Charlemagne vs. Kraljevina


“In an earlier posting I raised the question whether sound change ever helps us distinguish between inherited and borrowed words in historically interesting cases. There are at least a few such cases; here is one I happen to know about”.

Don Ringe


pdf version (241 kb)

Unlike Don Ringe I prefer using semantics as a  primary scientific discipline in an effort to determine the history of a specific word. Phonetics and other linguistic sub-fields may be used here mainly as the auxiliary means. Simply, there are to many irregular sound changes for to be able to establish strict laws and rules, by which such regulations could be applied in an “accurate” and “lucrative” way. I think that modern linguistics, driven by a wish to make itself look more “exact”, resorted to those scientific processes, which are more “closer” to other natural sciences, physics, chemistry or even mathematics.

Furthermore, in order to make the “phonetic laws” seriosly appliable we cannot use them by scratching the surface or those sound changes that are “clearly” visible; we must go deeper into the mere core of such a “phonetic whirlpool”. For instance, according to the Grimm’s law the PIE aspirated voiced stop bh regularly yields unaspirated voiced stop b in Germanic. Once I argued that Serbian pekar (baker) and pekara (bakery) are the same words, from the same origin, basis or root, or whatever… as English baker and bakery. For god’s sake, even an uneducated shepherd would be able to solve this “riddle”! But, nevertheless, it cotradicts the phonetic laws/rules! What rules? English bake comes from PIE *bHeh1- while Serbian peći, pekao (bake) is from *pekW-! OK, but what are we then going  to do with the OHG packan, pachan and peccho instaed of MHG bachen and Ger. backen?

I also do not believe that there were a large number of borrowed words in any language in the distant past. Also I think that differences among the different IE groups of languages appeared more as a result of a long-term separation (for many tens or hundreds of years), caused by naturally occurring disasters. My humble opinion is that IE nomadic tribes initially departed each-other because of overpopulation or because of drought, flood, cold etc. They might have been so ruthlessly dispersed across the immense space that they hadn’t been able to find/meet their relatives for a long period of time afterwards.  At that time  (many thousands years ago) humans  probably were rare creatures on the planet Earth – it is not impossible that they couldn’t number more than a few tens of thousands.

I suppose those people had a vocabulary of just a dozen of words before separation. Later on, any of this divided groups continued to develop their vocabulary independently and the words were generated with an increasing speed. Of course, it is hard to imagine such a rapid language changes in this days when language is “fully” developed, but in those times when the whole vocabulary numbered just a few “key-words” the multiplication of words might have occurred with a tremendous velocity.

When the separated groups met again, their language had increased from a dozen of words to thousands and they were totally unable to understand each other…and being  different (unintelligible) speakers made them deadly enemies.  The further history is well known until this modern days. People started the wars, killing and plundering. Similar “confinements” as the “primal” one occurred many times through the history, but none of the later “excommunications” (divisions and subdivisions) has brought such a crucial language changes and divergences as it happened during the “first alienation”.

Naturally, as well as more the contacts among different IE languages became more frequent the greater number of loanwords entered the respective language. Nevertheless, I think that any native speaker will recognize, unmistakably, the “intruders” into his tongue.  Even when the creole or a sort of  “mixed” languages similar to English are in question, I think that any native speaker of such a language, regardless of his educational background, would be fairly capable to “detect” the “matching pairs”.

Of course, there will always be loanwords whose origin is hardly detectable or undetectable at all. Four major IE groups of languages in Europe (Germanic, Romance, Greek and Slavic) are clearly bounded. The vowel changes, I agree, can in certain cases be of a serious significance in our efforts to reveal some of the secrets of language evolution; but, generally taken, the vowel mutations were mainly used as the “carriers” of the “notion-distiction”.

Now, I would pay more attention to the certain semantic values of the words that had been mentioned in a very stimulating Ringe’s article. Latin rex, regis takes the central point of the PIE root *reg-. Could we grasp anything right if we started from the word that describes the “most powerful” man of a country – the king! What the basic meaning of the root *reg– might be? Ruler? Should we start analyzing this root by referring to king or to the king’s realm (kingdom)? The German noun Reich (empire) and adjective reich (rich) are phonetically close to  Latin rex (king), while German Reichtum (wealth, richness) is build in a similar way as Latin regnum (kingdom, realm).

Are we going to find anything “unusual” in relation among the Latin words rex regis (king) grex  gregis (herd, flock),  gresus (step, course) and gregalis (pl. companions, associates, accomplices)? What is the smallest common denominator for all these words? Does it mean that rex (king) also started with the velar in initial place? Are there valid cognates to these Latin words in Slavic, Greek and Germanic?

What is the “basic” meaning of realm, region, regional? Could it be related to Latin area and harena; or Greek χορεῖον (dancing place), χορός (dance), Serbian oro (dance)? Oro or χορός are a kind of dance where people are arranged in circle. Does it mean that Greek χορός comes from κρίκος (ring); cf. Serb. okrug area, krug circle). It seems that Latin arena/harena is also related to κρίκος or more precisely (and surprisingly) to OE hring (ring)?! Why harena also has the “additional” meaning sand? Maybe, because the arena structure (a playing field; compare the “boxing ring” and “arena”) was placed on the sandy sea-shore or sprinkled by sand? How can Sabine fasena (sand) be related to Latin harena (sand; hasena => harena)?

Let us agree that s/r rhotacism is possible in this case, although it is difficult to understand how aurum (gold) can be related to Sabine ausum, especially if we know that gold is χρυσός in Greek (cf. Lat. h/aureus golden and Gr. chrusos gold).  One special example is Lat. nase vs. nares (nose); here we can follow the sound changes via nostrils – ODE says: “…OE. nosðyrl, nosterl, f. nosu NOSE + þȳr(e)l hole (rel. to þurh THROUGH”). Nares could be a reduced form of nostril (metatheses nasril => narles => nares). In Serbian, nostril is nozdrva (Cz. nozdra;  Russ. ноздря; OSl ноздри), and this word is related to Serbian surla (proboscis).

From this moment on, the “real science” comes to the “scene”. The Serbian augmentative of the noun nos (nose) is nosurda, also known as  no-surlina, no-surlda. Now it becomes clear that the above-mentioned ODE assumption, that nostril is a compound word of nose + thyrel, cannot be taken as completely true. English through is related to Serbian kroz (through; Russ. через, Cz. skrze) and the verbs pro-turati, pro-turi; from tur-(bl)anje, similar to German Kurbel (crank; a hand tool consisting of a rotating shaft with parallel handle), Latin h/orbita (wheel), orbis (rotate), Serb. obrtati/vrtate/uvrtati (rotate, turn), okretati (turn, rotate), pro-kružiti (proći kroz “push through”). English twirl corresponds to Serbian verb svrdlati (rotate, make a hole, drill), n. svrdlo (borer, gimlet, auger). Serbian pro-svirati (push through), svirati (blow, beep, flute), svirala (fife, flute).

What a mess! Is Serbian svirati/svirala the same word as English whirl (cf. ON hvirfla spin)? Are Serbian words zvuk (sound), zvoniti (chime, ring), zvono (bell), zujati/hujati (hum) related to svirala (fife) and svirati (blow, play. May Serbian svirati (blow, play) be a metathesis of survati (fall down rapidly, come as an avalanche). Is German spielen (play) related to schwellen (swell); or English blow to play? Greek φωνή (sound) might be the word from the same “source” as Serbian zvono (bell) and zvoniti (ring, resound)? Does it mean that sound also belongs to that group of words (Serb. zvoniti/zvuk = Eng. sound; both from Latin sonus; cf. Latv. zunds, zondēt)? Latin echo is probably related to Serbian jeka (echo) and zuka (hum) and Greek ηχώ, but we cannot be sure what is the relation between Greek ηχώ (echo) and ἀκοή (a hearing, the sound heard ).

In order to understand what has happened to the Serbian words zvoniti, zujati, zukati, zvrčati,  zvučati, zvrka, svirka,  zuka, zvuk, cvrčati,  jeka, huka, cikati, kikot etc., all with the meanings ’sound’, ‘echo’, ‘roar’, ‘hum’,  we must try to find the common ur-form (the smallest common denominator!) from which all these words probably originate. Judging according to the Serbian noun svirala (fife, flute), the verb svirati must have once sounded as svirlati and it comes very close to the another existing Serbian verb – urlati (howl, roar, yowl, yell; n. urlanje roaring, howling). It seems that our urlanje could be returned to surlanje, i.e. to the above mentioned Serbian word surla (proboscis; Serb. adj. surljav untamed, surov wild, ferocious, sirov raw). Taking as a pattern the Serbian noun slon (elephant) and comparing it with surla (proboscis), it seems that one new phonetic law may be introduced here concerning the elision/ommision of the sound /r/. Obviously, slon (elephant) was erstwhile called surlan or sur-blan and that it was contracted to the today’s known word slon (sur-blan => surlan => slon). An additional evidence that Serbo-Slavic slon (elephant) originated from the protoform *sur-bla-gn– could be found in Baltic languages (Lith. straublys proboscis, dramblys elephant; Latv. zilonis elephant).

Let us go back to  Latin rex. Could that Latin word be the cognate with the Slavic word kralj/karolj (Russ. король; Cz. král; ChSl крал̑ь)? Is Slavic kralj really a Germanic loanword? What is the meaning of Charlemagne? Freeman? Can we suppose that Charlemagne is the same word as German? If not, why not? The central meaning of the name German seems to be “freeman”. Germany is a “land of freedom”. Kingdom is called kraljevina or carevina in Serbian (Russ. королевство, царство; Cz. království, císařství), and Slavic kraljevina/kraljevstvo is related to kraj (area, countryside, district), similar to the connection between Latin rex and region. We can also see that Latin regulus (petty king; from h/regulus?) is derived from the same source as the Germanic name Charlemagne. In fact, Serbian kraljevina is krugljevina (Serb. okruglo round, krug circle, okrug district, okrilje shelter, tutorship; hence krilo wing; Serb. sint. dobiti krila lit. “get the wings” or “obtain the freedom”). There are still a lot of questions  to be answered: is Serbian carevina (empire) the same, but differently pronounced word as kraljevina (kingdom)? And really, car(glj)evina might be a “palatalized” kraljevina;  k(a)raljevina  = c(a)raljevina (cf. Serb. surnames Karan and Caran; Gr. κοίρᾰνος king).

Here we are entering the most interesting part of our “story”. Namely. the Slavic word sloboda (freedom; ORuss. слобода; Cz. svoboda) and Latin libertas appeared to be derived from the same agglutinated ur-form that sounded the same as the above-mentioned basis for the word slon (elephant) – *sur-bla-gn-. Greek ελευθερία is in fact a transposed liberta- (liberti => lebeter => elevter-) and Slavic sloboda comes also through metathesis from *suo-bol-da, after the elision of the sound /r/; i.e. suo(r)-bol-da (dissimilation like in Eng.  gove(r)nment)=> suo-bol-da => svobolda => sloboda/svoboda (liberty, freedom). Serbian adv. s-lobodar-ski (unbound, freely), not by chance, sounds close to Greek elevteria and Latin libertas. This analysis additionally shows that the name of Slavs (Sloveni; OSl словѣне; Gr. Σθλαβηνοί) is derived from the earlier Serb(l)ian (Serbli; OSerb срьблинь, serblin => srbin)  name, which originates from the above mentioned basis – *sur-bla-gn. It means that Slavic/Serbian name has the same meaning as the name of Germans (liberty, freedom; freeman; German from Charlemagne6 (?), from Her-ble-gn; Ger-Mbla-gn => GerMban => German).

Once again, the crucial question in diachronic linguistics should probably be the one that tackles and defines (or at least tries to define) the proto-syllables and the process of “primal agglutination”. Russian linguist Yuri Knorosov suggested that it would be possible to build up a pretty rich vocabulary from a small number of proto-syllables. It means that we won’t be able to make any significant progress in the field of historical linguistics until we have found that “mysterious” self-generating speech “progenitors”. How many irregular sound changes are there on the turf of just one single language? Their number is certainly so big that we will need a few millenniums to “catch” them all. Who can explain why the name for star begins with different initial sounds in Slavic languages (Serb. zvezda; Cz. hvězda; Pol. gwiazda; Russ. звезда; OSl. ѕвѣзда). One of the closest relatives to zvezda are the Serbo-Slavic verbs zviznuti and zviždati (hit, swish, whistle; a clear association to a strong hit to the head followed by the “stars’ appearance” and “whistling” inside the commoted head; Cz. hvízdat; Pol. gwizdać, but also świstać; ChSl. звиздати). The modern etymology books are telling us that OE hwistlian (whistle; ON hvīsla) comes from PGmc. *khwis-, “of imitative origin”, although it seems absolutely impossible not to see the striking resemblance between Czech hvizdal (whistled) and English whistle.

What to say about Serbian words sekira (ax), siguran (safe, secure) and the verbs zagraditi, (to brace, to fence). osigurati (secure, insure)? We know that sure, assure is a reduced form of the word secure and English secure comes from Latin securus, allegedly se + cura (care; “without care”; from sine cura), but as anyone can see it is rather unusual. The Serbian language have the verb sikirati/sekirati se (worry, be scared), which is the antonym to the verb sigurati, osigurati se (secure, to insure); in fact, Serbian sekirati/sikirati se means “to be insecure”; if someone works as a security guard he must be worried. May it not be logical that English scare is a corresponding word to Serbian sikirati/sekirati (worry), especially if we consider Old Norse skirra? The English word scar will take care to “ensure” that above correspondences are not a haphazard. Namely, English scar is probably related to Latin securis (axe, hatchet), because securis (Serb. sekira) is an implement that makes the scars on the surface of wood/trees. Scar (OFr. escare) is cognate with the Serbian verb išarati (to fret, to line; from iskarati; ultimately from iskružiti; Slavic krug/kruh circle; i.e. to tear out from a whole or circle; Serb. iz kruga “out of the circle”).

If Latin securus (fearless, safe, secure) really comes from sine cure than we can hardly explain the origin of Serbian osigurati (secure). Is that word a Latin loanword or just a false cognate? Serbian osigurati looks as it was constituted from the Slavic prefix sa-. za-, iz- and the verb gurati (to push, jostle, boost). Similar logic can be used in case of Latin secretus (from secerno) and the Serbian verb sakriti (hide;again with very close meaning to Latin secret). When these Serbian words are in question, there was used the same logic we mentioned earlier, while explaining the word išarati (fret, scar), because iz-gurati also has the general idea of “separation” or “tearing something out from the whole or circle (Serb. krug)”. Greek κρίνω (Latin cerno) is a corresponding word to Serbian granica (Ger. Grenze), where from there are Serbian ograda (fence), ograditi (separate), zagraditi (to enclose), graditi (build; cognate to create?), ograničiti (confine, localize, delimitate), raz-graničiti (discern, judge, mark off). Following such a way of thinking, it looks completely clear that Serbian sakriti (hide) is related to sigurati, osigurati (secure); i.e. that both of these words are clearly related to verb zagraditi (enclose, put the borders, separate), zagrada (brace, bracket).

Above mentioned granica (Grenze) is nothing else but a “circle” that someone draws around himself or around his propertiy/possession. In fact, Serb. granica is kružnica (the outer part of a circle; from krug, granica <= krugnica => kružnica). There is no border (Serb.granica border) that is not arranged (Serb. uređena); if opposite, it cannot be a border. The word ‘arrange’ comes from hring (ring) in the same way as Serbian uređeno is related to krug (circle). Latin cognate to these words is ordino -are (to put in order, arrange), analogous to Serbian ured(arrange; adj. uredno, uređeno in order). Don Ringe (Rounded? -)) must realize that circle is a geometrical figure, a perfection that man is trying to achieve. It is the reason why the lion’s share of IE vocabulary goes back to the notion of circle. Slavic vocabulary has no rex but there is kralj who is the central “point” of kingdom (kraljevstvo, kraj, okrug). There is uređenje (system) instaed of regnum, kraljevski instead of royal (regalis), urednik/reditelj instead of régisseur, red instead of order (ordo), rad instead of work, radnik instead of ἐργάνη, vršenje/verga (Slav. *vrg-) instaed of work (Werke). Finally, who is able to grasp that Slavic država is a state of “comrades” (Serb. drug friend) and that the names German and Serbljin also have “friendly”/”brotherly” rounded connotations, that one has a chance of entering into the biggest miracle of this world – human speech.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: comparative linguistics, etymology

2 Comments on “Charlemagne vs. Kraljevina”

  1. David Marjanović Says:

    For god’s sake, even an uneducated shepherd would be able to solve this “riddle”! But, it cotradicts the phonetic laws/rules! What rules? English bake comes from PIE *bHeh1- while Serbian peći, pekao (bake) is from *pekW-! OK, but what are we then going to do with the OHG packan, pachan and peccho instaed of MHG bachen and Ger. backen?

    This is very easy if one knows a bit more about German phonetics and spelling than you do. Here goes: in High German*, as a fairly logical consequence of the High German Sound Shift which eliminated the previous /p t k/ at least in initial position, /b d g/ are voiceless lenes (like Spanish /p t k/). Therefore, a speaker of a language with voiced lenes would be strongly tempted to spell them as p/t/c/k at least sometimes. And that’s simply what happened. There’s a lot of such spelling variation in Old High German, and even in modern personal and place names: Gernot vs Notker Perg, Puchberger

    All Slavic languages have robustly voiced lenes and would therefore often, perhaps always, map voiceless lenes onto their own voiceless fortes. So, we’d expect pekar. And that’s what we see. I close my case.

    * Exception: the Carinthian dialect with its big fat Slovene substrate, and at least some of what’s spoken to the west of that in South Tyrol.

    I also do not believe that there were a large number of borrowed words in any language in the distant past.

    Why?

    I suppose those people had a vocabulary of just a dozen of words beforeseparation.

    This speculation doesn’t conform to a single piece of evidence on the planet. You should really go out less and read more.

    and being different (unintelligible) speakers made them deadly enemies. The further history is well known until this modern days. People started the wars, killing and plundering.

    Wars are a lot older than that. Chimpanzees, too, wage wars; that makes 7 million years at least.

    Nevertheless, I think that any native speaker will recognize, unmistakably, the “intruders” into his tongue.

    That depends on how old they are. Take German Kirsche, Kiste, Keller, Kerker “cherry, wooden box, cellar/basement, dungeon”; all are from Latin.

    Are we going to find anything “unusual” in relation among the Latin words rex regis (king) grex gregis (herd, flock), gresus (step, course) and gregalis (pl. companions, associates, accomplices)? What is the smallest common denominator for all these words? Does it mean that rex (king) also started with the velar in initial place?

    I bet it’s a coincidence.

    Are there valid cognates to these Latin words in Slavic, Greek and Germanic?

    Not that I know of, but I’m not an IEist.

    Could it be related to Latin area and harena;

    These are not related to each other.

    Does it mean that Greek χορός comes from κρίκος (ring);

    It cannot. How would that work???

    It seems that Latin arena/harena is also related to κρίκος or more precisely (and surprisingly) to OE hring (ring)?!

    Nope. Germanic hring comes from earlier *kri-, so κρίκος looks reasonable, though I don’t know where the [ŋ] comes from. (On the other hand, that may not mean anything — I don’t even know Verner’s Law by heart.)

    Why harena also has the “additional” meaning sand?

    Because this is the original meaning. Sand –> sand place –> sand place with walls and seats around it. This is well documented within Latin itself!!!

    How can Sabine fasena (sand) be related to Latin harena (sand; hasena => harena)?

    According to my sources, this is indeed strange, because the opposite correspondence would be expected.

    Let us agree that s/r rhotacism is possible in this case,

    Not “possible”. Expected.

    although it is difficult to understand how aurum (gold) can be related to Sabine ausum, especially if we know that gold is χρυσός in Greek (cf. Lat. h/aureus golden and Gr. chrusos gold).

    Why can’t the Italic and the Greek words simply be unrelated? And is there evidence that aureus ever had a h?

    English through is related to Serbian kroz (through; Russ. через, Cz. skrze)

    How is this supposed to work???

    What a mess!

    Indeed, because you insist that everything that’s even just vaguely similar must be related. I give up. As I wrote: you should go out less and read more.

    Just one thing: Charlemagne and kraljevina are indeed related. That’s because Charlemagne was the king.

    Here goes: Charlemagne is the French fossilized form of 9th-century Latin Karolus Magnus “Charles the Great”. The German form of this is Karl der Große; the name is Karl. There are good reasons to think that this is how the good man was actually called in the 9th century, such as Old High German records and the fact that English Charles is imported from French. Now, what would happen if Karl got imported into 9th-century Slavic? It would become OCS Корль (because long /a/ stayed /a/ while short /a/ became /o/ in OCS). Now, this would only be
    expected to stay as such in northern Polish or so — check out Stargard Szczeciński. In East Slavic, we’d expect another vowel to be inserted into the consonant cluster: Король — and this is exactly the modern Russian word for “king”. (Compare
    Russian город.) Everywhere else, we’d expect /kralʲ/ or obvious derivatives thereof — compare grad.

    All that remains to be explained how a personal name could become a job description. Well, precedents exist (Caesar most famously), and it wasn’t just Charlemagne: in the 8th and 9th century, several kings/emperors of the Franks in a row were called Karl (or Karlmann or or the like).

    The suffix chain -ev-in-a is obvious and requires no further explanation.

    Carevina is not related. It has the same suffix chain attached to OCS цьсарь, which is a straightforward import of Caesar (or rather the rest of the declension: Caesaris, Caesari, Caesarem, Caesare — always with a front vowel behind the r) via (Old High) German or maybe some predecessor thereof like Langobardic. Don’t confuse kings with emperors; don’t confuse Charlemagne with Caesar.

    Besides, both “Slav” and “German” probably come from water. For the former see Днепр Словитель, for the latter I haven’t seen the derivation, only an assertion that a river name is probably involved.


  2. This is very easy if one knows a bit more about German phonetics and spelling than you do.

    And, obviously, you are the one who knows much more than I do! Would you accept it if I tell you that you are pretentious and (possible) have a problem with your ego?

    Here goes:

    No, you got it absolutely wrong

    All Slavic languages have robustly voiced lenes and would therefore often, perhaps always, map voiceless lenes ….

    Irrelevant

    This speculation doesn’t conform to a single piece of evidence on the planet. You should really go out less and read more.

    It seems you know nothing about evidences and even less about the planet.

    That depends on how old they are. Take German Kirsche, Kiste, Keller, Kerker “cherry, wooden box, cellar/basement, dungeon”; all are from Latin.

    Don’t believe everything you read in books.
    Kiresche, Gr. κερασιον (cherry), κεράς κεραστικῶς (mixed, mixing), κέρᾰς (horn), Serb. trešnja, Russ. черешня. If German Kirsche is a Latin loanword (cerasus) than all the above words for cherry must be borrowed from Latin too (Semitic *qrsu- included; Arab karas; Assyrian karšu!).

    Weh! steck’ ich in dem Kerker noch?
    Verfluchtes dumpfes Mauerloch,
    Wo selbst das liebe Himmelslicht
    Trüb durch gemalte Scheiben bricht!

    Goethe

    Kerker! Don’t be silly! Again similar story as the one with Kirsche vs.cerasus. If you understand Serbian then you probably heard the word ćorka or krkeljana (prison; Kerker) Gr. γόργυρα sewer, dungeon. What do you think, is carcer related to in-gurgito and gurgulio (windpipe). What English gorge have in common with Kerker; cf. Serb. grkljan (gorge); Slav. krug, Lat. circus, Gr. κρικος (circle), κίρκος (circle, falcon; OE hring. I told you everything, you just need to shake your brain out of its conventional mindset. 🙂

    I bet it’s a coincidence.

    Visit Las Vegas as soon as possible. 🙂

    English through is related to Serbian kroz (through; Russ. через, Cz. skrze)

    How is this supposed to work???

    You don’t understand this simple comparison and you are still trying to teach me a lesson!?

    Just one thing: Charlemagne and kraljevina are indeed related. That’s because Charlemagne was the king.

    My congratulations David! How is it to be a genius?
    Could you imagine what the etymology of the English word big might be? From Norwegian bugge (great man)? Compare this with Serbian budža (great, important man)… Are these two words related or not? Now if I say that magnus is related not only to Serbian mnogo (many, Menge) but also to Serbian velik (big), I know, you are not going to believe me. But they are, mnogo, velik, budža, bulge, bulk etc. are cognates. I will explain it precisely some other time because it demands a lot of time. Try to think in the meantime: Serb. dial. mlogo (many), Lat. multus; Lat. amplus (ample, spacious), Serb. obilan/bujan (copious, ample).
    The bound morphema -vina in kralje-vina has the meanings big, heap, pile, lump, form and it goes back to oblik (effigy), oblina (plumpness, roundness).

    Regards,
    Dušan


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: