[email protected]

Y'know how Chaucer is sold often in side-by-side versions, modern English on
one page and the original Middle English facing it?

Check this out!
Enough time has passed. Shakespeare is now available translated side-by-side.

http://www.sparknotes.com/buy/nofear/excerpts/tamingshrew.html

Interesting. Probably within some current lifetimes the plays might be
performed or filmed that way.

I found it trying to find maybe an online count of how many times the word
"chat" is used in The Taming of the Shrew.

Sandra


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Emile Snyder

On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 13:46, SandraDodd@... wrote:
> I found it trying to find maybe an online count of how many times the word
> "chat" is used in The Taming of the Shrew.

Another interesting resource for that sort of thing is
http://www.gutenberg.net where you can find public domain text files of
lots of out of copyright books. Great for classical literature. A
quick spin with a text editor search tool and the 'chat' count is yours!
They report having over 12,000 texts available at this point.

-emile

jimpetersonl

How depressing.
~Sue

> Y'know how Chaucer is sold often in side-by-side versions, modern
English on
> one page and the original Middle English facing it?
>
> Check this out!
> Enough time has passed. Shakespeare is now available translated
side-by-side.
>
> http://www.sparknotes.com/buy/nofear/excerpts/tamingshrew.html
>
> Interesting. Probably within some current lifetimes the plays might be
> performed or filmed that way.
>
> I found it trying to find maybe an online count of how many times
the word
> "chat" is used in The Taming of the Shrew.
>
> Sandra

jimpetersonl

Four.

Act II, Scene I
PETRUCHIO
Now, by the world, it is a lusty wench;
I love her ten times more than e'er I did:
O, how I long to have some chat with her!

PETRUCHIO
Marry, so I mean, sweet Katharina, in thy bed:
And therefore, setting all this chat aside,

Act III, Scene II
PETRUCHIO
Good sooth, even thus; therefore ha' done with words:
To me she's married, not unto my clothes:
Could I repair what she will wear in me,
As I can change these poor accoutrements,
'Twere well for Kate and better for myself.
But what a fool am I to chat with you,


Act V, Scene II
LUCENTIO
At last, though long, our jarring notes agree:
And time it is, when raging war is done,
To smile at scapes and perils overblown.
My fair Bianca, bid my father welcome,
While I with self-same kindness welcome thine.
Brother Petruchio, sister Katharina,
And thou, Hortensio, with thy loving widow,
Feast with the best, and welcome to my house:
My banquet is to close our stomachs up,
After our great good cheer. Pray you, sit down;
For now we sit to chat as well as eat.

Plus "chattering"

Act IV, Scene II
TRANIO
Ay, mistress, and Petruchio is the master;
That teacheth tricks eleven and twenty long,
To tame a shrew and charm her chattering tongue.

~Sue

> I found it trying to find maybe an online count of how many times
the word
> "chat" is used in The Taming of the Shrew.
>
> Sandra

Sondra Carr

Those have been around a while. We had them when I was in high school. And
there are a lot of versions of Shakespeare being performed with original
text in current settings, with modern English in a variety of settings and
twists, not to mention all the different work that references the originals.
Why is that depressing to you?



Sondra







-----Original Message-----
From: jimpetersonl [mailto:jimpetersonl@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 5:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: Shakespeare in translation





How depressing.
~Sue

> Y'know how Chaucer is sold often in side-by-side versions, modern
English on
> one page and the original Middle English facing it?
>
> Check this out!
> Enough time has passed. Shakespeare is now available translated
side-by-side.
>
> http://www.sparknotes.com/buy/nofear/excerpts/tamingshrew.html
>
> Interesting. Probably within some current lifetimes the plays might be
> performed or filmed that way.
>
> I found it trying to find maybe an online count of how many times
the word
> "chat" is used in The Taming of the Shrew.
>
> Sandra









"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.

Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com







Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1291vcc1m/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705081972:HM/EXP=1097188478/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http:/compa
nion.yahoo.com> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2128215/rand=437637222>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscrib
e>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

How depressing.
~Sue

> Check this out!
> Enough time has passed. Shakespeare is now available translated
side-by-side.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

I don't think it's depressing. When Shakespeare-study was the big rage, 19th
century, it wasn't so archaic. Now people have a hard time understanding
some of the language in 19th century writing, so Shakespeare is REALLY old.

It's easier for people who grew up memorizing chunks of the King James Bible,
but that's fading too (both the translation and the memorization).

And with it side by side, people can look over to see what's what in a really
easy fashion.

I think it's cool.

There are Shakespeare and unschoolers stories here:
http://sandradodd.com/strew/shakespeare
http://sandradodd.com/shakespeare


Sandra


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

I just want to know why Sandra was looking for 'chat' in Shakespeare in the
first place!

Karen


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sondra Carr

I agree - I love the traditional interpretations and find it fascinating
that my children can even follow them - but I also love the modern
interpretations in all their varied creativity. I love how language evolves
and also love many of its archaic forms. I don't think you have to choose
with these things - although in art school there was plenty of choosing
sides on these issues. I, again, found myself in the middle kind of liking
them both.

Sondra







-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: Shakespeare in translation





I don't think it's depressing. When Shakespeare-study was the big rage,
19th
century, it wasn't so archaic. Now people have a hard time understanding
some of the language in 19th century writing, so Shakespeare is REALLY old.


It's easier for people who grew up memorizing chunks of the King James
Bible,
but that's fading too (both the translation and the memorization).

And with it side by side, people can look over to see what's what in a
really
easy fashion.

I think it's cool.

There are Shakespeare and unschoolers stories here:
http://sandradodd.com/strew/shakespeare
http://sandradodd.com/shakespeare


Sandra





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/6/2004 5:10:10 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
jimpetersonl@... writes-=-

=\=Four.
O, how I long to have some chat with her!
. . .
And therefore, setting all this chat aside,
. . .
But what a fool am I to chat with you,
. . .
For now we sit to chat as well as eat.
. . .
Plus "chattering" :
To tame a shrew and charm her chattering tongue.=\=

======================

Interesting. Thanks for pulling those! That's a lot of "chat" for one play.
<g>
I'm not thinking of it being used in others of his, but I'll kinda keep an
ear out from here on.

Sandra


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

jimpetersonl

It's the loss of language ability and the "need" for translations (as
well as the loss of the cadence) that I find depressing.

It's that (look at the sample from the webpage) Shakespeare is just so
much better in the original Klingon.

~Sue

> Those have been around a while. We had them when I was in high
school. And> there are a lot of versions of Shakespeare being
performed with original> text in current settings, with modern English
in a variety of settings and> twists, not to mention all the different
work that references the originals.
> Why is that depressing to you?
> Sondra

>
> How depressing.
> ~Sue

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/6/2004 6:18:32 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
tuckervill2@... writes:
I just want to know why Sandra was looking for 'chat' in Shakespeare in the
first place!
================

Why not?

I was listening to The Taming of the Shrew (which has to go back to Hollywood
Video tomorrow, and the word was used three times. I knew they had not used
the full text, and wondered if "chat" also appeared in some left out lines.

Apparently yes!

If I never looked at what I was wondering about, I would have never found the
thousands of side paths that have taken me to finding so many other things.

The guy who played Kate's dad also played Rodrigo's dad in El Cid. That was
cool.

Sandra


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

jimpetersonl

No fear. The "chat"s have been removed in the "translation."
~Sue



> Interesting. Thanks for pulling those! That's a lot of "chat" for
one play. > <g>> I'm not thinking of it being used in others of his,
but I'll kinda keep an > ear out from here on.
> Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/6/2004 7:30:34 PM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

I was listening to The Taming of the Shrew (which has to go back to
Hollywood
Video tomorrow, and the word was used three times. I knew they had not used
the full text, and wondered if "chat" also appeared in some left out lines.



~~~

That's what I wanted to know. Curious. It sent me on some little rabbit
trails, myself. But I didn't look anything up.

Thanks.
Karen


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sondra Carr

I think you're right - it is more beautiful in its original form, but I also
think that falling in love with other versions sort of leads you to the
original, to discussions of language, and by its comparison with the newer
interpretations, to a real understanding of the aesthetic possibilities of
poetic form.



Sondra





-----Original Message-----
From: jimpetersonl [mailto:jimpetersonl@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: Shakespeare in translation




It's the loss of language ability and the "need" for translations (as
well as the loss of the cadence) that I find depressing.

It's that (look at the sample from the webpage) Shakespeare is just so
much better in the original Klingon.

~Sue




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

I've seen them for sale at Kmart. Next to the snack bar. :)

Deborah in IL





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/6/04 6:36:32 PM, jimpetersonl@... writes:

<< It's the loss of language ability and the "need" for translations (as

well as the loss of the cadence) that I find depressing. >>

People can't read Anglo Saxon without much study, and it's not the "native
language" of any living person. But it is English.

People can't read Middle English without much study (less than Anglo Saxon),
and it's not spoken at all, except SOME is recognizeable still. But it is
English.

Shakespeare was writing 400 years ago, and no living person speaks that way
anymore, and so it is no one's "native language."

-=-It's that (look at the sample from the webpage) Shakespeare is just so

much better in the original Klingon.-=-

So is Beowulf, they say. I'm not learning Anglo Saxon for that, though.
I did learn Middle English enough to read Chaucer aloud in the "right"
(reconstructed, guessed-at) way and to understand it. Whoopty do! There were jokes
you had to understand Middle English to get, and some nice rhymes. It was
like playing a game, learning a historical thing for fun.

To acknowledge that only SOME people have an interest in words for the
historical sake of words is just being open to the idea of multiple intelligences.
I think it's probably unfair that scholars cling doggedly to the idea that
knowing some Shakespeare is necessary for being a well-rounded, educated person.
I love Shakespeare, but I don't fault people who don't.

Maybe Shakespeare SHOULD go the way of Chaucer. People do fine in life
without being able to qoute or reference The Canterbury Tales. People do fine
without knowing Mozart's operas (or anyone else's). People can do fine without
Shakespeare.

But if Shakespeare IS to be "required" and if the stories ARE important, then
translations are a good thing. And the huge benefit of a side-by-side
translation is that someone can be reading along and as soon as they don't
understand something they can look at the other side.

I have a Bible with four translations, and all across the open two pages.
It's one of the coolest books!

Sandra

Paula Sjogerman

on 10/6/04 7:37 PM, [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote:

> I don't think it's depressing. When Shakespeare-study was the big rage, 19th
> century, it wasn't so archaic. Now people have a hard time understanding
> some of the language in 19th century writing, so Shakespeare is REALLY old.


Here's what I see as the problem: it's not the plots that are special about
Shakespeare, it is the language itself. Take that away and you just have
some rehashed old stories.

Paula

April M

Actually, what's really cool about Shakespeare is that the stories are
timeless....our drama group has taken Shakespeare and performed it in
different time periods...such as the Rocking 50's (A Midsummer Night's
Dream), the wild west (A Comedy of Errors), ancient Rome (Julius
Caesar...which will be done this year in current times dealing with peer
pressure and gangs)....sometimes we add music...and we always use the
language of Shakespeare, just because it's fun....

~April
Mom to Kate-18, Lisa-15, Karl-13, & Ben-9.
*REACH Homeschool Group, an inclusive group meeting throughout Oakland
County.. http://www.homeschoolingonashoestring.com/REACH_home.html
*Michigan Youth Theater...Acting On Our Dreams...
<http://www.michiganyouththeater.org/>
"Life is 10% what happens to us and 90% how we react to it." ~~ Dennis P.
Kimbro







-----Original Message-----
From: Paula Sjogerman [mailto:sjogy@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 11:03 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Shakespeare in translation


on 10/6/04 7:37 PM, [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote:

> I don't think it's depressing. When Shakespeare-study was the big rage,
19th
> century, it wasn't so archaic. Now people have a hard time
understanding
> some of the language in 19th century writing, so Shakespeare is REALLY
old.


Here's what I see as the problem: it's not the plots that are special
about
Shakespeare, it is the language itself. Take that away and you just have
some rehashed old stories.

Paula



"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.

Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
http://www.unschooling.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kelly Muzyczka

At 11:02 AM 10/7/2004, you wrote:

>on 10/6/04 7:37 PM, [email protected] at
>[email protected] wrote:
>
> > I don't think it's depressing. When Shakespeare-study was the big
> rage, 19th
> > century, it wasn't so archaic. Now people have a hard time understanding
> > some of the language in 19th century writing, so Shakespeare is REALLY old.
>
>
>Here's what I see as the problem: it's not the plots that are special about
>Shakespeare, it is the language itself. Take that away and you just have
>some rehashed old stories.
>
>Paula


I think it's more than just the language. It's his TAKE on the
stories. His insight into how people work. That's why West Side Story
works--it's the same old story of Romeo and Juliet, but it has a unique
TAKE on that story.


Kelly
I love mankind, it's people I can't stand. --Linus

Sondra Carr

Well - they're reworked already in Shakespeare. He didn't come up with his
own stories. I mean he took from others who also used language in poetic
ways of their times. When poets and writers now rework the works of
Shakespeare there is the potential for new interesting works that use the
language poetically in a contemporary way. It's always been this way. I love
Shakespeare for the language too - but I love some beat poets for the same
reason - albeit entirely different usage.



Sondra





-----Original Message-----
From: Paula Sjogerman [mailto:sjogy@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 11:03 AM

Here's what I see as the problem: it's not the plots that are special about
Shakespeare, it is the language itself. Take that away and you just have
some rehashed old stories.

Paula





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Emile Snyder

I think the process of translation is fascinatingly, and the idea of
translating something that most of us can mostly understand already just
serves to highlight the problems that exist for all translation work.

What does it mean to translate poetry for example? What parts of the
original are you trying to preserve, and which are allowed (or forced)
to change? Is it harder or easier with metered verse? Is it mostly
about the rhythm or the meaning of the words, or maybe the emotional
resonance? There's a very interesting essay about these issues in
Douglas Hofstadter's book "Meta Magical Themas," particularly as it
relates to translating titles and the "slip-ability" of our concepts and
words. Stanislaw Lem is a Polish author (highly recommended by the way)
whose work is stuffed full of all kinds of wordplay, and I believe all
of his work was originally written in Polish. In one of his short
stories (which I read in an English translation) someone is challenged
to write a poem about a particular subject in a particular meter where
every word starts with the letter s. The translation does it! I would
die to know what sort of changes this entailed! Does the original have
the same subject? Use the same letter? Same meter? Sadly, I don't
know anyone that speaks polish to check it out for me ;)

To try gamely to wrestle this back around to unschooling... is there
anyone on the list who has kids (or is a kid) interested in learning a
second language in a non-class environment? What kinds of strategies
work for people? I'm currently trying to read the first Harry Potter
book side by side in english and spanish. It's interesting, but I don't
know if I could ever get fluent this way ;) Certainly not speaking
fluent, but maybe reading...

-emile

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/7/04 9:10:08 AM, sjogy@... writes:

<< Here's what I see as the problem: it's not the plots that are special about
Shakespeare, it is the language itself. Take that away and you just have
some rehashed old stories. >>

Then people can read the King James Bible. It's the very same timeframe and
language, but easier to understand.

"Some rehashed old stories" is pretty harsh about something like Hamlet, or
Henry V.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/7/04 9:52:48 AM, sondracarr@... writes:

<< He didn't come up with his own stories. >>

That's not true as a plain statement.

Some plays were based on existing stories or histories, but not all.

Sandra

Sondra Carr

I think Shakespeare's use of the language of the time is superior to the
translators of biblical work who created the King James version of the bible
- so I'm not sure I'd want the original Shakespeare to be lost or that I
think it could be replaced by the King James Bible. But the bigger point
here is that even Shakespeare was adapting rehashed old stories with his
work. Those weren't really original stories - that's what playwrights did
then (and now to some degree) - they took old stories and made them new
again by adapting them with some contemporary language and sensibilities.
And there's not only nothing wrong with rehashing old stories - but it's
positively traditional.



Sondra







-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 1:16 PM
Then people can read the King James Bible. It's the very same timeframe
and
language, but easier to understand.

"Some rehashed old stories" is pretty harsh about something like Hamlet, or
Henry V.

Sandra





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sondra Carr

You're right Sandra, I should have been more specific about that. Some of
Shakespeare's work was original. Much of it was was not (considering story)
and it was not frowned upon (nor is it now) to take stories from the past
and rehash them. Each artist's interpretation has the possibility of
creating something new. There are also some (like Joseph Campbell) who would
argue that all stories have some archetypal connection to the earliest
stories and all that we create is merely a rehashing of that which we all
already know. And I think Ecclesiastes said "There is nothing new under the
sun." Although he said it in either Greek or Hebrew and mine is only a badly
butchered paraphrase of an English translation.



Sondra







-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 1:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Shakespeare in translation




In a message dated 10/7/04 9:52:48 AM, sondracarr@... writes:

<< He didn't come up with his own stories. >>

That's not true as a plain statement.

Some plays were based on existing stories or histories, but not all.

Sandra




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sondra Carr

Hi Emile - my kids and I lived in Montreal for a year and the way we
"studied" French was somewhat of an immersion technique. They were in school
at the time and went to an English speaking school but did get quite a bit
of French instruction - vocabulary etc (which they hated) but we would watch
French stations. I started saying the standard things in French
(pardonez-moi, ou est la toilette, je suis desolet - don't trust my spelling
on these though) and the kids sort of followed after a while. We also read
French signs (Montreal has laws about signage - so there was a lot of
side-by-side language we could check against) and listened in and tried to
understand other's conversations. For me, I was involved in a sculpture
program at Concordia U - which is English speaking, however, because it's a
French (and English) culture, if someone asked a professor a question in
French, the professor would answer in French. This immersion makes your
brain really work at trying to figure things out so much more efficiently
than any other way of learning - it's how we learn our own language. I would
suggest a class or two in basic structure though - this way you have a good
foundation and don't have to struggle with different grammar structure.



Sondra





-----Original Message-----
From: Emile Snyder [mailto:unschooling@...]

To try gamely to wrestle this back around to unschooling... is there
anyone on the list who has kids (or is a kid) interested in learning a
second language in a non-class environment? What kinds of strategies
work for people? I'm currently trying to read the first Harry Potter
book side by side in english and spanish. It's interesting, but I don't
know if I could ever get fluent this way ;) Certainly not speaking
fluent, but maybe reading...

-emile






"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.

Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com







Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129i2637t/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705081972:HM/EXP=1097257622/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http:/compa
nion.yahoo.com> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2128215/rand=783382268>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscrib
e>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/7/04 11:51:32 AM, unschooling@...
writes:

<< To try gamely to wrestle this back around to unschooling... is there
anyone on the list who has kids (or is a kid) interested in learning a
second language in a non-class environment? >>

Holly has been watching the musical episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in
French. There aren't French subtitles. She's puzzling things out (without
knowing French <g>) as to where they seemt to have changed things to keep a rhyme.

If there WERE French subtitles, they would be a translation of the English
words anyway.

She's just sparking with new ideas from all that.

Sandra

Emile Snyder

On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 11:07, Sondra Carr wrote:
> French, the professor would answer in French. This immersion makes your
> brain really work at trying to figure things out so much more efficiently
> than any other way of learning - it's how we learn our own language. I would
> suggest a class or two in basic structure though - this way you have a good
> foundation and don't have to struggle with different grammar structure.

Yeah, the immersion stuff seems like the way to go, if the method
requiring the most drastic changes. I've wondered about looking for
people that are native speakers of another language who would like
english "lessons" and trying to work out some reciprocal thing; one day
a week we could get together and work on english, one day to the other
language or something. I'm not very good at finding and introducing
myself to random people though ;)

thanks,
-emile

Elizabeth Hill

** To try gamely to wrestle this back around to unschooling... is there
anyone on the list who has kids (or is a kid) interested in learning a
second language in a non-class environment? What kinds of strategies
work for people? I'm currently trying to read the first Harry Potter
book side by side in english and spanish. It's interesting, but I don't
know if I could ever get fluent this way ;) Certainly not speaking
fluent, but maybe reading...**

Hi, Emile --

My son isn't specifically trying to learn a second language, but I am.
And I'm doing the same thing you are; reading HP #1 in Spanish. (But
not from a cold start. I had a year of Spanish in Jr. High School more
than 30 years ago. And I recently watched through the episodes of
Destinos, a fake telenovela designed to teach Spanish that is shown on
some PBS stations.)

It's fun when you know from context that that verb must be "swish" and
the next verb must be "flick".

Betsy

Sondra Carr

Why don't you put an ad on craigslist or in the paper looking for people to
practice with? Spanish should be a relatively easy one.







-----Original Message-----
From: Emile Snyder [mailto:unschooling@...]
Yeah, the immersion stuff seems like the way to go, if the method
requiring the most drastic changes. I've wondered about looking for
people that are native speakers of another language who would like
english "lessons" and trying to work out some reciprocal thing; one day
a week we could get together and work on english, one day to the other
language or something. I'm not very good at finding and introducing
myself to random people though ;)

thanks,
-emile





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]