Language Log

20 Comments

1. J.W. Brewer said,

   May 9, 2020 @ 9:19 am

   Here's a story from 2018 describing an event at the PRC embassy in Washington at which Mr. Pittinger responded to the PRC ambassador's remarks (in a way that was critical in context) by "quot[ing] Confucius in crisp, clear Mandarin, earning a few approving giggles from the audience." https://supchina.com/2018/10/01/matt-pottinger-quotes-confucius-in-chinese/

2. Philip Taylor said,

   May 9, 2020 @ 9:41 am

   "nothing more needs to be said in praise of or in defense of the unbelievably fine Mandarin of Matthew Pottinger" — I could not agree more. Clearly he was reading the speech rather than doing it extempore or from memory (watch his eye movements) but that does not detract one iota from what was, to this non-native speaker, an exemplary performance. The one question that I am left with is : was he reading Hanzi, or Hanyu Pinyin ?

3. Donald Clarke said,

   May 9, 2020 @ 11:56 am

   I was also surprised by the comments about woodenness, etc. Although he would not be able to fool anyone on the phone into thinking he was Chinese (the linguistic equivalent of the Turing Test), his pronunciation was quite good and his tones were excellent. Of course, once he mentioned that he had attended Princeton-in-Beijing, I knew the explanation right away. No program associated with Perry Link has ever to my knowledge allowed students to get away with half-assed tones. (Perry was my 1st-year Chinese teacher.)

4. Victor Mair said,

   May 9, 2020 @ 12:49 pm

   From a colleague:

   Someone of Taiwanese origin commented, I am puzzled why people think there is "good" and "bad" or "standard" Chinese. There is only Chinese which can or cannot be understood. To which I can only say, I hope one could get a restraining order keeping them away from anyone learning Chinese!

5. David Moser said,

   May 9, 2020 @ 1:03 pm

   It's very impressive that Pottinger delivered this in Mandarn, and this blogger Spandrell rightly points out that Pottinger's Mandarin is in the "top 1% of laowai", certainly so (though I would have said top 5%). But his subsequent criticisms (and the criticisms of the non-native speakers) seem picky, and irrelevant. My experience is that native Chinese speakers notice, but largely don't care about our tone errors and pronunciation glitches. Which is not surprising. When we interact with non-native English speakers, do we cringe or silently scoff at their minor errors and or occasional blunders? No, of course not. Chinese people listening to his speech were simply less concerned with his errors than his message, and his attempt to communicate directly in their native language. Spandrell's objections, in particular, seem petty. First, in terms of word choice, there is nothing at all wrong with 传染病大流行. We use "epidemic", "pandemic", "coronavirus", "Covid-19", "the virus" interchangeably, and there is nothing that makes 疫情 the obvious choice here, especially since Pottinger in such a speech might choose to use a word that is somewhat more formal. Naturally. So why the fuss? Nor is the term 因特网 in any way inappropriate. Certainly it's not the usual PRC term and is a bit dated, but would not raise an eyebrow for a native speaker, any more than the decision to use a British term "dustbin" instead of "garbage can", or "WC" instead of "restroom", or "zed" instead of "Z" would cause Americans to tear their hair out at the outrageous usage. And as for pronouncing 父亲 with first tone on the second syllable instead of neutral, for crying out loud. That's really below the threshold, even for a native Beijinger. They would hear this teensy-tiny glitch in about the same way we hear the difference between "often" with the 't', instead of "offen", which is the way most people pronounce it. Pottinger's speech was a forthright and admirable effort; his Mandarin was not as cringe-worthy as some non-native speakers suggest.

   Having said that, it seems his effort fell flat with some Chinese, partly because the Chinese are not in the mood to be lectured to about anything, and certainly not from a US Deputy National Security advisor, and the speech came off to them as condescending and arrogant. But this is an issue of politics, pandering, and tone. (Not the five Chinese tones.) And I can well understand why many Chinese were put off by the gesture.

   Pottinger is clearly not someone who has lived in a Chinese environment for decades, using Chinese routinely in daily life. However, he's someone who has spent an enormous amount of time learning the language, and paying careful attention to pronunciation. His Chinese is indeed somewhat stilted, artificial, rehearsed, a bit unnatural. But if his Chinese sounds stiff and "textbook" style, it's because that's how he's learned the language, through textbooks and tapes and endless Mandarin class drills. So isn't that an admirable thing? Isn't it good that he made the attempt? If been struggling with Chinese for 30 years, and I'm not sure I could do much better than did. I might be able to speak more naturally than he does, but if given this task I would surely make hundreds of small mistakes of my own. I don't believe I EVER utter a single sentence of Mandarin that is 100% correct, grammatically, lexically, phonetically, or in terms of tones. I think Pottinger deserves a lot of credit, bless his heart.

6. David Moser said,

   May 9, 2020 @ 1:10 pm

   Sorry for the typos and omitted words in the above diatribe, it was typed in haste. But I'm sure my message comes through perfectly. Which sort of underscores my message, actually.

7. tom davidson said,

   May 9, 2020 @ 2:02 pm

   There are more of us "near native speakers" who graduated from Yale's IFEL Mandarin Chinese program starting back in the mid- to late 50s. Many of us toil(ed) under the radar, working for the government and the armed forces as interpreters and translators. One outstanding Mandarin speaker was my classmate Luther Deese, who before he passed away not long ago was a senior linguist for one of the alphabet agencies in the federal government in Washington, D.C., often interpreting for US and Chinese officials in senior positions. His calligraphy is also impressive.

8. Michael Szonyi said,

   May 9, 2020 @ 3:32 pm

   I was also impressed with Pottinger's speech, both its language and its content – indeed, I spoke in Chinese (online) at a public event the next day and was very worried that the conversation would shift to a comparison of our relative abilities (in which I would be judged inferior).

   I'm curious about another point. The White House website refers to the written transcript as "the Mandarin version"
   (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-deputy-national-security-advisor-matt-pottinger-miller-center-university-virginia/)

   I would have said that the link is to the written Chinese version, but that a "written Mandarin text" is not a meaningful term. What says Language Log?

9. Victor Mair said,

   May 9, 2020 @ 7:04 pm

   From dako-xiaweiyi:

   [VHM: This came two days ago, but I neglected to post it until now.]

   When I saw that Spandrell, the author, is a "European man living in Asia who blogs about the past and future of civilization," I thought "just past and future of civilization? Why such narrow interest and expertise? What does Spandrell have against pre-civilized peoples? Why not also grace us with his wise insights on astrophysics, the origins of life, music, art, architecture and theology? We all want to know."

   It's mostly unreadable. He wastes too much air time in folksy bloviation, splashing 4,300 words to tell us that he looks down on Mr. Pottinger. 看不起 Likely looks down on everybody else as well; may have something to do with why he's still in Asia.

   Truth is, I couldn't read it. I read the first few paras, skimmed a couple in the middle, and skipped to the end.

   I caught the condescending arrogance of Spandrell's critique of Mr. Pottinger's Chinese. Spanny went beyond insufferable to clownish, "Very impressive for an Anglo I must say, [I must say? Who is he pretending to be?] pronunciation was tight. I don’t give such compliments lightly [We get the signal. You have impeccably high standards of Chinese diction]. The guy is pretty good [just pretty good?]. If… very odd. His pronunciation is so textbook-ish it sounds like a text to speech generator [that's why they call it "Mandarin." It was the common working language of mandarins and not a street language.]. Tonal languages have tones, sure, and the guy nails the Mandarin tone contours. His first are high his seconds rise up and his fourth fall all the way. But you’re not supposed to! Not like that. In actual speech tones vary according to syllable length and stress and just basic rhythm. The guy sounds like an A+ student who has never actually been to China."

   Spandrell is half right. "The guy" was an A+ student. However "the guy" spent seven years in China as a reporter, a word jock, for one of the world's top newspapers. He was read by millions of people weekly.

   Spanny observed that "you're not supposed to [enunciate every tone]…" Not in a taxi, Spanny, but Mr. Pottinger wasn't in a taxi. He was speaking to millions, maybe tens of millions, many of whom also understand Mandarin as a second or third language. He was not speaking putonghua of the night market, but he was understandable by all Mandarin speakers.

   Spandrell observes that Mr. Pottinger won't be mistaken for Chinese. I wonder how long it took Spandrell to figure that out. If Mr. Pottinger were Chinese he would have already been arrested, but he's not, he hasn't been, and that's part of what the speech was about.

   The reaction of the Party is adequate evidence that "the guy's" words were understood and feared. Mr. Pottinger may not sound native, but his words move nations. The version I watched in Mandarin on Youtube had been up for nine hours with 32 thousand views and 748 comments.

   Spanny, I see you have four comments, one for every thousand words you wrote. What does your click count look like?

10. AntC said,

    May 9, 2020 @ 7:45 pm

    magisterial article by Geremie Barmé: …, China Heritage, The Wairarapa Academy for New Sinology (5/8/20).

    Wairarapa as in New Zealand? Yes, according to their About page. What's a think tank doing in deepest rural dairy/sheep/wine country? And how come I've not heard of the Academy before?

11. Neil Kubler said,

    May 9, 2020 @ 10:14 pm

    Regarding Michael Szonyi's earlier comment that "'written Mandarin' is not a meaningful term," I think the term is actually very meaningful indeed! Since there are both spoken and written Cantonese and both spoken and written Taiwanese, how can there not be both spoken and written Mandarin? Of course, Mr. Szonyi's suggested term — "written Chinese" — is commonly used and would also be acceptable, but we should always keep in mind that there are several written Chinese languages, so in my opinion terms like "written Mandarin" or "written standard Chinese" (which is, let's face it, basically written Mandarin) are clearer.

12. AntC said,

    May 9, 2020 @ 11:14 pm

    … issuing from a White House that is the viral epicentre of America’s politics of treason. That someone, anyone, at the Trump White House would have the gall to lecture anyone, even people in China’s People’s Republic, about ‘Mr Democracy’ and ‘Mr Science’ — the twin tutelary spirits of May Fourth — at the height of America’s coronavirus crisis is beyond satire. [from the Barmé piece]

    Indeed. Pottinger's initial analysis is sober. But his last few paragraphs of tub-thumping for the Trump regime are not going to age well — indeed if the speech was drafted a few weeks earlier, the remarks have not aged well in those weeks. Populism of the form of the incompetent buffoons in the White House and Downing Street is conspicuously failing to deliver the statecraft needed in a crisis. Those two countries are now suffering by orders of magnitude worse than more authoritarian regimes in China, South Korea, Singapore; or than consensus-based/non-confrontational democracies such as my own New Zealand, or Australia, Taiwan (whose recent election decisively rejected the populist Han Kuo-yu).

    Trump's populist rejection of the science and downplaying of the crisis at its start have left him hoist by his own petard: his supporters won't listen to sober advice that the threat is still very much present. It is un-American to limit personal liberties and especially to limit the economy. Even: it is patriotic to give your life for the sake of the economy. (Said by people who are at little personal risk; the effect is far more likely to push Grannie under the bus.)

    Is this what Pottinger's advocacy for May 4th 'plain speech' has come to mean? A rejection of the language of the Epidemiologists and Public Health officials as being 'Mandarins' (in the Western sense)?

13. Victor Mair said,

    May 10, 2020 @ 6:43 am

    Please, let us keep the focus on language issues. No political harangues.

14. Tianyu Fang said,

    May 10, 2020 @ 8:15 am

    Many friends in China thought his correct pronunciation of 新冠 (guān, 1st tone) 病毒 was remarkable. It's often mispronounced by native speakers (guàn, 4th tone).

15. Tyler said,

    May 10, 2020 @ 12:36 pm

    It's clear that Spandrell's animus toward Pottinger is primarily political and ideological (he is anti-American and against Western civilization, while being better disposed toward the CCP and the PRC).

    He seems to be coming from a Euro right-wing anti-American perspective. Not against Western Civilization as such, but against the modern liberalism dominated West in favor of a more illiberal version of Western Civilization, like the kind that persisted in some form on the Continent until WW2.

16. Victor Mair said,

    May 10, 2020 @ 2:02 pm

    "'Was he reading Hanzi, or Hanyu Pinyin?'" (5/10/20)

17. Victor Mair said,

    May 11, 2020 @ 8:26 am

    "Minitrue: Delete All References to US Deputy National Security Advisor Pottinger’s Speech"

    China Digital Times Posted by Sophie Beach | May 10, 2020

    https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/05/minitrue-delete-all-references-to-us-deputy-national-security-advisor-pottingers-speech/

    The following censorship instructions, issued to the media by government authorities, have been leaked and distributed online. The name of the issuing body has been omitted to protect the source.

    =====

    Strictly delete any reposts, comments, and content related to U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Pottinger’s Chinese speech from all platforms, websites, and interactive comment sections, leaving no dead corners. If any are found by the internet management office or reported by internet commentators, they will be dealt with seriously. (May 5, 2020) [Chinese]

    =====

18. David said,

    May 11, 2020 @ 10:14 pm

    Mr. Pottinger's pronunciation was indeed impressive, in particular the level of accuracy with which he reproduced the correct tones without any obvious difficulty, though it was still evident that the speech was spoken by a non-native speaker.

    I thought he could have delivered more punch had he put heavier emphasis on the calls for 德先生 (Democracy) and 赛先生 (Science) in the May Fourth movement. Instead, much air time was spent on Hu Shih and the baihua movement, and it was at times difficult to grasp the analogy he is trying to draw between speaking baihua and speaking the truth.

    Seeing the caustic ripostes made by Chinese state media, the speech was probably a success. I am not sure if a senior American official had ever delivered remarks of such length in Mandarin Chinese and the video no doubt garnered a lot of attention.

    What I found more curious was his choice of language structures in the speech. It wasn't presented in the typical style of a Chinese language speech. That said, appeal to authority is well appreciated by Chinese audiences and it was a device that Mr. Pottinger used extensively. His use of idiomatic Chinese mixed in with the style of a contemporary English language academic speech helped showcase that the speech came from his own hand and was not just a read out of someone else's work.

    There were many phrases that felt out of place when I listened, and they made much more sense when I went back to read the prepared English text on the White House web site:

    意识到民怨沸腾，中国政府拒绝签署《凡尔赛条约》。
    In a principled move that acknowledged popular anger, China refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles later that year.

    This sort of sentence is calque-like in Chinese. Modifying subordinate clauses such as in "Aware of the public anger…, the Chinese government…" are exemplary of elevated speech in English. However, the same sentence structure carries poorly in Chinese, and requires a reordering of the structure, or perhaps the explicit inclusion of a subject in the modifying clause.

    One example that particularly stood out:
    John Pomfret曾写道：“把西方的个人主义和中国的集体主义结合起来，”张彭春促成了一份所有国家适用的普世宣言。
    “Marrying Western belief in the primacy of the individual with Chinese concern for the greater good” Chang helped craft a document that would be relevant to all nations, John Pomfret wrote.

    In the Chinese, it was John Pomfret who did the marrying, rather than the intended P.C. Chang. This type of phrasing was peppered throughout the speech.

    Not using direct quotes from Chinese, and instead back translating English translations into Chinese showed a lack of attention on his part, when the original quote could be found within seconds of an Internet search:

    北京大学的儒家学者和西方文学教授辜鸿铭，嘲笑扫盲。他在1919年8月写道：“想想四万万人，九成识字，结果是什么。… 我们的美妙处境会怎样呢？”
    Gu Hongmin [sic], a Confucian gentleman and Western literature professor at Peking University, ridiculed widespread literacy for China and what it implied. In August 1919 he wrote: “Just fancy what the result would be if ninety percent of [China’s] four hundred million people were to become literate. Imagine only what a fine state of things we would have …”

    Any tone of irony was completely lost when "a fine state of things" was rendered "我们的美妙处境", which conjures an entirely positive connotation. It was doubtful whether a Chinese speaker would ever have uttered such an expression. The original was actually "要是四万万人都能读书识字，那还了得吗？…那还成个什么世界？". Another example is the use of "民为重" in the concluding paragraph instead of the widely quoted "民为贵" from Mencius.

    All this to say that it was certainly a Herculean effort to draft a speech of such depth for a Chinese audience, but I thought he could have benefited from having the remarks reviewed first by a Chinese language teacher. I wonder if other readers of the Language Log had a similar reaction to his use of language.

19. liuyao said,

    May 20, 2020 @ 6:14 pm

    Mr. Pottinger at it again, this time for Tsai Ing-wen's inauguration:

    https://youtu.be/eFx2PengDnQ?t=2589

20. Victor Mair said,

    May 21, 2020 @ 8:44 am

    Pottinger begins speaking at 43:13, again with those phenomenal tones, and hardly to be characterized as "wooden".

RSS feed for comments on this post

• Follow us on Twitter




Archives [+/–]

• • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008


• [Posts before 4/8/2008 are here]
  [Search old posts here]
  
  



Blogroll [+/–]

• • "Spoken language expert’s exuberant life of science"
  • …And read all over
  • A Linguist Goes to Law School
  • A Roguish Chrestomathy
  • A Walk in the WoRds
  • A Way With Words
  • Abecedaria
  • Alex's phonetic thoughts
  • All Things Linguistic
  • Anggarrgoon
  • Archival Sounds (British Library)
  • Arrant Pedantry
  • Ask the League of Nerds
  • Babel's Dawn (Edmund Blair Bolles)
  • Bad Language
  • BadLinguistics (Pauline Foster)
  • Between the Lines with Edwin Battistella
  • Blogamundo
  • Bradshaw of the Future
  • Bremer sprachblog
  • Building Rapport
  • Bulbulovo
  • Career Linguist
  • Child's Play
  • Citizen sociolinguistics
  • clinicallinguistics
  • Coby Lubliner's Blog
  • Cognition And Language Lab
  • Colorless Green Ideas
  • Conjugate Visits
  • DCblog (David Crystal)
  • Degelka af soomaaliga
  • Descriptively Adequate
  • dialect blog
  • Dictionary Evangelist
  • Dictionary Society of North America
  • Double-Tongued Dictionary
  • Ed Absurdum
  • Eggcorn Database
  • Endangered Languages and Cultures
  • English, Jack
  • Epea Pteroenta
  • Eternally Stressed Semanticist
  • Everything You Know About English Is Wrong
  • Evolving English
  • Far Outliers
  • Found in Translation
  • Freemorpheme
  • Fritinancy
  • Fully (sic)
  • Good Reason
  • Gordon P. Hemsley
  • Greater Blogazonia
  • Hanzi Smatter 一知半解
  • Harmless Drudgery
  • HeadsUp: The Blog
  • https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/spoken-language-expert-s-exuberant-life-of-science-20220916-p5birk.html
  • Idibon
  • Isabella Massardo Copy & Translation
  • Jabal al-Lughat
  • John Wells's Phonetic Blog
  • Johnson
  • JoshMillard.com
  • Keywords
  • Langguj Gel
  • Language Evolution
  • Language Geek
  • Language Hat
  • Language Is The People's
  • Language Jones
  • Language Trainers Blog
  • Language: A Feminist Guide
  • Lathophobic Aphasia
  • LAWnLinguistics
  • LGSA Fledgelings
  • Lingformant
  • Lingua Franca
  • Linguaphiles
  • Linguism
  • Linguistics Anonymous
  • Linguistrix
  • Literal-Minded
  • Living Languages
  • Logomacy
  • Logophilius
  • Making Noise and Hearing Things
  • Matjjin-nehen
  • Mental Floss (language section)
  • Metrolingua
  • Michael Erard
  • Motivated Grammar
  • Mr. Verb
  • Naked Translations
  • Natural Language Processing Blog
  • No-sword
  • Noncompositional
  • NPR code switch
  • Office Natural Language Team Blog
  • Omniglot – The Blog
  • Oxford Etymologist
  • Ozarque's Journal
  • Paleoglot
  • Paperpools
  • Peter Harvey, Linguist
  • phonoloblog
  • Pinyin News
  • Podictionary
  • Polyglot Conspiracy
  • Polyglot Vegetarian
  • Polysyllabic (Karl Hagen)
  • Popular Linguistics
  • Proper Words in Proper Places
  • Replicated Typo
  • Ryan's linguistics blog
  • Sauvage Noble
  • Schnaufblog
  • Sentence First
  • Separated by a Common Language
  • Sesquiotica (James Harbeck)
  • SLA Blog
  • Strong Language
  • Stæfcræft & Vyākaraṇa
  • Superlinguo
  • Talk Wordy to Me
  • Talking Brains
  • Technologies du Langage
  • Tenser, said the Tensor
  • That Munanga Linguist
  • ThatWhichMatter
  • The Babbel Blog
  • The Diacritics
  • The Engine Room
  • The Greenbelt
  • The Ideophone
  • The Language Guy
  • The Lexicographer's Rules
  • The Ling Space
  • The Lingua FIle
  • The Lousy Linguist
  • The mashed radish
  • The Ramblings of a Proto-linguist
  • The Stone and the Shell
  • The Virtual Linguist
  • The Visual Linguist
  • The Web of Language
  • The Zero Morpheme
  • Throw Grammar From the Train
  • Transblawg
  • Transient Languages & Cultures
  • Translate This!
  • Val Systems
  • Vocalized/Vocalised (Lauren Hall-Lew)
  • Web-Translations
  • Wishydig
  • Word Jazz
  • Word Journal
  • Word Porn
  • Word Routes
  • Wordlustitude
  • Wordnik blog
  • Words Are Delicious
  • Words from Sweden
  • Words to the Wise
  • You Don't Say




• Meta

  • Log in
  • RSS 2.0
  • Atom
  • WordPress

Powered By WordPress