| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | is whereas becoming a transition? Thread poster: transparx
|
|---|
| But Richard ... | Mar 20, 2007 |
Richard Benham wrote:
I think this is just a question of bad punctuation ... Recently, I attended a conference in which a thirty-year-old postgrad gave a talk. Listening to it, it seemed pretty OK, except he seemed to think "causal" was spelt "causual". However, I had a copy of his paper, and he had adopted the principle of "one clause per sentence". Which can be annoying. And it can impede comprehension. If it is not clear. Which clause is logically related to which other. If you see. What I mean.
… what if we’re all purists? My English teacher in primary school, a nun who was about 154 years old, literally beat it into us that you can’t start a sentence with “however”. You did. I still find it hard to do. I suspect there’s an entire generation of Liverpool-bred ex-urchins, now spread across the world, who (to this day) run around the room with their hands to their faces in a blind panic when they come across a sentence that starts with “however” or “but” or “and”.
But I got over that. And I think you’re completely right about the bad punctuation. However, I’m trying to be non-judgmental about it. I don’t always succeed in that effort, but I’m trying. In that respect, I thought that Angela Dickson’s earlier comment in this thread about translators erring towards prescriptivism rather than descriptivism was right on target. Bull’s-eye, in fact. A very good comment.
But I do understand. What you meant about people. Who don’t seem to grasp. What a sentence is supposed to do. I encounter that phenomenon with dispiriting frequency.
Perhaps it has something to do with the proliferation of mobile-phone text messaging among the young. You pay per character, so U want 2 keep the characters 2 a minimum.
But I should stop there, because otherwise I’ll get into this mode: “are you really going out dressed like that?” “It was different in my day.” “We had to make our own entertainment.” “And in those days, of course, we didn’t have shoes.” That’s not music, it’s just noise.”
All best,
JB
| | | | | Is this attack me day? Sorry, but I have had my fill for today! | Mar 20, 2007 |
Hi Richard:
It wasn't trying to be the purist in my commentary, far from it. I was merely sharing a few thoughts that I found particularly irksome.
I don't mind the correction if there it serves a useful purpose. By the way, I personally would not write "If you see. What I mean." Touché (just kidding).
Regards.
Taña Dalglish
| | | | transparx 
United States
Local time: 01:11
English to Italian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | I am not a purist. And I don't think it is sacrilege. | Mar 21, 2007 |
Taña Dalglish wrote:
I too have often seen the "however" and "whereas" used in the manner posted here and I am appalled. There are a few others which come readily to mind such as "thanks much" "is he/she there?" (this galls me - who is he/she? - particularly if you work in an organization with over 2,000 persons). Why not ask for the person by name? Or am I being a "fuddy duddy" here?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Taña!
I did want to know how people felt about the data I had recently stumbled upon. But I don't see why you should be appalled. In the Italian section of this site, a new trend seems to be emerging (or is it just a passing fad?).... More and more people are now using the Italian equivalent of horror (i.e., orrore) whenever they encounter an error (errore in Italian). I found the same word used in exactly the same way in the link Giles provided above. This tells me that this new use of the word horror is not limited to, but goes well beyond, this particular site. Well, I find it childish. More important, I find it dangerous. I believe that, as linguists, we should try and understand why (and how) changes take place. We should refrain from inveighing against those who, for a variety of reasons, just happen to speak and/or write differently...
[Edited at 2007-03-21 01:31]
| | | | transparx
United States
Local time: 01:11
English to Italian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | fresh thoughts | Mar 21, 2007 |
Sarah Johnson wrote:
Are these high school students? College? Elementary? I find it hard to believe that this would be a new linguistic trend. My guess would be that these students perhaps haven't understood how to write a complete sentence (hence the fragment sentence). I find that many times when I am proofreading University level papers people tend to fall into a conversational mode and begin to write either run-on or fragment sentences. While this may be a result of a conversational line of thought, I believe that when the professor sees this in a paper, it is evidence of a lack of editorial skills, and not of a new linguistic mechanism.
To sum up, I believe that in speech these students probably use whereas as a coordinating subjunction, but when they are writing they think of the pause used when speaking (normally expressed by the comma) and mistakenly use a period.
If you ask the students about why they do this I would be interested in hearing their answers.
Sarah
No, they are neither elementary nor high school students. If they were, I wouldn't worry. In fact, I don't think I would worry if they were college students, either. I would simply correct their mistakes and explain to them what the problem was.
Unfortunately, they are graduate students --studying to become teachers. This is worrisome.
Sarah Johnson wrote:
To sum up, I believe that in speech these students probably use whereas as a coordinating subjunction, but when they are writing they think of the pause used when speaking (normally expressed by the comma) and mistakenly use a period.
If you ask the students about why they do this I would be interested in hearing their answers.
Sarah
You may be right, but this is not an innocuous mistake. Even placing a comma before a noun clause (as in the example above) would be innocuous. After all, this is precisely what is standardly done in other languages. A comma does not turn a noun clause into something else.
Placing a period in front of a subordinating conjunction, on the other hand, can be assessed in two different ways. It either means that the author simply made a mistake (perhaps because s/he simply didn't know, or was tired, rushed, or whatever), or -which is more interesting- it may indicate some kind of change. The latter is the reason why I started this thread in the first place.
Angela Dickson wrote:
2) You could well be right about the shift - though I would wonder about the written/spoken language divide here. Might these students simply be unaware of the punctuation rules for these conjunctions? In any case, what would be the ramifications of such a shift?
The ramifications could be significant. For one thing, it would be an interesting instance of shift in syntax. In language, as far as I know, it is easier to observe shifts in phonology and semantics than it is in syntax. Think of the gradual disappearance of the [j] sound in front of [u] in words such as new. Or consider the shift the word gay has undergone -discussed in a recent thread. By the way, at least here in New York, this word is currently undergoing a further shift -from homosexual to stupid and can be used to refer not only to people but also to things such as movies, books, and the like. i wonder if the same is happening elsewhere...but this is off topic.
Back to whereas, perhaps something is going on. Perhaps whereas simply does not want to leave and is desperately trying to find a new role as a transition.
Richard Benham wrote:
On a more serious note, I would have thought "whereas" had a rather archaic flavour. I rather assumed it was on the way out.
And of course, the following is true:
Richard Benham wrote:
By the way, there is no reason for it not to begin a sentence; there seems nothing wrong with "Whereas John is poor, Mary is rich".
Whereas is a subordinating conjunction and, like all subordinating conjunctions, is entitled to move with its entire clause to a sentence-initial position. The problem, I believe, is that, unlike other subordinating conjunctions, which require a comma only if the information is perceived as being additional, whereas (just like while) takes a comma even when it occurs after the main clause. All of this may create confusion for those who are not keen on grammar. In other words, these language users may construe whereas as a coordinating conjunction (much like but and yet). From here, it is a small step for them to start using it after a period. After all, much to the costernation of all purists and prescriptivists, coordinating conjunctions do occur sentence-initially!
All I wanted to say is that, after thinking about it for a few days, I came to the realization that people who use sentences such as (1) above may actually understand whereas to be a coordinating rather than a subordinating conjunction. Perhaps, yes, they are really not using it as a transition after all. Either way, it would count as an instance of syntactic change. Brushing the whole thing off as being a mere punctuation issue seems to me to be reductive. Speakers/writers have beliefs about their syntax and when they speak and write, they apply such beliefs.
I'd be interested in knowing what you think.
| | |
|
|
|
Richard Benham
France
Local time: 07:11
German to English
+ ...
In memoriam | Syntactic change? | Mar 21, 2007 |
transparx wrote:
Even placing a comma before a noun clause (as in the example above) would be innocuous.
I don’t agree. If anything, I find it offensive, along with such sins as putting a comma after the subject just because it is more than two or three words long, having a comma before a subordinate clause but not after, or vice versa....
In language, as far as I know, it is easier to observe shifts in phonology and semantics than it is in syntax.
Maybe so, but syntactic changes are there to be seen if you look. Try parsing the currency speculator’s “I’m long the pound” with long as an adjective. These guys use it as a preposition. Rural Queenslanders used to use but rather like however, often at the end of a sentence. This usage seems to have died out, but.
If we take a longer-term view, we could consider the perfect tense with have or its equivalents in most Western European languages. That’s not present in Latin, and its development can be traced through the history of Old English. It started from sentences like “I had him cornered.” The use of like as a preposition is relatively recent. It started out as a noun meaning “body”, which gave rise to the -ly suffix among other things, including the adjective like, which evolved into a preposition.
Back to whereas, perhaps something is going on. Perhaps whereas simply does not want to leave and is desperately trying to find a new role as a transition.
I shall overlook the pathetic fallacy. I believe what is going on is the following. For all sorts of reasons, some people like to use archaic words in various circumstances: when they are trying to create a serious or formal tone, or trying to sound erudite, or whatever. So they use words that are moribund, but, for that very reason, they have had little exposure to the usage of those words, and are not familiar with their syntactic rôle. So they use them in what would previously have been regarded as totally incorrect ways. (For a more obvious example, think of people trying to simulate archaic speech by adding -est or -eth to verbs, unaware that they are (or were) respectively second and third person singular endings.)
In the case of whereas, however, I think it is just a case of mispunctuation. The point of my story about the postgrad and his paper was that, in speech, his syntax was unexceptionable. He just had no idea of the difference between a comma and a period.
| | | | transparx
United States
Local time: 01:11
English to Italian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Is there anything more fallacious than disagreeing with facts? | Mar 22, 2007 |
Richard Benham wrote: transparx wrote:
Even placing a comma before a noun clause (as in the example above) would be innocuous.
I don’t agree.
Whether you agree or disagree is utterly irrelevant. I simply noted --and this is an indisputable fact-- that a comma does not turn a noun clause into something else. It doesn't turn it into an adjective or an adverb clause. Nor does it turn it into a frog or a prince.
Also, I am not, again, advocating a change. I am not arguing in favor of a reform such that, in this particular respect, English becomes like Russian, where placing a comma before a noun clause is the rule.
Basically, I don't care. If this were the rule in English, I would apply it. Since it isn't, I don't. Certainly I am not about to waste my time disagreeing that the earth is round and that it moves. These are facts.
Richard Benham wrote:
If anything, I find it offensive, along with such sins as putting a comma after the subject just because it is more than two or three words long, having a comma before a subordinate clause but not after, or vice versa....
This, at least, is not fallacious. Different people find different things offensive --just as they like different things. I may find it offensive that you wear ties (actually, I don't...it's just an example). Likewise, you may find my earrings offensive. But, since we live in a kind of free world (do recall that the Inquisition is over), I prefer to stick to my earrings, long hair, and ripped clothes. This is just morphology...it has really nothing to do with what people are inside --i.e., with their underlying structure.
I look at language in the same manner. I don't care if you place a comma before a noun clause. You might underline it, highlight it in yellow or orange or blue. You can even draw flowers around it or do whatever else may strike your whim.... That clause will remain a noun clause.
Placing a comma after a two- ot three-word subject may be a little hasty; however, if I am not mistaken, a comma is customarily placed --at least in some fields-- when the subject contains internal clauses and the head of the phrase functioning as a subject is simply too far away from the predicate of the sentence. This is just a way to signal to the reader that the subject is particularly long. After all, we are only human. I believe one should be thankful rather than offended.
Richard Benham wrote:
Maybe so, but syntactic changes are there to be seen if you look. Try parsing the currency speculator’s “I’m long the pound” with long as an adjective. These guys use it as a preposition. Rural Queenslanders used to use but rather like however, often at the end of a sentence. This usage seems to have died out, but.
If we take a longer-term view, we could consider the perfect tense with have or its equivalents in most Western European languages. That’s not present in Latin, and its development can be traced through the history of Old English. It started from sentences like “I had him cornered.” The use of like as a preposition is relatively recent. It started out as a noun meaning “body”, which gave rise to the -ly suffix among other things, including the adjective like, which evolved into a preposition.
I never said that syntactic changes rarely occur. I simply said that they are less easy to observe. I may be wrong, but people usually seem to be much readier to admit that X used to mean Y and now it means Z (or that it means Z in addition to Y) than they are to admit that new syntactic expressions may be passable. This might be due to the fact that syntactic expressions need to be grammaticalized before they become totally acceptable, but, for some reason, speakers often resist grammaticalization of new changes (especially when such changes come from a lower social class) as if their very own lives were at stake.
You mentioned like. Interestingly, this word is currently undergoing two further shifts, one of which has probably already come to completion: the shift from preposition to conjunction (e.g., like I said, ...) and the shift from ? to marker of reported speech and thought (e.g., and I was like...).
And we just recently discussed another change in progress: the use of the preposition of verb-internally (e.g., I must of did it). Whether you like it or not, many native speakers use of in this fashion, and syntacticians are still trying to determine whether those speakers simply make a mistake or whether they actually intend to use of.
Another error that I have often seen lately is the use of if following a preposition (e.g., ... depending on if I have the time). Again, you might find this offensive and Taña appalling (bodface used to avoid ambiguity), but some speakers seem to be using it regularly in both speech and writing (and I'm talking about educated native speakers). Descriptively, there is nothing wrong with it. The fact that people use it simply means that if is getting -syntactlically- closer and closer to whether; otherwise, speakers wouldn't be able to use it after a preposition.
Let me conclude by reiterating how important it is that we linguists understand why speakers may choose certain expressions over others. Judging people is not going to lead us anywhere. Spinoza wrote: "In relation to human affairs, not to cry, not to laugh, not to become indignant, but to understand." I believe his words apply to our discussions about language as well.
[Edited at 2007-03-22 18:53]
| | | | transparx
United States
Local time: 01:11
English to Italian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | thanks for the link | Mar 22, 2007 |
Lia Fail wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "change in progress", but another approach to language (as an alternative to prescriptive grammar) is usage, and to check usage you can refer to a corpus. I just had a quick look at WHEREAS in the British National Corpus of Spoken English, and there are very few sentences that begin with whereas and/or that are punctuated as you indicate. http://132.208.224.131/scripts/cgi-bin/wwwassocwords.exe
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to open it.
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 07:11
Italian to English
In memoriam | Aye well but... | Mar 22, 2007 |
Richard Benham wrote:
Rural Queenslanders used to use but rather like however, often at the end of a sentence. This usage seems to have died out, but.
Not in Scotland, where it originated.
However.
Giles
| | |
|
|
|
Richard Benham
France
Local time: 07:11
German to English
+ ...
In memoriam | Well there’s always attacking something someone never said.... | Mar 22, 2007 |
transparx wrote: Richard Benham wrote: transparx wrote:
Even placing a comma before a noun clause (as in the example above) would be innocuous. I don’t agree. Whether you agree or disagree is utterly irrelevant. I simply noted —and this is an indisputable fact— that a comma does not turn a noun clause into something else.
Now that is offensive. Your argument in any case is against something I didn’t say. I said (implicitly) that the practice wasn't innocuous. I did not say that it changed a noun phrase into something else. However, I am not so sure you are right. How about the following?
1: I told him, that you understand.
This is shite as it stands, but in trying to make sense of it, we are faced with a choice between:
1(a) I told him that you understand.
and
1(b) I told him. That you understand.
I would generally tend to go for the latter explanation, if I thought the author was a native speaker, for the simple reason that there is no pause as the sentence 1(a) is spoken in (native) English. (f I had reason to believe the author were say a native speaker of German, it might be different.) So in this case, at least with a native author, it does change the noun clause into a separate sentence.
I may find it offensive that you wear ties
I don’t wear ties, actually. That picture was taken for some kind of formal occasion like applying for a job or something. As for my hair, I left it uncut for decades until so much of it fell out that it became an embarrassment.
Placing a comma after a two- ot three-word subject may be a little hasty; however, if I am not mistaken, a comma is customarily placed —at least in some fields— when the subject contains internal clauses and the head of the phrase functioning as a subject is simply too far away from the predicate of the sentence.
The way I see it is that, very often, if the subject contains internal subordinate clauses, then it will naturally end with a comma. If no comma is required for this reason, then I think it is counter-productive. My reaction on encountering a gratuitous comma at the end of a subject is to assume I must have missed something, and that what I have just read must be a clause of some kind, and to go back and re-read it. The way I see it, rational punctuation makes reading quicker and easier, and inserting gratuitous commas a “resting places” (or whatever the justification is supposed to be) is simply misleading.
This is just a way to signal to the reader that the subject is particularly long. After all, we are only human. I believe one should be thankful rather than offended.
Rubbish. By the time you get to the comma, you must have (or should I say ”must of”?) worked out that the subject is particularly long. If there really is a danger of my being confused by the length of the subject, I would be more thankful for a judicious restructuring of the sentence.
I won’t even broach the of vs ’ve debate.
Finally (as far as transparx is concerned)....
You mentioned like. Interestingly, this word is currently undergoing two further shifts, one of which has probably already come to completion: the shift from preposition to conjunction (e.g., like I said, ...) and the shift from ? to marker of reported speech and thought (e.g., and I was like...).
I must admit the “quotative like” makes me cringe. I think I have an idea where it came from. Say around 25 years ago, I remember people being interviewed, such as up-and-coming entertainers who had just been offered a recording contract, reporting their reaction with the words “And I was like...” followed by some kind of non-verbal expression of emotion (inarticulate noise, gestures, etc.) So it was an attempt to explain the emotion by imitating the behavioiur, and by extension this could include verbal behaviour, and so on.... I have heard an academic linguist say that the “quotative like” is unexplained, but that’s my take.
Giles Watson wrote: Richard Benham wrote:
Rural Queenslanders used to use but rather like however, often at the end of a sentence. This usage seems to have died out, but. Not in Scotland, where it originated.
Somehow it sounds completely different (and totally acceptable, even endearing) when spoken with a Scots accent. I am not so sure that the Queensland practice can be traced to Scots usage. I don’t think there was ever a particular concentration of migrants from Scotland in Queensland.
On the descriptive/prescriptive issue, I think that lexicographers have failed in their duty by hiding behind the argument that their function is purely descriptive. Many dictionary buyers buy their dictionary in the expectation that the dictionary will tell them the “correct” meaning and usage of a word. This is a reasonable expectation. As translators, in my opinion, we should be linguistically conservative in translating what I might call serious texts: scientific articles, business letters, etc. A different approach is obviously called for with, say, marketing. But we do need to know what is “correct” for those occasions when we need to be serious (just as I need to have the odd tie for special occasions like interviews).
[Edited at 2007-03-22 20:01]
[Edited at 2007-03-22 20:23]
| | | | transparx
United States
Local time: 01:11
English to Italian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Richard Benham wrote:
Now that is offensive.
I didn't mean to say that whether you agree or disagree is in general irrelevant. Naturally, when people exchange opinions, agreeing and/or disagreeing is of the utmost importance.
What I meant to say --but perhaps I should have made this explicit-- was that, in this particular instance, your disagreeing was irrelevant to the question at hand --in my opinion, of course.
Richard Benham wrote:
Your argument in any case is against something I didn’t say. I said (implicitly) that the practice wasn't innocuous. I did not say that it changed a noun phrase into something else. However, I am not so sure you are right. How about the following?
1: I told him, that you understand.
This is shite as it stands, but in trying to make sense of it, we are faced with a choice between:
1(a) I told him that you understand.
and
1(b) I told him. That you understand.
I would generally tend to go for the latter explanation, if I thought the author was a native speaker, for the simple reason that there is no pause as the sentence 1(a) is spoken in (native) English. (f I had reason to believe the author were say a native speaker of German, it might be different.) So in this case, at least with a native author, it does change the noun clause into a separate sentence.
But now you are explicitly saying what you earlier claimed to have neither said nor implied, namely, that a simple comma may, in fact, turn a noun clause into something else. This confirms to me that what I had inferred was not too far from the truth. Saying that placing a comma is not innocuous could only be interpreted in this way. What other harm could a comma cause in the structure we have been discussing? As you can see, I simply did the math.
| | | | Richard Benham
France
Local time: 07:11
German to English
+ ...
In memoriam | Noting amiss.... | Mar 23, 2007 |
Hello transparx. Let me spell this out as simply as possible.
One: in my original post, I did not say anything about whether adding a comma changed the function of the clause. I hadn't even thought about the issue. You will note that I cut off the quote after the word “innocuous”, becajse it was that assertion I was disagreeing with. I do not accept that changing the rules of punctuation arbitrarily or being inconsistent about the ones you adopt (given that there is a fair bit ... See more Hello transparx. Let me spell this out as simply as possible.
One: in my original post, I did not say anything about whether adding a comma changed the function of the clause. I hadn't even thought about the issue. You will note that I cut off the quote after the word “innocuous”, becajse it was that assertion I was disagreeing with. I do not accept that changing the rules of punctuation arbitrarily or being inconsistent about the ones you adopt (given that there is a fair bit of latitude) is innocuous. That position still stands.
Two: while writing my second post, it occurred to me that your “indisputable fact” was actually rather shaky. So I thought of that example. I am sure it can be improved.
There is nothing wrong with any of this. I can’t be expected to make every possible true assertion in a post (for one thing there are infinitely many of them). Nor should I be expected to express a view on every assertion made by another party to a discussion. So in my first post I didn’t address the question of whether adding a comma before a noun clause can change its function...and then what? I was making the point that changing the grammatical function of a clause is not the only reason an added (or missing) punctuation mark can be objectionable. Then when pressed on the issue, I thought of a counterexample to your position...all part of the normal cut and thrust of debate, I would have thought. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Richard Benham
France
Local time: 07:11
German to English
+ ...
In memoriam | I forgot to mention earlier.... | Mar 23, 2007 |
I remember a fad for using or adverbially. “One way to go about this is blah blah blah. Or, you can....”. That seems to be a lot less common these days too.
I am still hoping for the “quotative like” to die a natural death.
| | | | | Like, really interesting | Mar 26, 2007 |
There is a high probability that someone who writes “Mary is rich. Whereas, John is poor” doesn’t now how to put together an English sentence in the way that Jane Austen put sentences together. Or Philip Roth. Or Ian McEwan. Or Peter Carey. Or the translators of Jorge Luis Borges or Gabriel García Márquez or the better translators of Mario Vargas Llosa. If that “someone” is a graduate student of linguistics in any organization that is charging them or their parents very large amounts... See more There is a high probability that someone who writes “Mary is rich. Whereas, John is poor” doesn’t now how to put together an English sentence in the way that Jane Austen put sentences together. Or Philip Roth. Or Ian McEwan. Or Peter Carey. Or the translators of Jorge Luis Borges or Gabriel García Márquez or the better translators of Mario Vargas Llosa. If that “someone” is a graduate student of linguistics in any organization that is charging them or their parents very large amounts of money … then I give all of them, and all of their parents and all their other financiers, my fondest wishes. ▲ Collapse
| | | | transparx
United States
Local time: 01:11
English to Italian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | not that I want to quibble, but... | Apr 1, 2007 |
Richard Benham wrote:
Two: while writing my second post, it occurred to me that your “indisputable fact” was actually rather shaky. So I thought of that example. I am sure it can be improved.
I am afraid that your counterexample is not a counterexample. If it were, it should generalize.
You chose a sentence containing an ambiguous word, namely, that. This word can be understood as a complementizer (1) or as a demonstrative (2); thus it is ambiguous both lexically and syntactically. I fail to see how your example can be improved.
(1) I told him that you understand.
(2) I told him. That you understand.
But think of (3). What if this fictitious native speaker that you brought into the picture were to write any of the sentences below? Would the same argument hold?
(3) a. ? I told him, what I had eaten.
b. ? He asked me, if it was raining.
c. ? I wonder, why they have left.
It seems to me to be a bit far-fetched to argue that this fictictious character wanted to write the following.
(4) a. * I told him. What I had eaten.
b. * He asked me. If it was raining.
c. * I wonder. Why they have left.
If this is correct, then my indisputable fact is less shaky than your post made it out to be.
all the best,
t.
btw, if you don't want to post anything before you're done, simply don't type in the title until the very end.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » is whereas becoming a transition? | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
