Skip to content

Problems with translating for meaning

December 6, 2012

In some recent posts and subsequent discussion, there has been a spirited debate over the merits of translating for meaning vs. attempting to translate wordplay.

I want to illustrate the difficulties with translating only for meaning.

I took the first stanza of Edgar Allan Poe’s The Raven, which I remember being taught a schoolchild:

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
“ ‘Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door –
Only this, and nothing more.”

I used the Bing translation engine to translate this from English to Chinese (results in the comments) and then the Google translation engine to translate it back from Chinese to English (again, results in the comments).  I manually corrected the obvious errors to reflect “plain meaning.”  Here was the result:

Once bored at midnight, while I pondered weak and weary
Quaint and curious volumes of forgotten knowledge,
I nodded, almost nearly to a nap, and suddenly there came a tapping,
As if someone were gently playing, the chamber doors were rapping.
“ ‘Tis some visitor,” I muttered , “who is causing my chamber door-tapping – 
Only this, and nothing more.”

I would argue that this “translation” preserves most of the meaning and none of the charm of the original text.

Advertisements
28 Comments leave one →
  1. December 6, 2012 9:21 pm

    Bing English -> Chinese translation:

    一次在午夜無聊,雖然我思索弱和疲憊後
    很多的古樸和好奇的卷被遺忘的學問,
    我點點頭,雖然近午睡,突然傳來攻絲,
    振起一些之一輕輕地打,我的分庭門振打。
    ‘ Tis 一些訪客,’ 我喃喃自語道,’ 我室的門-攻絲
    僅這一點,並沒有什麼更多.’

    Google Chinese->English translation:

    Once bored at midnight, while I pondered weak and weary
    Quaint and curious volume of forgotten knowledge,
    I nodded, although nearly nap, suddenly there came a tapping,
    Zhenqi some one gently playing, the Chamber doors rapping.
    ‘Tis some visitor,’ I muttered Road, ‘my chamber door – tapping
    Only this, and nothing more. ‘

  2. December 9, 2012 4:50 am

    And here’s Google’s English→Hebrew→English. Homophones provide more fun without vowels:

    Once, before midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and I’m tired,
    The Rabbi strange old book of the Torah was forgotten,
    While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly sounding taps,
    As some one gently rapping, rapping at the door of my room.
    “He invites a visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at the door of my room –
    Only, and nothing is more. “

  3. December 9, 2012 9:00 am

    Is this [曹明伦 译(安徽文艺出版社1999年版本)] a legitimate translation? By your reading, Theophrastus, is it any good? Are there others?

  4. December 9, 2012 12:48 pm

    James — very funny! That’s a brilliant idea. But I was trying for something different with this “translation” — I was trying to respond to certain translators who say that the most important thing is to “preserve meaning” and that preserving word play is much less important. As any junior high school can tell you, in “The Raven” is mostly about word play, but it is hardly obscure.

    Kurk, the translation you point to is interesting, and is a serious attempt to preserve word play. I’m not sure I am in a position to critique it; to critique I would really need to suggest better wording, and my Chinese skills are not strong enough to do that. The problem, of course, is that in Chinese, one does not only want rhyme and rhythm, one wants to preserve tonal properties. This translation attempts to do it by repetition of particularly characters in different words. In English, this would be like repeating sub-units of words — e.g., television, telecast, telegram, telekinesis, telemetry, telepathy, telephone, etc. Is that the best way to translate Poe into Chinese? I’m not sure.

  5. December 9, 2012 5:38 pm

    Oh, I totally agree. And translating to preserve word play is hard. Even though I find Hebrew horrendously horrendously difficult, it’s worth it for all the wordplay in the narrative portions of the books of Moses and Joshua.

    I suppose what I was really trying to get at was that we can inadvertently generate wordplay in translation too (and that not all languages are equal at that). One would (as our automaton did) tend to assume that a Hebrew text was going to talk about the Torah or about rabbis, and although Google’s syntax obviously ended up being barbarous, this sort of wishful-thinking non-wordplay wordplay (i.e. that which was presumably inadvertent by its author) does happen in the real world (the desire from both Christian and Jewish circles to have a “son” in Psalm 2:12 springs to mind).

    But to return to our sheep, I struggle to see how translating wordplay can practicably work in all cases (or even a sufficient number of cases that the average reader notices that an instance of wordplay is genuine, rather than an accident of translation): that Johannine device of Jesus’ wordplay being misunderstood (e.g. “from above” vs “again” in ch.3) is a particularly problematic case. It seems inevitable to end up with a translation laced with footnotes, which is wonderful at one’s desk, but useless to listen to.

    Sure, there’s a big issue with modern translators that many of them can’t tell a metaphor from an idiom and end up dulling their translations needlessly, but that is on a much more translatable level of language play, and ultimately comes down to one’s being able to write good English.

  6. Suzanne McCarthy permalink*
    December 9, 2012 6:07 pm

    If more was done to translate wordplay, perhaps it would be more obvious that the text was a literary narrative developed over time in oral form, and composed with wordplay in mind, and not eternal truth in a literal sense, as in an historic first couple.

    Maybe there should be less “just reading” the text, and more footnotes.

  7. Chrysostom permalink
    December 10, 2012 9:33 am

    If the author(s) of Genesis 1-2 didn’t intend to describe the creation of the world in six days, culminating in the creation of a historical first couple (which, to the author[s], was eternal truth), the interpretation of the Bible is both pointless and hopeless. The mere presence of some wordplay doesn’t change this fact. Whether one believes the narrative or does not is a different matter.

  8. December 10, 2012 10:20 am

    If more was done to translate wordplay, perhaps it would be more obvious that the text was a literary narrative developed over time in oral form, and composed with wordplay in mind, and not eternal truth in a literal sense, as in an historic first couple. – Suzanne

    If the author(s) of Genesis 1-2 didn’t intend to describe the creation of the world in six days, culminating in the creation of a historical first couple (which, to the author[s], was eternal truth), the interpretation of the Bible is both pointless and hopeless. The mere presence of some wordplay doesn’t change this fact. – Chrysostom

    One of my mentors, Kenneth L. Pike, used to get us talking about “talked about reality.” The game was very serious because he got us all interested in how scientists, for example, would vary they way they would “mean” a real thing, talking, for instance, of “light” sometimes as particle, other times as wave, and even other times as if in some sort of Gestalt like “field and ground” relationship with yet something else. This is very far from the sort of Greek sophistry that Plato’s Socrates would rail against. Pike would warn something when the “emphasis shifts to the units themselves” (i.e., units like יום and אדם and even אשה – which we might in English translate or transliterate as literal day as adam as eve), cautioning: “Yet even here the hopeless attempt to eliminate the observer in favor of scientific detachment or of objectivity is dismal” (Linguistic Concepts, page xii). Whether we readers and listeners as other observers are “insiders” (emic) or “outsiders” (etic) is critical too, Pike would say. And so, with wordplay, he added other cautions when writing of The intonation of American English – page 22:

    Various types of word play, however, depend for their success upon the exact opposite, that is, a lack of balance between content and intention or attitude. If one says something insulting, but smiles in face and voice, the utterance may be a great compliment; but if one says something very complimentary, but with an intonation of contempt [which insiders but not outsiders would get], the result is an insult. A highly forceful or exciting statement in a very matter-of-face intonation may, by its lack of balance, produce one type of irony.

    In my opinion, then, when a translator decides what the author intends as fact (and decides quite apart from the original author[s] also what must be fact), much gets lost. All of us readers of the Hebrew Bible are outsiders, and some of us more outside than others. Are the Hebrew phrases we reduce to particles (like “day” and “Adam” and “Eve”) no more than placeholders for sure reality, i.e., our very own reality? Adele Berlin advises (in Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative – page 13): “Above all we must keep in mind that narrative is a form of representation. Abraham in Genesis is not a real person any more than the painting of an apple is real fruit.” And Bible translator Phillis A. Bird might give us some aim (“Translating Sexist Language as a Theological and Cultural Problem,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 42 (1988), page 91): “The aim of the Bible translator, in my view, should be to enable a modern audience to overhear an ancient conversation, rather than to hear itself addressed directly.” If we come to Genesis 1-2 as if we are insiders, understanding absolute reality absolutely with all objectivity, then the great irony is that we might miss out on what could be the real insider’s intended disjuncture of “balance between content and intention or attitude.”

  9. December 10, 2012 12:33 pm

    Kurk, the translation you point to is interesting, and is a serious attempt to preserve word play. I’m not sure I am in a position to critique it; to critique I would really need to suggest better wording, and my Chinese skills are not strong enough to do that. The problem, of course, is that in Chinese,… In English, this would be like…. Is that the best way to translate Poe into Chinese? I’m not sure. – Theophrastus

    translating to preserve word play is hard. Even though I find Hebrew horrendously horrendously difficult, it’s worth it for all the wordplay in the narrative portions of the books of Moses and Joshua. [/] I suppose what I was really trying to get at was that we can inadvertently generate wordplay in translation too (and that not all languages are equal at that). – James Dowden

    Thank you for your respective comments. Translational wordplay can be so very complex, and then so very rewarding, just to bring out what the outsider overhears. The LXX translator, outside of Jerusalem, as an outsider of Egypt all over again, an outsider to the Alexandrian Greek empire, is rather poetic, rather playful, nonetheless, with the Hellene. Take a look below at the eloquence, the elegance, the rhymes and the rhythms and the alliterations, not all Hebraic and yet not all without Hebraisms either. My English below is trying to “read” the Hebrew and the Hellene a little differently. And yet again, it’s English wordplay that’s not real English at all, except I can vouch at least that as a native English speaker, I’m doing something with these words so in the likeness of the Greek and somewhat a resemblance of the Hebrew. So see how I’m avoiding fe-male as a re-making of male since neither the Greek nor the Semitic requires this sort of language by which wo-man is a remade word from man (hence, boy and girl) –

    ויברא אלהים את־האדם
    בצלמו בצלם אלהים ברא אתו
    זכר ונקבה ברא אתם

    So God made Humankind:
    God’s semblance, the resemblance, he made him,
    Boy and girl he made them.

    καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον
    κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν
    ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς

    And God created Human Being
    A god likeness was this created thing
    As girl and boy were these created things

  10. Chrysostom permalink
    December 11, 2012 3:45 am

    JK Gayle: I might not agree with your conclusions, but, by God, they were well-reasoned and well-stated. I think I like this blog, if only for the level of discourse found in the comments. On how many other blogs does one quote from scholarly journals in response to a one-sentence, half-baked reply?

    I suppose it’s a sign you’re drowning in academia, too. But there are worse ways to go.

  11. Chrysostom permalink
    December 11, 2012 4:06 am

    I just read your second post: to me, it is plainly obvious that “male and female” or “man and woman” are much better translations of the wordplay – down to the very construction of the words – than anything else; most languages can not translate the wordplay in this instance properly (German, for example), of אּישׁ and אִשָּׁה: “for she shall be called woman [‘ishshah], because she was taken out of man [‘ish]”.

    “Boy” and “girl” captures none of the wordplay whatsoever, and cripples our language unnecessarily, equating it with languages where words for “man” and “woman” are completely different – unlike Hebrew, and like Greek. When wordplay can be translated with no damage to the meaning, it should. Other languages can translate other puns that we can not, and can not translate what we can: our own English can translate this one.

    God man mankind;
    [In] God’s image, resembling God, he made him;
    Male and female he made them, OR, Man and woman he made them.

    I have a feeling, though, that I’m missing something, as I’m a mere Catholic seminarian, and languages, especially Hebrew, are not my strong suit (the above post stretches my Hebrew beyond its limit; I needed BDB a few times in there).

    With a little more poetic license, the Greek:

    And created by God was the humanity – there goes the poetic license…

    Let’s try again:

    Humanity was created by God;
    [And humanity] itself was created [as the very] icon of God
    OR [And humanity] itself, [a] created thing, was [an] icon of God
    Male and Woman were these creations.

    I just don’t like “boy” and “girl” there; but, by juxtaposing “male” with “woman”, a similar purpose is achieved, and is not incorrect, as there is no similarity between the Greek referring to each.

  12. Chrysostom permalink
    December 11, 2012 4:07 am

    I didn’t translate the “kai”. Sorry.

  13. December 11, 2012 4:11 am

    LOL, Chrysostom. Looks like you’ve found us somewhere between Edie Brickell (“Shove me in the shallow water / before I get too deep”) and Kate Chopin (“Perhaps Doctor Mandelet would have understood if she had seen him—but it was too late; the shore was far behind her, and her strength was gone.”) Welcome here!

  14. Chrysostom permalink
    December 11, 2012 4:15 am

    And maybe “Icon” should be capitalized, or even spelled after the Greek and Byzantine fashion, “Ikon”, being used in a technical religious sense here, that men are the living ikons of God as an ikon of a saint is to the saint himself. I imagine that’s the translation choice that would receive the most flak, or praise. It’s one I’ve never seen before, but have always wanted to put forth after first reading the LXX in Vaticanus Graecus 1209 (i.e. Brenton’s Greek interlinear) as an Orthodox; it seems very harmonious with the entire sense of the passage, and, indeed, with the entire Scriptures (at least from a Christian perspective of II Nicaea, where an ikon is a /good thing/ and not idolatry).

    Mods, please feel free to collapse these posts in to one.

  15. December 11, 2012 4:21 am

    I didn’t translate the “kai”. Sorry.

    Well, for Genesis 2:23 I think your “woman” and “man” are better translations than the mere Greek for that – καὶ εἶπεν Αδαμ τοῦτο νῦν ὀστοῦν ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων μου καὶ σὰρξ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός μου αὕτη κληθήσεται γυνή ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήμφθη αὕτη

  16. Chrysostom permalink
    December 11, 2012 4:29 am

    “And Adam said accordingly: ‘Now this is the bone of my bones, the flesh of my flesh: she shall be called ‘woman’, because she was created from ‘man'” – Now, here, I believe this is unavoidable to claim the punning of the Hebrew on ‘ish/shah, even if the pun doesn’t carry over in to the Greek; but, my first claim is based on there mere /structural similarity/ between the constructions of “woman” from “man” and “‘ishshah” from “‘ish”; the languages parallel each other here, allowing the translation of a pun that can not be captured otherwise, and can not be captured in a language that does not have parallel “wo/man” nouns for gender, where, metaphorically (or should I say “literally”, which means, “metaphorically”), one of the words is “taken out” of the other.

  17. Chrysostom permalink
    December 11, 2012 4:34 am

    Or, literally, “bone of my bones, flesh of the flesh”. Is there some pun in there I’m not getting, that the constructions aren’t parallel?

  18. December 11, 2012 4:45 am

    Yes, you seem to be onto the rich generative Hebrew wordplay. But back to Genesis 1:27, do you see how the Greek adds play with the alliteration of θ – which my English God, god, and girl tried to reflect? The Hebrew there is a good bit different, and yet it gets profoundly more playful when the adam is talking about the woman in 2:23.

  19. Chrysostom permalink
    December 11, 2012 5:20 am

    So, you would like:

    Humanity was created by God;
    [And humanity] itself was created [as the very] icon of God
    OR [And humanity] itself, [a] created thing, was [an] icon of God
    These creations were Boy and Girl.

    or,

    Humanity was created by the God
    Created as an Ikon of the God
    Created as the Boy and the Girl,

    Or any of infinite possible permutations ending each line with “God” or “Girl”?

    (To retain the alliteration, as I believe I have a shaky grasp upon the understanding of it.)

    The problem for me with “boy” and “girl” is the images they conjure to mind: “Jack and Jill ran up the hill” and/or “Hardy Boys” and “Nancy Drew”. An image of childhood, childishness, fairy-tales, and immaturity; whereas – without the text demanding it – I assume “man” and “woman” to be either archetypal humanity, archetypal humanity represented in an adult man and an adult woman, or an adult man and an adult woman (in reverse order of preference: by reading the creation account in Gen 2 back in to the parallel account in Gen 1:26-27 in unity, as “all Scripture has God for its author”*).

    (I’m one of /those/ who believes that it’s one united creation account [room hushes and pin drops].)

    *”[S]ince everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit…” /Dei Verbum/ §11, so my exegesis tends to be strongly “canonical”.

  20. Chrysostom permalink
    December 11, 2012 5:27 am

    From “Church Revolution” (churchrevolution.wordpress.com):

    ‘The point however though is that a quiet revolution is taking place in Biblical Exegesis. The dry commentaries we’ve all gotten used to are going to be on the out, and the deeper, richer, Matthew Henry type stuff is going to come back in. It goes under different names “intertextuality,” “Canonical exegesis,” “Biblical Theology,” “Imagery,” “Typology,” but really all of these things are related — they are looking at how the Bible interprets itself from front to back.’

    In a nutshell, that’s the kind of exegesis I am to do, although on a grander scale: reading Gen 2:22f back in to Gen 1:26-27 is just about the smallest possible application of this “canonical exegesis” (now I have a word for it!; I always liked to call it “classical exegesis” or “[neo-]Patristic exegesis”). Oh, look – I’m a Catholic who is putting in to practice the principle of “Scripture interprets Scripture”: what an oddity!

  21. December 11, 2012 6:39 am

    Oh, look – I’m a Catholic who is putting in to practice the principle of “Scripture interprets Scripture”: what an oddity!

    Is there something peculiar about the Bible texts for you? Or would you let the texts of Poe interpret the texts of Poe?

  22. Chrysostom permalink
    December 11, 2012 12:20 pm

    Poe didn’t mean what Poe wrote, everyone knows that. Poe didn’t even exist; he’s just a literary device to enable reader-response and de-re-deconstruction of the text. At least that’s what my English professor said.

    Actually, there is something peculiar to be predicated of the Biblical texts, in relation to other anthologies, where the analogy would be more apt: who would use one author in an anthology to force an interpretation upon another author? Now, what if the anthology we were talking of was the Western canon? Using Dostoevsky to interpret Shakespeare, from the Bible-as-literature point of view, is much the same as using J to interpret E (being roughly the same distance apart in time, if one accepts the existence of J; I learned from Friedman’s book), let alone using the New to interpret the Old, or any of myriad other possibilities.

    As long as the underlying assumption is one of unity, of one author, and, in the jargon of fiction, a reliable narrator, no, the Bible is no different from any other infallible collection of texts written by the same author. Thus the presupposition that the Biblical texts are a unified document with one ultimate author: the secular and sometime modernist presupposition being against inspiration after such a fashion, I take pains to point it out, ‘else my ranting makes as little sense as the interpretation of Chaucer or Mallory through the lens of Kafka or Sartre. Existential Arthurianism, anyone?

  23. Chrysostom permalink
    December 11, 2012 12:27 pm

    Oh, and as for the topic, on the Greek text of Gen 1:27 taken in isolation, restating my question above, you would say that something such as:

    Humanity was created by the God:
    Created man as an image, as the Ikon of God,
    Created them as Boy and as Girl.

    Would better capture part of the wordplay (while diminishing the Gen 1:26f-Gen 2:22f connection) better than a traditional translation? I’m not sure many readers are astute enough to pick up on the trinity of letters – I certainly was not until it was pointed out, not even in the Greek – but I suffer not myself to enforce my clumsiness upon others.

  24. December 11, 2012 1:45 pm

    Using Dostoevsky to interpret Shakespeare, from the Bible-as-literature point of view

    My co-blogger Theophrastus, writing this post, is sharing his experiment of meaning-translation as not altogether meaningful. He agrees somewhat that the Chinese translation I linked to “is a serious attempt to preserve word play.” The example of Poe’s “The Raven” as a form-meaning composite is an excellent one, and the use of machine-language translation into Chinese and back is just brilliant! As Theophrastus concedes, Chinese and English do not very well match, and wordplay is tough. The way English-Chinese scholars Tony Barnstone and Chou Ping (in their Anchor Book of Chinese Poetry) put that is by using a rather forceful metaphor:

    The Chinese poem [translated] in English is like a stolen car sent to a “chop shop” to be stripped, disassembled, fitted with other parts, and presented to the consumer public with a new coat of paint. But despite its glossy American exterior, it’s a Chinese engine that makes this vehicle run, and fragments of the poem’s old identity can be glimpsed in its lines, the purr of its engine, the serial number, which we may still be able to read.

    So the larger discussion here, if we can return to it, is how translation interprets. Theophrastus has lamented that “Chinese poetry is taught as literature, and Biblical poetry is taught as semantics”; he has also said, “This notion that sound is at the heart of poetry is a point that should be emphasized in Biblical studies.” Sound gets at some of the wordplay, whether in Poe-as-literature, Dostoevsky-as-literature, Shakespeare-as-literature, or Zongyuan-as-literature. And, yes, even whether the Bible.

    So it’s interesting to compare how translators treat the Bible and other literature. In a follow to some of the things Theophrastus has stressed, I posted on “How Chinese poetry and biblical poetry sound good in English” when Barnstone and Chou Ping and when Everett Fox have translated.

    restating my question above, you would say that something such as:

    How you are “saying” the Greek translation of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:26 is interesting. I don’t disagree with you that it’s helpful to have the English of 1:26 somehow informed by the English of 2:23. And I can go along with your decision to move God and girl to the end of the lines. But it’s unhelpful, in my view, to drag the English article in front of God with a capital letter, and unnecessarily to capitalize the other words you do (unless you make everything all caps), and merely to transliterate εἰκόνα as Ikon or even “icon” is to lose much and to throw all in all the wrong religious directions just as παράδεισος might become Paradise or βαπτίζειν might reduce to Baptists or καθολικός to Catholics and so forth and so on. Please know that I wouldn’t be so critical here if this were a translation you yourself were developing; aren’t you asking if I “would say” the wordplay in Greek works that way in English? To be clear, for the reasons mentioned, I wouldn’t. Please know I wasn’t dodging your “question” the first time; I just didn’t understand (what) you were asking me.

  25. Chrysostom permalink
    December 12, 2012 4:49 am

    Apologies for getting off-topic, and, as well, I did not believe you to have dodged any question, but only that it had become lost in the back-and-forth of the comments here, buried.

    My attempt at that, translating as “ikon”, was just that – an attempt to translate for meaning and wordplay at the same time (as was moving God/God/girl to the ends of the lines, trying to make the assonance a little bit more visible); do you believe that it is just plain incorrect, or that the word “icon” or “ikon” has too much theological baggage attached to it, and, for that reason, ends up eisegeting any entire theology in to the text that is not present in the text? (I had a third option, but can’t remember it.)

    And I know absolutely nothing about Chinese, except that one can write a poem by using the same Chinese character over, and over, and over again. I think.

    But, insofar as a translation of the Septuagint, I was, half-consciously, attempting to do as the Anchor Book of Chinese Poetry states, to bring over “…fragments…of [its] old identity”. “Icon” wouldn’t work in the Hebrew, even by my lights. I suppose our failure (neither of our translations were actual English, or even Biblish) as well as the machine translation of Poe vindicate, for now, Theophrastus’s thesis: traddutore, tradditore.

  26. Chrysostom permalink
    December 12, 2012 4:57 am

    Please know that I wouldn’t be so critical here if this were a translation you yourself were developing…

    That’s why I start translating the Bible once a day and finish zero per lifetime: King James was a scholar and a gentleman, and I am not. (That is, I can not make, “out of many good translations, one principle good translation, not to justly be excepted against”, but, instead, out of many good and bad translations, one principle poor one. Maybe it has to do with my shaky grasp of Hebrew, English, and Greek.)

  27. December 13, 2012 5:14 pm

    do you believe that it is just plain incorrect, or that the word “icon” or “ikon” has too much theological baggage attached to it

    Especially in the context similar to Hesiod’s Theogony, where gods are generating the heavens and the earth (i.e., the context of the Greek rendering of the first book of Moses called “Genesis”), there’s theology. But the later Christian “icons” make the semantic baggage too heavy (and that’s not even getting to the other meanings of the Greek word noted even by wikipediaists for LXX).

Trackbacks

  1. Ça marche comme ça: The Humanity of Google Translate | BLT

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

%d bloggers like this: