Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal Ethelred Unraed's Journal: CSM: Lost in Arabic translation 56

Journal by Ethelred Unraed

(first seen on Jeremiah Cornelius' JE)

Lost in Arabic translation

By Souheila Al-Jadda SAN JOSE, CALIF. - "I feel like eating laban," I told my Egyptian friend recently in my Syrian-Arabic dialect.

"Don't you mean you feel like drinking laban?" she replied in her Egyptian-Arabic.

After a series of exchanges, we quickly realized that in Egypt, laban means milk, and in Syria the same word means yogurt.

Although this was a simple misunderstanding between two native Arabic speakers, it represents an increasing problem among Arabic translators in the US war on terror.

The federal government's lack of Arabic translators and the insufficient understanding - and consequent poor translation - of the language by the translators it does have may mean more Arab-Americans, immigrants, and foreigners could find themselves caught up in the government's dragnet.

Arabic is a difficult language, even for native speakers like me who have studied it for years.

There are many Arabics.

Classical Arabic is derived from Islam's holy book, the Koran, and Islamic studies. It is written but rarely spoken. Modern Standard Arabic, although not spoken by the masses, is the language of modern journalism, used in newspapers and news reports. Then there is colloquial Arabic, spoken differently in each of the 22 Middle Eastern countries. Meanwhile, within these nations there are dozens of regional dialects that add or subtract letters, words, and accents, with a sprinkling of other languages mixed in as well.

In light of all this, it is easy to understand the difficulties Arabic translators face as they try to accurately interpret the spoken and written language.

In Albany, N.Y., federal prosecutors have admitted mistranslating a crucial piece of evidence in a terror-related case against two Muslim men. At first, it was thought that an address book found at an alleged Iraqi terrorist training camp referred to one of the men, Yassin Aref, as "commander." The government later said the book's reference to Mr. Aref actually meant "brother" in Kurdish, which borrows many words from Arabic. The two men have since been released on bail.

It doesn't take much to mistranslate words, because many Arabic words use the exact same letters. Arabic does not have vowel letters. Vowels appear as short lines or symbols above or below each letter, indicating pronunciation. These markings can change the meaning of the words. Often in official or handwritten documents, these vowel marks are not shown. Thus, the reader must derive the word's meaning.

Meanwhile, when spoken, many words sound alike, but have various definitions.

For example, the word meaning "appear" sounds like bada. The word meaning "start" sounds like badaa, with a slight guttural inflection. When pronounced quickly in news reports or in conversations, these two words sound almost identical.

But there is a big difference in saying, "He appeared to shoot," and "He started to shoot." It could mean the difference between an acquittal and a conviction.

A bipartisan State Department advisory panel on public diplomacy, headed by Edward Djerejian, a former ambassador to Israel and Syria, found that only 54 of 279 Arabic speakers employed by State are fluent. Of those, only six were fluent enough to appear on Arabic television programs. As of December 2003, the Army had approximately 1,300 active-duty soldiers who it said can read or speak some Arabic. The FBI has raised concerns over the shortage of Arabic translators, which has created a backlog of thousands of documents that require translation.

Another antiterror case involves former Air Force interpreter Ahmed Al Halabi, a Syrian-born US citizen accused of espionage at Guantánamo Bay.

A former military translator, Suzan Sultan, came forward to say she had mistranslated a letter from the Syrian government to Mr. Halabi. She translated the letter as saying that the Syrians gave him permission to visit another country, Qatar. Later, Ms. Sultan testified, she realized that the word "Qatar," could also mean "homeland" or "region." This mistake could make or break Halabi's case. If convicted, he could be sentenced to life in prison.

Meanwhile, in Spain, which has been a major US ally in the war on terror, Al Jazeera correspondent Tayseer Alouni, famous for having had the first exclusive interview with Osama bin Laden just one month after Sept. 11, 2001, was arrested last September for allegedly having more than just journalistic ties to Al Qaeda. After his release from jail, Mr. Alouni appeared on Al Jazeera, explaining that his telephone conversations had been monitored and mistranslated.

In the conversations, Alouni said he was discussing the "Nawawi 40," a commentary of 40 of the Islamic prophet's sayings compiled by Imam Nawawi, a revered 13th century Islamic scholar. But in Arabic, the word "nawawi" also means "nuclear," and the interpreter thought Alouni was referring to 40 nuclear weapons.

As the global war on terror continues, focusing on Arabs and the Middle East, the US government and its allies in this war must do more to increase the number of translators, screen them properly, improve their skills, and double-check translations.

Government translators and contractors must implement a standard checking system to guarantee the most accurate translations possible. Current translators must take more intensive refresher courses, especially in colloquial Arabic, to familiarize themselves with the nuances of different dialects. Translators must also enter immersion programs, allowing them to live in, understand, and experience the cultures from which they are translating or interpreting. Finally, better incentives must be offered to attract high-quality translators.

These are simple recommendations. But simple translation mistakes could mean, at least, the possibility of life in prison or tangled up in court, and at worst, the possibility of the death penalty for many innocent people here in America and abroad, who are under the watchful eye of international counterterrorism authorities.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CSM: Lost in Arabic translation More

CSM: Lost in Arabic translation

Comments Filter:
  • I don't understand why they didn't see this coming - this kind of thing is hardly unique to Arabic, it's common amongst different English speaking countries. For example, if you go and ask a secretary in England for a rubber, it's not a big deal - she'll give you one. Ask an American secretary and you could wind up facing a sexual harrassment case. If you ask an English hotel to 'knock you up at 7am' it means something quite different to asking the same thing in the USA. In the USA, you might be arrested fo
    • The problem, I think, is simply that most of my fellow Americans have very little experience with foreign languages at all, not even with other dialects of English. (American English is far more homogenous than, say, British English, even though America is much larger.) So it's difficult for many, including those in power, to understand that such variations can exist in a language.

      As others have pointed out, the European perspective WRT other cultures and countries is naturally quite different, simply bec

      • The fact that we slashed intelligence budgets and intelligence-related military expenditures following the end of the cold war *might* also be a factor. We are not very good as a nation at having resources on hand "just in case". Imagine the ridicule you would have gotten for advocating 10,000 arabic linguists be hired by the CIA in 1995...

        As far as the "America=homogenious", uhm...okie dokie...
        I think you "misunderestimate" our understanding of world affairs. The fact that we have a different perspective

        • Yeah, I don't agree that American English is homogenious... If anyone believes it is, let my mother listen to one of my hip hop albums and ask her to tell me what they are talking about. :-)
          • Yeah, I don't agree that American English is homogenious... If anyone believes it is, let my mother listen to one of my hip hop albums and ask her to tell me what they are talking about. :-)

            As opposed to Europeans or Africans or Asians speaking entirely separate languages within the same country?

            Kind of like the old stereotype about the Chinese: to us, they all look alike (like Americans all sound alike, relatively speaking), but to them, there's a world of difference between them.

            Nitpick: it's "homog

          • I think that the original point was not that American English is homogeneous, but that it is more homogeneous than what is spoken in Britain. Having lived in both countries, I would have to agree. While there are substantial variations in regional and social usage and accents in the US, there is considerably more variation, across the British islesinvolving a larger proportion of the population - Cockney,Brummie, Scouse, Geordie, West Country Yokel, Anglian, Yorkshire, Thames Estuary, etc. etc. - to say
        • We are not very good as a nation at having resources on hand "just in case". Imagine the ridicule you would have gotten for advocating 10,000 arabic linguists be hired by the CIA in 1995...

          It also is telling that the Bush Administration is having such difficulty even finding fluent Arabic translators.

          None of this, by the way, means Americans are inherently stupid. We aren't. If anything, it's an indictment of our education system.

          As far as the "America=homogenious", uhm...okie dokie...

          Compared to

          • It also is telling that the Bush Administration is having such difficulty even finding fluent Arabic translators.

            Not really. That region isn't exactly a powerhouse of culture or business (other than oil). In "normal" circumstances, I can think of few languages I would be LESS interested in.

            Try to think of a region of the world similar in size and population that is less homogenous culturally and linguistically.

            China - mostly chinese. India. Seriously, though, after the election, I'll be happy to compar

            • China - mostly chinese.

              Sorry, incorrect. China is made up of numerous ethnic groups. What we call "Chinese" usually refers to the Han, which themselves are also subdivided into other groups; then there are Uighurs, Tibetans, Manchus and so on. Then there is no language "Chinese", but there are numerous (mutually unintelligible) languages that happen to use the same writing system -- Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, Minbei to name a few.

              To call it "Chinese" is like saying all Europeans speak the same l

              • Sorry, incorrect. China is made up of numerous ethnic groups.

                As is the US, as is france, as is Germany, as is India. However, as you point out, there is a sizable majority, which you distinuish as "Han" instead of "Chinese". This is a distinction without a difference. I would argue that those described as "americans" comprise more ethnic groups than any other grouping of people on the face of the earth.

                . And the reason English is taught and spoken in India is precisely because it makes a neutral medium f

                • [made up of numerous ethnic groups] As is the US, as is france, as is Germany, as is India.

                  While neatly ducking the language issue.

                  That is exactly why english is the international language of business and diplomacy.

                  Did I ever say that it wasn't? I, however, did punch a hole in your claim that India was linguistically and culturally more homogenous than America. It isn't.

                  No it isn't. Knowing or not knowing german does not in any way detract from my ability to understand German politics.

                  I didn't h

                  • While neatly ducking the language issue.

                    So all these people speak multiple, mutually incomprehensiple languages. They all speak the one I do. So I should...learn thiers?

                    Tell ya what, let's see what the census says. The US is made up of people from each and every place [census.gov] [nb: even with all the catagories listed, over 80 MILLION came from "other"!!!] on the face of the earth. More languages [census.gov] are spoken in the US than any other nation on earth (and it would appear to average above 13% btw). If you go here [census.gov], and

                    • They all speak the one I do.

                      They do not. Only a minority of Indians speak English.

                      So I should...learn thiers?

                      For someone who gets worked up about people mischaracterizing what you say, and being rude and abusive at that, you sure love doing it here.

                      No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that learning a language other than your own goes a long way to helping you understand the rest of the world.

                      Really? How so? What did I claim caused the high unemployment rate? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? What

                    • They do not. Only a minority of Indians speak English.

                      So why is it you said that they used english for official business again?...

                      For someone who gets worked up about people mischaracterizing what you say, and being rude and abusive at that, you sure love doing it here.

                      OK, if you are NOT saying Americans should learn other's languages, despite the fact that the international language of diplomacy and trade is english, what exactly is it that you WERE saying?

                      I'm saying that learning a language other th

                    • So why is it you said that they used english for official business again?...

                      I said that the "business and political elite" did. Not "they", as in "not all Indians". The language spoken by the largest number of people in India is Hindi, not English.

                      OK, if you are NOT saying Americans should learn other's languages

                      No, I am saying that Americans should each learn a language other than English. Please do me the courtesy of not misrepresenting what I say.

                      I distinctly recall being called a liar by someon

                    • ...I forgot to mention this:

                      IIRC, aren't y'all in the process of rolling back a few social welfare benefits, and looking at lowering taxes?...

                      "Y'all"?

                      I'm as American as you are -- I got the same Big Bird on my passport that you do, I vote, I file taxes with the IRS, yadda yadda yadda. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm German...nor do I know where you get the idea that I'm some kind of German fanboy. There are other places in the world I'd rather be anyway.

                      Cheers,

                      Ethelred

                    • Y'all'r grasping at straws dude.

                      You knew that I was referring to Germany (were you live) when I said "Y'all". You knew that I wasn't referring to *you* in particular, any more than I meant that I owned Wal-Mart when I said "we".

                      For the record, yes I know [and knew] that you are a US citizen.

                    • The language spoken by the largest number of people in India is Hindi, not English.

                      So, again, if I only need to speak english to do businesses in india, why would I learn Hindi, which is only spoken by 30% of the population, according to you?

                      I am saying that Americans should each learn a language other than English.

                      Guilty as charged. You are saying that americans should learn someone else's language. Not every language. You still can't give a cogent reason why. Despite being multi-lingual (I am *as

                    • IOW, you can't name one

                      I can and did. I don't see the point of restating it.

                      One-language-speaking-provincial-know-nothing- about-the-rest-of-the-world-ignorant Americans

                      "One language speaking". Reasonably accurate, relatively speaking.

                      "Provincial". Your word, not mine. I never said it. Not even close.

                      "Know-nothing". Your word, not mine. I never said it. Not even close.

                      "Ignorant". Your word, not mine. I never said it. Not even close.

                      Speaking of grasping at straws, distorting what other people

                    • You knew that I was referring to Germany (were you live) when I said "Y'all".

                      Really? So when I say "you" in reference to Iraq, I may include you in that as well?

                      Cheers,

                      Ethelred

                    • I can and did. I don't see the point of restating it.

                      I call bullshit. You said that it was required or helpful to understanding other cultures/world politcs. I asked how. You still have not answered. $5 to the charity of your choice if you can show me where you did.

                      Your word, not mine. I never said it. Not even close.

                      Say it with me "paraphrase" [reference.com]. "A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words". I did not claim that they were your words. If you are now reduced to arguing that my parap

                    • Say it with me "paraphrase".

                      Say it with me: you're putting words into my mouth. Which according to you is being a liar.

                      Cheers,

                      Ethelred

                    • Paraphrasing someone is completely different from being a liar. If I said "Eth said" and then inserted some comment, that would be lying. Summarizing what you say in my own words is something else entirely.

                      According to me, complaining that somebody (fairly) paraphrased what you said is an indicator that you knew you were wrong when you made your origional claim.

                    • According to me, complaining that somebody (fairly) paraphrased what you said is an indicator that you knew you were wrong when you made your origional claim.

                      If someone claims to paraphrase something I said, yet produce something that is not what I meant, then that is putting words into my mouth. Putting words into someone's mouth, according to you, is the same as being a liar.

                      Claiming such as an "indicator" that "I knew I was wrong" implies clairvoyance on your part, something which you also have in th

                    • If someone claims to paraphrase something I said, yet produce something that is not what I meant, then that is putting words into my mouth. Putting words into someone's mouth, according to you, is the same as being a liar.

                      OK, let's run with that. You said, and I quote:

                      "The problem, I think, is simply that most of my fellow Americans have very little experience with foreign languages at all, not even with other dialects of English...In America, by contrast, the only neighbors are Canada (mostly English-

                    • You were being shown wrong on all your "core" arguements

                      According to you. According to me, you were being shown wrong on your arguments, frequently so. That you're unwilling to concede that America is linguistically less homogenous than the countries we discussed is indicative of that. You also continue to insist I am making a value judgment of Americans because of what Americans on average do and don't know ("provincial", "ignorant"), when I went to pains to stress that that is not the case, right from t

                    • According to me, you were being shown wrong on your arguments, frequently so. That you're unwilling to concede that America is linguistically less homogenous than the countries we discussed is indicative of that.

                      Since you failed to respond to the stats I quoted, and failed to answer my question as to why speaking multiple languages was important, I would say that you were shown to be wrong.

                      You also continue to insist I am making a value judgment of Americans because of what Americans on average do and do

                    • Since you failed to respond to the stats I quoted, and failed to answer my question as to why speaking multiple languages was important, I would say that you were shown to be wrong.

                      Right-o. To your census stats -- Which of the following is more homogenous: Thing A, which has 90% of a, 5% of b, 2% of c, 1% of d, 1% of e, and 1% of f; or Thing B, which has 33% of a, 33% of b, and 34% of c?

                      To your claim that I think speaking multiple languages is important, it is (as I have stated repeatedly) because it ma

                    • Right-o. To your census stats --

                      Care to translate? Does or does not the US contain people from every single corner of the world? I think that a nation that contains people from EVERY corner ofthe globe is MORE diverse than one that doesn't.

                      it is (as I have stated repeatedly) because it makes it easier to understand and appreciate other cultures and countries. It also increases the potential flow of information, which when making a decision is generally a Good Thing

                      Yeah, you've said it repeatedly. and I'

                    • But I want to track the presidential debate fallout right now, so you are officially granted last word, what with it being your journal and all.

                    • Care to translate? Does or does not the US contain people from every single corner of the world? I think that a nation that contains people from EVERY corner ofthe globe is MORE diverse than one that doesn't.

                      I provided an example, which you ignored or failed to address. "Homogeneity" is a simple concept that I illustrated mathematically ("To your census stats -- Which of the following is more homogenous: Thing A, which has 90% of a, 5% of b, 2% of c, 1% of d, 1% of e, and 1% of f; or Thing B, which has 3

                    • you are officially granted last word, what with it being your journal and all.

                      Kinda like you "conceded" that I'm an American...gee, how magnanimous of you!

                      Cheers,

                      Ethelred

              • And the reason English is taught and spoken in India is precisely because it makes a neutral medium for the governing and business elite -- there are dozens, even hundreds, of languages in India.

                Hello? Hello, this is Manish. Hello? Hello?



                Sorry, just re-capping my Indian experience. :D If I see "please to do the needful" anytime today, I may just scream.


            • Once Latin was the international language of diplomacy and business, once it was french. Now it's english. I can get news from france and Germany and India and Italy and Russia in english. I can do business with all those people in english.

              So can i, but using English when talking to a Russian person is really fucking stupid if neither of you are actually fluent at it. It'd be much easier for both of us if at least one spoke the other's native language. Yet using English as the lingua franca seems to be a

              • Indeed and agreed. We (those that speak english as a first langauge) are in an enviable situation. That could change fifty or a hundred years from now.

                The thing that some people seem to overlook is that a language is a tool. Some tools are more suited than others to certain tasks. Hammers are best a putting nails into wood. However, I know for a fact that I can do that task with a pipe wrench...

                The question is how much does it cost to aquire and maintain a particular tool, and how useful is it? English the

          • It also is telling that the Bush Administration is having such difficulty even finding fluent Arabic translators. None of this, by the way, means Americans are inherently stupid. We aren't. If anything, it's an indictment of our education system.

            How on earth is it an indictment of that education system that it didn't produce lots of unneeded and unwanted translators? They weren't needed, so they weren't produced. Now they're needed, so AFAIK they are being produced - but that takes time. I'd be substantia

            • How on earth is it an indictment of that education system that it didn't produce lots of unneeded and unwanted translators?

              Not "translators", but certainly producing people with the tools they need to understand the outside world.

              I don't think that the state of the American education system is really up for debate. It's a shambles. Arguing the reasons for its shambolic performance, and what to do about it, is something else.

              I'd be substantially more worried if any part of that system had foreseen 9/1

              • I'd think someone who can speak French, English and German would be in high demand indeed -- at the EU, UN, OSCE or NATO, for starters.

                Not as much as you might think ;-) Otherwise tell me where I can get such a job without having to go through innumerable tests ? ;-) (And background checks, some of these really require hard background checks... NATO/ NAMSA [namsa.lu] for example (NAMSA Lux is within walking distance from where I live))
                If it was a simple as going to a job-interview and showing that you know those

      • The problem, I think, is simply that most of my fellow Americans have very little experience with foreign languages at all, not even with other dialects of English. (American English is far more homogenous than, say, British English, even though America is much larger.) So it's difficult for many, including those in power, to understand that such variations can exist in a language.

        Fortunately the two are becoming homogenized anyway: the previous poster gave the example of "knocked up" - which these days i

        • An Olympic sprinter can lead the pack without knowing or caring what language the other runners speak: you just run faster than them.

          A poor analogy. "Leadership" implies being able to talk with those you're leading. A runner doesn't need to do that.

          A more accurate analogy would be a business. How can a manager run a business if he or she can't even understand his employees or customers? Which business will be more successful in the long run -- where there is mutual understanding and good communication b

          • A poor analogy. "Leadership" implies being able to talk with those you're leading. A runner doesn't need to do that.

            I don't see any communication problem like this between countries, though. I'll concede Germany's position over Iraq wasn't terribly clear from here - at least, none of the ambivalence you indicated was apparent to us - but I don't see that as a lack of understanding on either part.

            A more accurate analogy would be a business. How can a manager run a business if he or she can't even underst

            • I'll concede Germany's position over Iraq wasn't terribly clear from here - at least, none of the ambivalence you indicated was apparent to us - but I don't see that as a lack of understanding on either part.

              I'm not sure how else you can explain it.

              Is this really how you see America's role in the world? Giving orders to other countries?

              I don't, no. But the manager analogy is closer to the reality than that of merely being just another runner.

              Even a manager can't "give orders" -- he or she usually

              • I'm not sure how else you can explain it.

                Lack of interest. Unlike France, their position was entirely academic unless they were prepared to provide troops or other material support. France's position was crystal clear (and covered in detail, including live coverage of the speeches and comments from Chirac and Villepin): do you really believe this was because France is so much easier for us to understand, rather than because Germany was much less important? I'm not sure how you can possibly see it that way

                • Communication takes two parties, remember - and I don't think the lack of effort regarding Germany's position was entirely Britain's.

                  Not Britain's. The Bush Administration's. The Blair government actually made positive noises to Germany during the crisis -- then the Pentagon swatted down German objections, and Blair -- forced to take sides -- chose to go with the US, rather than risk the political humiliation of backing off from his proclaimed close relationship with Bush.

                  The Bush Administration, on the

                  • Not Britain's. The Bush Administration's. The Blair government actually made positive noises to Germany during the crisis

                    I'm talking of Britain's perception of Germany's position, though. Where did those positive noises get us? Did Germany actively distance itself from the frogs? Speak up in support of regime change? Do you really think Britain gets its news about Germany from the US government?

                    then the Pentagon swatted down German objections,

                    Ah, that's where it got us. "Objections". Not "help", "supp

                    • I'm talking of Britain's perception of Germany's position, though. Where did those positive noises get us? Did Germany actively distance itself from the frogs?

                      Did Britain actively distance itself from Bush?

                      The point is that relations between Britain and Germany remained strong the entire time -- and Blair indeed shuttled between Germany and the US to try and smooth things over. Relations continue to be good -- Schröder has generally tried to get closer to the UK and further from France throughout h

                    • Did Britain actively distance itself from Bush?

                      Of course not, because we were on the same side - and had been in agreement on this point for years, during Clinton's reign as well. That's the point: Britain and the US didn't distance ourselves because we were on the same side and had been for years - Germany and France didn't because...?

                      Because of those close relations, there was a greater acceptance of the idea of letting bygones be bygones and agreeing to disagree between the UK and Germany.

                      Interest

                    • The damage it does to your theory about Germany not being opposed to that course of action?

                      What damage? You stated in effect that by objecting to the Bush Administration plans as stated, Germany was in full opposition -- with the implication that they were unwilling to consider any other option other than stopping any military action. I've provided you links already in the past with direct quotes from Fischer and Schröder that contradict that, including from the Foreign Ministry.

                      It didn't seem to

                    • Sorry, forgot to ask about this:

                      Well, I do like the UK a little better whan I'm thousands of miles away from it, but the negative side of the US is far more obvious than the positive one from this distance.

                      If you'll forgive my curiosity, what exactly? Not trying to pick a fight -- I'm genuinely curious.

                      First you go quoting the Guardian, then you say your opinion of America is becoming poorer. You're starting to worry me. ;-)

                      Cheers,

                      Ethelred

                    • What damage? You stated in effect that by objecting to the Bush Administration plans as stated, Germany was in full opposition -- with the implication that they were unwilling to consider any other option other than stopping any military action.

                      "German Foreign Ministry Joschka Fischer once again criticized that disarming Iraq would legitimize waging war as last resort."

                      I've provided you links already in the past with direct quotes from Fischer and Schröder that contradict that, including from the F

                    • "German Foreign Ministry Joschka Fischer once again criticized that disarming Iraq would legitimize waging war as last resort."

                      But that flies in the face of things he said in direct quotes -- I'll have to go find the articles I linked to before, but I distinctly remember what he said being different. In effect, he was concerned about the lack of willingness to go through with the inspections, while also wanting to force compliance with UN resolutions if necessary. You can argue the merits of the more caut

  • Force them to fight over these various language differences to the death. Winner gets to keep their language.

    I mean, it's important that yogurt and milk mean exactly the same in all dialects. ;)

    Wow, I do believe I'm more sarcastic today than I've ever been. Indeed.
  • Mis-translation between languages is not necessary for this kind of problem to crop up. I heard an interview with John Kenneth Galbraith, the famous Economist. In it he spoke, quite amusingly, over confusion in his (very large) FBI file, over his affiliation with "the infamous Dr. Ware".

    In the interview he spoke about requesting a copy of his FBI security file, when that became possible. He described being surprised by its length. He described how, when he first started browsing through it, so much of

Slashdot Top Deals

"An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of code." -- an anonymous programmer

Close