There are 14 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
From: Shair A
1.2. Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
From: Patrick Dunn
1.3. Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
From: Patrick Michael Niedzielski
1.4. Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
From: Lee
1.5. Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
From: vii iiix
1.6. Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
From: David McCann
2a. Re: Interrogative Cases
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2b. Re: Interrogative Cases
From: John Lategan
2c. Re: Interrogative Cases
From: John Lategan
2d. Re: Interrogative Cases
From: Ben Scerri
2e. Re: Interrogative Cases
From: Roger Mills
2f. Re: Interrogative Cases
From: Roger Mills
2g. Re: Interrogative Cases
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
2h. Re: Interrogative Cases
From: R A Brown
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
Posted by: "Shair A" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:07 am ((PDT))
Moi aussi, s'il vous plaît:
[email protected]
On 29 July 2010 09:52, John Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I as well.
> [email protected]
>
> On 29-Jul-10, at 11:36 AM, Aidan Grey wrote:
>
> Yeah, what he said... me too please.
>>
>> Aidan
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>
>>> From: Daniel Nielsen <[email protected]>
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 2:56:23 PM
>>> Subject: Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
>>>
>>> ~ ! Please & thx ! ~
>>>
>>> Dan2
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>> (I don't see your address in the message, or I'd follow the
>>> instructions)
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Daniel Prohaska
>>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi! Thanks for the offer. I'd be very grateful if you could forward a
>>>> version of the PIE Lexicon to: [email protected]
>>>> Ta,
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: vii iiix
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 2:59 AM
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Re: Proto/Modern Language Documentation
>>>>
>>>> I happen to have a excel doc of the PIE lexicon which some of its forms
>>>> in
>>>> the daughter languages (like Germanic and Romance) The server won;t let
>>>> me
>>>> attach the file so if you would like the doc give me your email address
>>>>
>>> and
>>
>>> i will happily send it you or anyone. (Just put that you want th PIE
>>>>
>>> Lexicon
>>
>>> in the Title bar thing) I got this through a friend of mine so I am not
>>>>
>>> sure
>>
>>> where you could downlod it sorry.
>>>> Cheers, vii
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:11 am ((PDT))
Who *wouldn't* want such a thing? I hesitated because I don't want to
be cluttery, but --
I want one too.
[email protected]
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Shair A <[email protected]> wrote:
> Moi aussi, s'il vous plaît:
> [email protected]
>
> On 29 July 2010 09:52, John Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I as well.
>> [email protected]
>>
>> On 29-Jul-10, at 11:36 AM, Aidan Grey wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, what he said... me too please.
>>>
>>> Aidan
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>
>>>> From: Daniel Nielsen <[email protected]>
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 2:56:23 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
>>>>
>>>> ~ ! Please & thx ! ~
>>>>
>>>> Dan2
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>> (I don't see your address in the message, or I'd follow the
>>>> instructions)
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Daniel Prohaska
>>>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi! Thanks for the offer. I'd be very grateful if you could forward a
>>>>> version of the PIE Lexicon to: [email protected]
>>>>> Ta,
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: vii iiix
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 2:59 AM
>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Proto/Modern Language Documentation
>>>>>
>>>>> I happen to have a excel doc of the PIE lexicon which some of its forms
>>>>> in
>>>>> the daughter languages (like Germanic and Romance) The server won;t let
>>>>> me
>>>>> attach the file so if you would like the doc give me your email address
>>>>>
>>>> and
>>>
>>>> i will happily send it you or anyone. (Just put that you want th PIE
>>>>>
>>>> Lexicon
>>>
>>>> in the Title bar thing) I got this through a friend of mine so I am not
>>>>>
>>>> sure
>>>
>>>> where you could downlod it sorry.
>>>>> Cheers, vii
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
--
I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window
to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur
Rimbaud
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
Posted by: "Patrick Michael Niedzielski" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:07 pm ((PDT))
On ĵaÅ, 2010-07-29 at 13:58 -0700, Lee wrote:
> With so many asking, might it be a good addition to the Conlanger's Library?
>
> Lee
Completely agree. I was going to ask for a copy too, but I think we'd
be better served having it available publicly, so it's available for
future conlangers.
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Humm and Strumm <http://hummstrumm.blogspot.com/>, a Free Software 3D
adventure game for both Windows and *NIX.
freeSoftwareHacker(); <http://freesoftwarehacker.blogspot.com/>, a blog
about Free Software, music, and law.
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
Posted by: "Lee" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:10 pm ((PDT))
With so many asking, might it be a good addition to the Conlanger's Library?
Lee
--- On Thu, 7/29/10, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Patrick Dunn <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, July 29, 2010, 12:03 PM
Who *wouldn't* want such a thing? I hesitated because I don't want to
be cluttery, but --
I want one too.
[email protected]
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Shair A <[email protected]> wrote:
> Moi aussi, s'il vous plaît:
> [email protected]
>
> On 29 July 2010 09:52, John Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I as well.
>> [email protected]
>>
>> On 29-Jul-10, at 11:36 AM, Aidan Grey wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, what he said... me too please.
>>>
>>> Aidan
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>
>>>> From: Daniel Nielsen <[email protected]>
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 2:56:23 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
>>>>
>>>> ~ ! Please & thx ! ~
>>>>
>>>> Dan2
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>> (I don't see your address in the message, or I'd follow the
>>>> instructions)
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Daniel Prohaska
>>>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi! Thanks for the offer. I'd be very grateful if you could forward a
>>>>> version of the PIE Lexicon to: [email protected]
>>>>> Ta,
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: vii iiix
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 2:59 AM
>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Proto/Modern Language Documentation
>>>>>
>>>>> I happen to have a excel doc of the PIE lexicon which some of its forms
>>>>> in
>>>>> the daughter languages (like Germanic and Romance) The server won;t let
>>>>> me
>>>>> attach the file so if you would like the doc give me your email address
>>>>>
>>>> and
>>>
>>>> i will happily send it you or anyone. (Just put that you want th PIE
>>>>>
>>>> Lexicon
>>>
>>>> in the Title bar thing) I got this through a friend of mine so I am not
>>>>>
>>>> sure
>>>
>>>> where you could downlod it sorry.
>>>>> Cheers, vii
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
--
I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window
to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur
Rimbaud
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
Posted by: "vii iiix" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:56 pm ((PDT))
How would one go about making it available in the Conlangers Library?
vii
> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:02:41 +0000
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
> To: [email protected]
>
> On ¼aý, 2010-07-29 at 13:58 -0700, Lee wrote:
> > With so many asking, might it be a good addition to the Conlanger's Library?
> >
> > Lee
>
> Completely agree. I was going to ask for a copy too, but I think we'd
> be better served having it available publicly, so it's available for
> future conlangers.
>
> Cheers,
> Patrick
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: would like to have the PIE Lexicon
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:20 am ((PDT))
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 14:23 +1030, vii iiix wrote:
> How would one go about making it available in the Conlangers Library?
How about the files section of the conlang Yahoo group site? I know we
can't post messages there nowadays, but can we still upload files?
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Interrogative Cases
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:01 pm ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:00:34 +1000, Ben Scerri wrote:
> What would I call said case?
It's not a case, I think. I don't know what to call it other than
just "interrogative particle", but not "case". A case expresses
the grammatical role of a noun phrase in relation to the verb or
another noun phrase. That has nothing to do with interrogativity.
Also, it has not really become clear to me what you are going to
mark with what, and whether different forms are used. Please be
more precise.
--
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Interrogative Cases
Posted by: "John Lategan" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:49 pm ((PDT))
I love the concept of different forms for the expected answer.
In Culmærian, I refer to the question-particles ("cases") as:
the nominal, -itive/ agent-interrogative;
the 'verbal'-interrogative (for verbs);
and the predicative-interrogative. (in Culmærian, they're markers/
particles at the end of a phrase)
Is this what you were asking?
2010/7/29, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]>:
> Hallo!
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:00:34 +1000, Ben Scerri wrote:
>
>> What would I call said case?
>
> It's not a case, I think. I don't know what to call it other than
> just "interrogative particle", but not "case". A case expresses
> the grammatical role of a noun phrase in relation to the verb or
> another noun phrase. That has nothing to do with interrogativity.
>
> Also, it has not really become clear to me what you are going to
> mark with what, and whether different forms are used. Please be
> more precise.
>
> --
> ...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Interrogative Cases
Posted by: "John Lategan" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:56 pm ((PDT))
2010/7/29, John Lategan <[email protected]>:
> I love the concept of different forms for the expected answer.
>
> In Culmærian, I refer to the question-particles ("cases") as:
> the nominal, -itive/ agent-interrogative;
> the 'verbal'-interrogative (for verbs);
> and the predicative-interrogative. (in Culmærian, they're markers/
> particles at the end of a phrase)
>
> Is this what you were asking?
>
> 2010/7/29, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]>:
>> Hallo!
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:00:34 +1000, Ben Scerri wrote:
>>
>>> What would I call said case?
>>
>> It's not a case, I think. I don't know what to call it other than
>> just "interrogative particle", but not "case". A case expresses
>> the grammatical role of a noun phrase in relation to the verb or
>> another noun phrase. That has nothing to do with interrogativity.
>>
>> Also, it has not really become clear to me what you are going to
>> mark with what, and whether different forms are used. Please be
>> more precise.
>>
>> --
>> ...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
>> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
>>
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Interrogative Cases
Posted by: "Ben Scerri" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:23 pm ((PDT))
Yes John, that is basically what I was looking for, thanks.
But on your question, the particles for the unknown pieces of information
would likely be attached to the piece itself, so if the subject is unknown,
it would have the interrogative marker for it, as well as the expected
answer marker likely at the end or beginning of the sentence.
Thanks
On 30 July 2010 07:46, John Lategan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2010/7/29, John Lategan <[email protected]>:
> > I love the concept of different forms for the expected answer.
> >
> > In Culmærian, I refer to the question-particles ("cases") as:
> > the nominal, -itive/ agent-interrogative;
> > the 'verbal'-interrogative (for verbs);
> > and the predicative-interrogative. (in Culmærian, they're markers/
> > particles at the end of a phrase)
> >
> > Is this what you were asking?
> >
> > 2010/7/29, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]>:
> >> Hallo!
> >>
> >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:00:34 +1000, Ben Scerri wrote:
> >>
> >>> What would I call said case?
> >>
> >> It's not a case, I think. I don't know what to call it other than
> >> just "interrogative particle", but not "case". A case expresses
> >> the grammatical role of a noun phrase in relation to the verb or
> >> another noun phrase. That has nothing to do with interrogativity.
> >>
> >> Also, it has not really become clear to me what you are going to
> >> mark with what, and whether different forms are used. Please be
> >> more precise.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> >> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
> >>
> >
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Interrogative Cases
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:44 pm ((PDT))
--- On Thu, 7/29/10, Ben Scerri <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was thinking of an interrogation system for my conlang,
> and I came up with
> the following, but I know not what to name the three types
> of particles. I
> will show you what each does.
>
> 1. In which the Subject is unknown but expected:
> Did STEVE run to the car?
> In this we know someone ran to the car, but we do not know
> if it was Steve.
>
> 2. In which the Verb is unknown but expected:
> Did Steve RUN to the car?
> In this we know Steve went to the car, but we do not know
> if he was running,
> walking, or strolling etc.
>
> 3. In which the Object is unknown but expected:
> Did Steve run to the CAR?
> In this we know Steve ran somewhere, but we do not know if
> it was the car,
> the shop etc.
In these cases, it seems to me you could use some sort of
Emphatic-Interrogative particle that would attach to the relevant
subj/verb/obj. (Or, the easy way out, use intonation, as Engl. and many
languages do.)
>
> Furthermore, I am intending to introduce a system that has
> different
> interrogative markers per the expected answer to the
> question, in four
> forms. These four are as follows:
>
> 1. In which the expected answer is 'Yes':
> I.e. Steve ran to the car right?
Or, ...didn't he?
>
> 2. In which the expected answer is 'No':
> I.e. Steve didn't run to the car did he?
IIRC French answers #1 with oui/non, #2 with si not oui (i.e. 'that's correct')
but I'm not sure how it would say "not correct". Rather than looking for a
single word answer, why not just use "that's (not) correct".
>
> 3. In which there is no expected answer but it is still a
> Yes/No question:
> I.e. Did Steve run to the car?
Just a plain old yes-no question, no?
>
> 4. A non-Yes/No question:
> I.e. What is the thing Steve ran to?
This seems awkward in most langs. I can think of (because of the Engl. habit of
displacing the 'to'). One way around it is to simply ask "where?" (or "to
where" if your language distinguishes at/from/to where?, as some can. Or have
your interrogative pronoun 'what' (and probably all nouns) inflect for a
variety of cases-- here it would be (I think) _allative_.
>
> What would I call said case?
Except in the last instance, I'd agree with Jörg-- the others aren't cases per
se.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: Interrogative Cases
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:56 pm ((PDT))
--- On Thu, 7/29/10, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Furthermore, I am intending to introduce a system that
> has
> > different
> > interrogative markers per the expected answer to the
> > question, in four
> > forms. These four are as follows:
> >
> > 1. In which the expected answer is 'Yes':
> > I.e. Steve ran to the car right?
>
> Or, ...didn't he?
> >
> > 2. In which the expected answer is 'No':
> > I.e. Steve didn't run to the car did he?
>
> IIRC French answers #1 with oui/non, #2 with si not oui
> (i.e. 'that's correct') but I'm not sure how it would say
> "not correct". Rather than looking for a single word answer,
> why not just use "that's (not) correct".
> >
> > 3. In which there is no expected answer but it is
> still a
> > Yes/No question:
> > I.e. Did Steve run to the car?
>
> Just a plain old yes-no question, no?
> >
> > 4. A non-Yes/No question:
> > I.e. What is the thing Steve ran to?
>
> This seems awkward in most langs. I can think of (because
> of the Engl. habit of displacing the 'to'). One way around
> it is to simply ask "where?" (or "to where" if your language
> distinguishes at/from/to where?, as some can. Or have your
> interrogative pronoun 'what' (and probably all nouns)
> inflect for a variety of cases-- here it would be (I think)
> _allative_.
> >
I forgot to mention, that even in these questions, you might still want to use
the "emphatic" particle.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: Interrogative Cases
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:50 pm ((PDT))
On 30 July 2010 04:28, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > 2. In which the expected answer is 'No':
> > I.e. Steve didn't run to the car did he?
>
> IIRC French answers #1 with oui/non, #2 with si not oui (i.e. 'that's
> correct') but I'm not sure how it would say "not correct".
Actually, "si" means the opposite of what you think. As an answer to #2, it
would mean "yes he actually did run to the car", in other words "your
expectation is not correct". To say "your expectation is correct", i.e.
"indeed, he didn't run to the car", we simply use "non", although a less
ambiguous answer would be to say "en effet": indeed.
It's easy to remember if you recall that oui/si can only be used with
affirmative answers, and non only with negative answers. The meaning of the
words derives naturally from that.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: Interrogative Cases
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:03 am ((PDT))
Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:00:34 +1000, Ben Scerri wrote:
>
>> What would I call said case?
>
> It's not a case, I think. I don't know what to call it other than
> just "interrogative particle", but not "case". A case expresses
> the grammatical role of a noun phrase in relation to the verb or
> another noun phrase. That has nothing to do with interrogativity.
No, it is definitely _not_ case that is involved here.
=========================================================
Roger Mills wrote:
[snip]
>
> In these cases, it seems to me you could use some sort of
> Emphatic-Interrogative particle that would attach to the
> relevant subj/verb/obj. (Or, the easy way out, use
> intonation, as Engl. and many languages do.)
Yep - either of those would work fine.
Welsh uses word order, by fronting the what we want
confirmed or denied. So let's consider Ben's sentences.
As many know, Welsh is a VSO language; thus "Steve ran to
the car" is:
Rhedodd Steffan i'r car
Ran Stephen to the car.
If we want to make this into question, we use prefix the
sentence with the interrogative particle 'a' which is
followed by soft mutation of the initial consonant of the
verb; in speech, 'a' is normally omitted, the soft mutation
(and voice inflexion) being deemed sufficient, thus:
Redodd Steffan i'r car?
Did Steve run to the car?
To answer this we say either 'do' (yes) or 'naddo' (no).
(Welsh BTW doesn't have simple words corresponding to 'yes'
and 'know' - it varies according the form of the verb, among
other things.)
Now for the focus fronting ones:
------------------------------
Ben Scerri wrote:
[snip]
> 1. In which the Subject is unknown but expected: Did
> STEVE run to the car? In this we know someone ran to the
> car, but we do not know if it was Steve.
Steffan (a) redodd i'r car?
Here _a_ is the relative pronoun (Was it Steve who ...)
which, like the interrogative particle above, causes soft
mutation; also, like that particle, it is normally omitted
in speech, leaving only the soft mutation.
The answer is either 'ie' (yes) or 'nage' (no). This
applies to all questions that have the focus fronted before
the verb.
> 2. In which the Verb is unknown but expected: Did Steve
> RUN to the car? In this we know Steve went to the car,
> but we do not know if he was running, walking, or
> strolling etc.
Rhedeg i'r car (a) wnaeth Steffan?
[Is it] running to the car [that] Steve did?
Here we use the irregular verb 'gwneud' "to do" and the
verbal phrase becomes it object and the whole phrase,
beginning with the verb in the 'verbnoun' form, is fronted
(rhedeg = "to run/ running").
> 3. In which the Object is unknown but expected: Did Steve
> run to the CAR? In this we know Steve ran somewhere, but
> we do not know if it was the car, the shop etc.
I'r car (y) rhedodd Steffan?
"To the car" is _not_ the object; it is a prepositional
phrase which answers the question "where?" (Objects will
answer the question "what?").
If any thing other than the subject or object is fronted,
the relative particle is 'y' (or 'yr' before vowels). In
speech 'y' is normally omitted - but, unlike 'a', it does
not cause soft mutation - or any other sort of mutation.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"'Celtic' of any sort is, nonetheless, a
magic bag, into which anything may be put,
and out of which almost anything may come
. ... Anything is possible in the fabulous
Celtic twilight, which is not so much a
twilight of the gods as of the reason."
[J.R.R. Tolkien]
Messages in this topic (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
