location: gøtalandum

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by HinGambleGoth »

Ephraim wrote:But after some time writing on paper or parchment, it's likely that cursive styles would develop. So that might be an interesting project for someone.
And then Runic helvetica?, or even comic sans [D;]

It is an interesting thought, if the runes were kept as the main mean of writing Germanic, I mean the medieval younger futhark co-existed for quite some time, the text you have there is from the 14th century, and the runes were never "forgotten" either. It was mostly due to the sheer convenience since most texts where written in Latin at the time.

Image

I love these, the voicing/umlaut diacritics are really nice.

This is from a 17th century Swedish textbook, that dealt with runes, you have the Swedish lord's prayer written in runes.

Image
[:D] :se-og: :fi-al2: :swe:
[:)] :nor: :usa: :uk:
:wat: :dan: :se-sk2: :eng:
[B)] Image Image :deu:
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: 15 Nov 2013 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Ephraim »

Here's the same sentence in three different Germanic languages:

Image

Can you identify the languages and translate the sentence into English? And returning to the original question of this thread, would you consider the written languages to be mutually intelligible?
User avatar
k1234567890y
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2400
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by k1234567890y »

Ephraim wrote:
k1234567890y wrote:
Prinsessa wrote:Now, let's create the basic, original glyphs before we start going cursive. [:P]
maybe I can contribute some glyphs?
Of course, if I may make some suggestions, how about:
<*nurþr-> ‘north’
<*wind-> ‘wind’
<*sunn->/<*sōwul> ‘sun’
<*stark-> ‘stiff, rigid; strong’
<*strang-> ‘tight, strict, straight; strong’
<*blē->/<*blēs-> ‘to blow’

I think the consensus is that the glyphs should be somewhat runelike.
ok :) maybe I should just try them out?
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 5405
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: Pan-Germanic Logograms

Post by Lambuzhao »

@Ephraim

Even if these sorts of glyphs were begun during a Proto-Germanic time, I do not think the alphabetic
portion would retain the /d/ and /ō/. The /d/ for the 2PL just does not look right to me at all, considering
:got: , :non: (and remember Old :eng: as well ) would use some kind of þorn rune IMO.
The oþala looks & feels like it has too much gravitas in the descendant languages which either delete the vowel or front it. You might have mentioned somewhere that these may be optional, and I might have missed that.

**NB: Another thing to consider is this:
Wikipedia wrote: Another complication is that several shortcut forms for common words, syllables, and grammatical endings developed. One example is the use of the rune named maðr (man) for the word maðr. Another is the use of a special glyph for the various r-endings so common in Old Norse.

Thorn with a stroke was an actual attested abbreviation for the definite article, looks like in Old :eng: and :non:.

The pitchfork /m/ rune also doubled as 'Mensch' or 'maðr' .

.kgr. apparently was in vogue for 'king' (mebbe that could be represented in my Square Rune Calligraphy?


And, just like :lat: (no doubt those meddling monks influenced here) a kind of macron or dot could represent
a missing letter or two or three.


So.... there was already a somewhat robust tradition of assigning single runes , or quasi-rebuses, etc. Wiki mentions a few, tantalizing us for more - WHAT MOAR ARE THERE?

[o.O] :?:

I think the vowel ligatures make some sense, Ephraim. Only I would join them to the root as branchlets (ooh, very Yggdrasil here), like so:


Image
Spoiler:
BTW: IMHO no need to 'mark' a zero-grade form with a diacritic, as in *fotiz. Still, I liked the idea of your slash diacritic for the unmarked form, so I switched it for the crossbar /i/ and /i:/ ligatures. Wutevs. :roll:
Sure, one runs the risk of missing them/misreading them. It just seemed more natural to me that they'd branch off of the main rune somehow.
[tick] :idea: [<3] I enjoy the reduplication visually represented by the doubled glyphs. Who knows, perhaps that might have become the de rigueur way to graphically represent the Past in (at least strong) Germanic Verbs using these runes?? At least in a shorthand sort of way to circumvent spelling out the ridiculously long terminations.

:idea: [O.O] Ooh, and look what I found-

Spoiler:
Image


Of course, these are Old Norse runes, but actual attested compound runes! The article it came from doesn't say too much new, but that Runes were 'pieced together like a puzzle'.

Perhaps that's yet another parameter that could help inform the aesthetic?
:wat:
Post Reply