Merritt Ruhlen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merritt Ruhlen (pronounced /ˈmɛɹɪt ˈɹuːlən/), born in 1944,[1] is an American linguist known for his work on the classification of languages and what this reveals about the origin and evolution of modern humans. Some of his ideas are considered controversial.

Contents

[edit] Biography

Ruhlen received his Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1973 with a dissertation on the generative analysis of Romanian morphology, after earlier work at Rice University, the University of Paris, the University of Illinois and the University of Bucharest. He subsequently worked for several years as a research assistant on the Stanford Universals Project directed by Joseph Greenberg and Charles Ferguson. Since 1994 he has been a lecturer in Anthropological Sciences and Human Biology at Stanford and co-director, with Murray Gell-Mann and Sergei Starostin, of the Santa Fe Institute Program on the Evolution of Human Languages. He has also been a visiting professor at the City University of Hong Kong. Ruhlen knew and worked with Joseph Greenberg for three and a half decades and has become his mentor's most fervent and prolific disciple.

[edit] Work

Ruhlen is the author of several books dealing with the languages of the world and their classification:

[edit] A Guide to the Languages of the World

A Guide to the Languages of the World provides information on the phonological systems and classifications of 700 languages, prefaced by background information for linguists as well as non-linguists.[2] A greatly expanded version of this work was published in 2005 on the Santa Fe Institute web site.

[edit] A Guide to the World’s Languages

In 1987 Ruhlen published A Guide to the World’s Languages. Volume I, Classification, which includes a complete classification of the world’s languages as well as a history and complete analysis of the genetic classification of languages.[3] In addition to the factual information in this book Ruhlen provides a thorough examination, and defense, of the controversial taxonomic work of Joseph Greenberg.

[edit] On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy

In 1994 Ruhlen published two books with similar titles. On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy is aimed at a scholarly audience and claims that some of the assumptions current among historical linguists are incorrect.[4] Among these, Ruhlen argues, is the notion that only the discovery of regular sound correspondences and the reconstruction of its protolanguage can be considered convincing evidence for the existence of a language family – these latter steps can, according to him, only be carried out after the existence of a language family has been discovered by classification.

[edit] The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue

Ruhlen’s other book published in 1994, The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue, explores many of the same topics, but with a more general, non-technical, audience in mind.[5] This book includes exercises in which the readers are invited to classify languages themselves using the technique of mass comparison, better described as multilateral comparison.

[edit] Major Interests

[edit] Multidisciplinary Approach

Ruhlen has been in the forefront of attempts to coordinate the results of historical linguistics and other human sciences, such as genetics and archaeology.[6][7][8] In this endeavor he has extensively worked with the geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza for three decades and with the archaeologist Colin Renfrew for two decades.

[edit] Taxonomic Methods

Main article: Mass lexical comparison

Some of the criticism of Ruhlen centers around his defense of Joseph Greenberg's technique of classification, called "mass comparison" or "multilateral comparison", which involves comparing the vocabulary of languages being investigated, examining them for similarities of sound and meaning, and formulating a hypothesis of classification. Ruhlen maintains that classification (by means of multilateral comparison) is the first step of the comparative method, and that the other operations of historical linguistics, such as reconstruction of a protolanguage and the formulation of sound correspondences, can only be carried out after a hypothesis of classification has already been established by the use of multilateral comparison.

While, for instance, Hock[9][10] claims that only reconstruction proves genetic affinity, and Indo-European, Uralic, Dravidian, Austronesian, Bantu, and Uto-Aztecan have all been proved by successful reconstructions, Ruhlen disagrees with him, noting:[11]

“ And yet all of these families were universally accepted as valid families before anyone even thought of trying to reconstruct the protolanguage. ”

As an example, Ruhlen mentions Delbrück, who considered Indo-European to have been proved by the time of Bopp at the beginning of the 19th century, and the basis of this proof was the "juxtaposition of words and forms of similar meaning."[12]

Perhaps the strongest evidence supporting Ruhlen can be found in the work of the geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, who has studied the genes in human populations throughout the world and constructed a phylogenetic tree, a structure similar in many respects to traditional trees of language families, showing where in the "tree" given genetic groups separated.[13][14] The results are widely (though not universally) accepted as matching up remarkably well with Ruhlen's proposed structure of the languages and language families of the world. This has served to convince nonlinguists of the validity of Ruhlen's classifications, yet linguists agree that genetic relatedness cannot be used to adduce linguistic relatedness.

This tree has been criticized by some linguists and anthropologists on several grounds: that it makes selective use of languages and populations (omitting the very numerous Sino-Tibetan speakers of northern China, for example); that it assumes the truth of such linguistic groups as Austric and Amerind that are controversial; and that several of the population groups listed are defined not by their genes but by their languages, making the correlation irrelevant to a comparison of genetic and linguistic branching and tautological as well.[15][16]

[edit] The Amerind Macrofamily

Main article: Amerind languages

Ruhlen has supported and adduced more evidence for one of Greenberg’s most controversial hypotheses, the Amerind language family, which would unite all of the languages of North and South America into a single macrophylum except for the two widely accepted families Na-Dené and Eskimo-Aleut.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]

He thus objects to the notion that there are over 200 families among which there is no evidence of genetic affinity,[27] and stresses the importance of the three-way i / u / a (i.e. masculine / feminine / neutral) ablaut in such forms as t'ina / t'una / t'ana ("son / daughter / child"), as well as of the typical general American pronominal pattern na / ma (i.e. "I / you"), first noted by Alfredo Trombetti in 1905. Some linguists have attributed this pronoun pattern to other than genetic causes.[28] He refers to the earliest beginnings of the dispute,[4][11] quoting from Edward Sapir's personal letter to A. L. Kroeber (1918):[29]

“ Getting down to brass tacks, how in the Hell are you going to explain general American n- 'I' except genetically? It's disturbing, I know, but (more) non-committal conservatism is only dodging, after all, isn't it? Great simplifications are in store for us. ”

It should be stressed, however, that Greenberg and Ruhlen's views on the languages of the Americas have failed to find acceptance among the vast majority of linguists working with these languages.

[edit] Kusunda as an Indo-Pacific language

 This article or section needs to be updated.
Please update the article to reflect recent events / newly available information, and remove this template when finished.
Main articles: Kusunda language and Indo-Pacific languages

Ruhlen participated in research on the Kusunda language of Nepal.[30][31] The results seem to indicate that Kusunda is a member of the tentative Indo-Pacific superfamily[32] rather than a Tibeto-Burman language, as has often been erroneously maintained.[33]

The main pieces of evidence, features typical of other Indo-Pacific languages, consist in:

(a) an independent first-person pronoun based on /t/;
(b) an independent second-person pronoun based on /n/ or /ŋ/;
(c) an independent third-person pronoun based on /g/ or /k/;
(d) a vowel alternation in the first- and second-person independent pronouns in which /u/ occurs in subject forms and /i/ in possessive (or oblique) forms;
(e) a possessive suffix -/yi/
(f) the consonantal base also indicates the verbal subject
(g) demonstrative pronouns based on /t/ and /n/
(h) the most basic vocabulary

The following table is a sample that illustrates the similarities between the pronominal systems of several Indo-Pacific languages:[31]

Pronoun Kusunda Andamanese languages Core North
Halmaheran family		 Central Bird's
Head family
Juwoi Bo Galela Karon Dori
I chi[34]
tsi[35]
tshi[36]		 tui tu-lʌ to tuo
my chí-yi[34] tii-ye ti-e d͡ʒi "me"
you nu[34]
nu[35]
nu[36]		 ŋui ŋu-lʌ no nuo
your ní-yí[34] ŋii-ye ni "thee"
he/she gida[34]
git[35]		 kitɛ kitɛ gao

The few critics of this tentative proposal have rejected it on the following grounds:[37]

  1. the existence of an Indo-Pacific superfamily is disputed;
  2. pronouns can be borrowed;
  3. similarities may be due to chance;
  4. theory of linguistic relationships cannot be based solely on the basis of the physical attributes of the speakers

Nevertheless, the proponents consider these arguments as unsubstantiated,[38][39] since there is no evidence of contacts between the speakers of Kusunda and the other groups for borrowing to occur, and coincidental creation of the whole pronominal system is extremely unlikely. Moreover, the hypothesis is based exclusively on linguistic evidence, not on the physical attributes of the speakers, although they may serve as an indirect clue, as well. DNA analyses of the Kusunda speakers might shed some light on this issue in the future.

[edit] Yeniseian-Na-Dené

Main articles: Na-Dené languages, Yeniseian languages, Dené-Caucasian languages, and Dené-Yeniseian languages

According to Ruhlen, linguistic evidence indicates that the Yeniseian languages, spoken in Siberia, are most closely related to the Na-Dené languages (here including Haida), spoken in North America.[40] The hypothesis is supported by independent findings of other scholars, for example Heinrich K. Werner,[41] or Edward J. Vajda (who nevertheless rejects Haida's membership in the Na-Dené language family).[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]

This would mean that the Na-Dené represent a distinct migration from Asia to the New World, intermediate between the first migration of Amerinds around 13,000 years ago and the third migration of the Eskimo-Aleut around 5,000 years ago. Concurring with his earlier work,[4][51][52][53]Ruhlen thinks the Yeniseian–Na-Dené population can plausibly be traced to West Asia, where the more distantly related Caucasian and Burushaski languages, other members of the tentative Dené-Caucasian superfamily, are found.

[edit] The Proto-Sapiens Hypothesis

Main article: Proto-World language

On the question of the Proto-Sapiens language and global etymologies, most “mainstream” historical linguists reject Ruhlen's assumptions and methodology,[54][55][56] holding that it is impossible to reconstruct a language spoken at least 30,000 years ago (possibly more than 100,000 years ago). Ruhlen has responded that he (and Bengtson) have never claimed to have reconstructed Proto-World, but have simply pointed out that reflexes of very ancient words can still be found in the world’s languages:[57]

“ For each [global] etymology ... we present a phonetic and semantic gloss, followed by examples from different language families. ... We do not deal here with reconstruction, and these [semantic and phonetic] glosses are intended merely to characterize the most general meaning and phonological shape of each root. Future work on reconstruction will no doubt discover cases where the most widespread meaning or shape was not original. ”

Ruhlen also maintains that the “temporal ceiling” assumed by many mainstream linguists – the time depth beyond which the comparative method fails, considered by some[58][28] to lie at roughly 6,000 to 8,000 years ago – does not exist, and that the now universally recognized existence of a language family as old as Afro-Asiatic, not to mention the even older Nostratic (Eurasiatic) whose existence remains controversial, shows that the comparative method can reach farther into the past than most linguists currently accept.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Library of Congress authorities database, accessed September 3, 2007
  2. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (1975), A Guide to the Languages of the World, Stanford, OCLC: 1940981 
  3. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (1987), A Guide to the World’s Languages, Vol. 1: Classification, Stanford: Stanford University Press, ISBN 0804712506 
  4. ^ a b c RUHLEN, Merritt (1994), On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy, Stanford: Stanford University Press, ISBN 0804723214 
  5. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (1994a), The Origin of Language: tracing the evolution of the mother tongue, New York: John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0471584266 
  6. ^ CHEN, Jiangtian; SOKAL, Robert R. & RUHLEN, Merritt (1995), “Worldwide Analysis of Genetic and Linguistic Relationships of Human Populations”, Human Biology (Wayne State University Press) 67 (4): 595–612, ISSN: 0018-7143 
  7. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (1995), “Worldwide Analysis of Genetic and Linguistic Relationships of Human Populations”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal (Cambridge University Press) 5: 265–68 
  8. ^ KNIGHT, Alec; UNDERHILL, Peter A.; MORTENSEN, Holly M.; ZHIVOTOVSKY, Lev A.; LIN, Alice A.; HENN, Brenna M.; LOUIS, Dorothy; RUHLEN, Merritt; et al. (2003-04-18), “African Y-chromosome and mtDNA Divergence Provides Insight into the History of Click Languages”, Current Biology (Cell Press) 13 (6): 464–473, ISSN 0960-9822, doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00130-1, <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VRT-4861XN1-K-8&_cdi=6243&_user=10&_orig=browse&_coverDate=03%2F18%2F2003&_sk=999869993&view=c&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkWW&md5=559be7a5588c830070d7629ca512ace3&ie=/sdarticle.pdf>. Retrieved on 29 April 2007 
  9. ^ HOCK, Hans Heinrich (1986), Principles of Historical Linguistics, Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, ISBN 0899252206 
  10. ^ HOCK, Hans Heinrich & JOSEPH, B. D. (1996), Language history, language change, and language relationship: An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics, Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, ISBN 3110147858 
  11. ^ a b RUHLEN, Merritt (July 2001), Taxonomic Controversies in the Twentieth Century, in TRABANT, Jürgen & WARD, Sean, “New Essays on the Origin of Language”, Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM] (Mouton de Gruyter) (no. 133): 197–214, ISBN 978-3-11-017025-2 
  12. ^ DELBRÜCK, Berthold (1880), Einleitung in das Sprachstudium. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Methodik der vergleichenden Sprachforschung, Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, OCLC: 3961260 
  13. ^ CAVALLI-SFORZA, Luigi Luca; PIAZZA, Alberto; MENOZZI, Paolo & MOUNTAIN, Joanna (1988), “Reconstruction of Human Evolution: Bringing Together Genetic, Archeological and Linguistic Data”, PNAS (National Academy of Sciences) 85: 6002-6006, ISSN: 1091-6490, <http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/85/16/6002?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cavalli&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT>. Retrieved on 30 April 2007 
  14. ^ CAVALLI-SFORZA, Luigi Luca (2000), Genes, peoples, and languages, New York: North Point Press, ISBN 0865475296 
  15. ^ BATEMAN, Richard; GODDARD, Ives; O'GRADY, Richard; FUNK, V. A.; MOOI, Rich; KRESS, Joh & CANNELL, Peter (February 1990), “Speaking of Forked Tongues”, Current Anthropology (The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research; The University of Chicago Press) 31 (1): 1-24 
  16. ^ TRASK, R. L. (1996), Historical Linguistics, London; New York: Arnold; St. Martin's Press, ISBN 0340662956 
  17. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (1994), “Evolution of Language”, in MACEY, Sam, Encyclopedia of Time, New York: Garland Science, ISBN 0815306156 
  18. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (1994), “Linguistic Evidence for the Peopling of the Americas”, in BONNICHSEN, Robson & STEELE, D. Gentry, Method and Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas, Corvallis, Oregon: Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, pp. 177–188, ISBN 0912933097 
  19. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (November 1994), “Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose”, Mother Tongue Newsletter (Association for the Study of Language In Prehistory (ASLIP)) (no. 23): 72-73, OCLC: 35315526 
  20. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (1994), “Review of 'Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time' By Johanna NICHOLS”, Anthropos 89: 640–641, ISSN: 0257-9774 
  21. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (March 1995), “A Note on Amerind Pronouns”, Mother Tongue Newsletter (Association for the Study of Language In Prehistory (ASLIP)) (no. 24): 60–61, OCLC: 35315526 
  22. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (March 1995), “Proto-Amerind *QETS’ 'Left (Hand)'”, Mother Tongue Newsletter (Association for the Study of Language In Prehistory (ASLIP)) (no. 24): 69–70, OCLC: 35315526 
  23. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (1995), “On the Origin of the Amerind Pronominal Pattern”, in Chen, Matthew Y. & Tzeng, Ovid J. L., In Honor of William S-Y. Wang, Taipei: Pyramid Press, pp. 405–407, ISBN 957926855X 
  24. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (January 1995), “Proto-Amerind Numerals”, Anthropological Science (Tokyo: Anthropological Society of Nippon) 103 (3): 209–225, ISSN: 1348-8570 
  25. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (2004), “On the Amerind Origin of the Proto-Algonquian Numeral Suffix *-a:šyeka”, in JONES, Martin, Traces of ancestry: studies in honour of Colin Renfrew, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 139–142, ISBN 1902937252 
  26. ^ GREENBERG, Joseph H. & RUHLEN, Merritt (2007-09-04), An Amerind Etymological Dictionary, Corvallis, Oregon: Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University 
  27. ^ CAMPBELL, Lyle (1997), American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 058537161X 
  28. ^ a b NICHOLS, Johanna (1992), Linguistic diversity in space and time, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226580563 
  29. ^ SAPIR, Edward (1984), “Letter to A. L. Kroeber (1918)”, The Sapir-Kroeber correspondence: letters between Edward Sapir and A. L. Kroeber, 1905-1925, Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, OCLC: 17922146 
  30. ^ STAROSTIN, Sergei A. (2004-07-13). Merritt Ruhlen. Santa Fe Institute. Retrieved on 2007-05-02.
  31. ^ a b WHITEHOUSE, Paul; USHER, Timothy; RUHLEN, Merritt & WANG, William S.-Y. (2004-04-13), “Kusunda: an Indo-Pacific Language in Nepal”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (United States National Academy of Sciences) 101 (15): 5692–5695, ISSN: 0027-8424, doi:10.1073/pnas.0400233101, <http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/101/15/5692> 
  32. ^ GREENBERG, Joseph Harold (1971), Regional linguistic notebooks, Pacific languages, ca. 1969-1971, OCLC: 122369578 
  33. ^ WATTERS, David (2006), “Notes on Kusunda Grammar: A language isolate of Nepal”, Himalayan Linguistics Archive (no. 3): 1-182: pp. 9,10,15,33, <http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/HimalayanLinguistics/grammars/2006/HLA03_Watters.pdf>. Retrieved on 2 May 2007 
  34. ^ a b c d e HODGSON, B. H. (1857), “Comparative vocabulary of the languages of the broken tribes of Népál”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Calcutta: Asiatic Society Bengal) 26: 317-332, OCLC: 20216845 
  35. ^ a b c REINHARD, Johan (1976), Journal of the Institute of Nepal Asian Studies (Tribhuvan University) 4: 1–21 
  36. ^ a b REINHARD, Johan & TOBA, Tim (1970), A Preliminary Linguistic Analysis and Vocabulary of the Kusunda Language, Kirtipur: Summer Institute of Linguistics & Tribhuvan University, OCLC: 650443 
  37. ^ POSER, Bill (2004-06-10). Kusunda. Language Log mailing list. Retrieved on 2007-05-02.
  38. ^ MCWHORTER, John (2004-06-10). Can relationships between languages be determined after 80,000 years?. Language Log mailing list. Retrieved on 2007-05-02.
  39. ^ MCWHORTER, John (2004-06-13). Pronouns are like sweaters: Kusunda revisited. Language Log mailing list. Retrieved on 2007-05-02.
  40. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (1998-01-28), “The origin of the Na-Dene”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (United States National Academy of Sciences) 95: 13994–13996, ISSN: 0027-8424, doi:10.1073/pnas.95.23.13994, <http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/95/23/13994.pdf>. Retrieved on 4 May 2007 
  41. ^ WERNER, Heinrich K. (2004): Zur jenissejisch-indianischen Urverwandtschaft [On the Yeniseian-[American] Indian primordial relationship]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz
  42. ^ VAJDA, Edward J. 2000. Evidence for a genetic connection between Na-Dene and Yeniseian (Central Siberia). – Paper read at: January 2000 meeting of Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of America (SSILA) and Linguistic Society of America (LSA)
  43. ^ VAJDA, Edward J. 2000a. Yeniseian and Na-Dene: evidence for a genetic relationship. – Paper read at: 38th Conference on American Indian Languages (SSILA), Chicago, Jan. 2000
  44. ^ VAJDA, Edward J. 2000b. Yeniseian and Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit.' – Paper read at: Linguistics Department Colloquium, University of British Columbia, Mar. 2000
  45. ^ VAJDA, Edward J. 2000c. Ket verb morphology and its parallels with Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit: evidence of a genetic link. – Paper read at: Athabaskan Language Conference, Moricetown, BC, June 9, 2000
  46. ^ VAJDA, Edward J. 2000d. Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit and Yeniseian: lexical and phonological parallels. Read at: 39th Conference on American Indian Languages, San Francisco, Nov. 14-18, 2000
  47. ^ VAJDA, Edward J. (2001): Toward a typology of position class: comparing Navajo and Ket verb morphology. Read at: SSILA Summer Meeting, July 7, 2001
  48. ^ VAJDA, Edward J. (2001a): Linguistic relations across Bering Strait: Siberia and the Native Americans. Read at: Bureau of Faculty Research, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, March 8, 2001
  49. ^ VAJDA, Edward J. (2002): The origin of phonemic tone in Yeniseic. CLS 37 (Parasession on Arctic languages): 305-320
  50. ^ VAJDA, Edward J. (2004): Ket. (Languages of the World, Materials, 204) München: LINCOM Europa
  51. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt (October 1997), “Une nouvelle famille de langues: le déné-caucasien”, Pour la Science (Dossier): 68–73 
  52. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt, “Dene-Caucasian: A New Linguistic Family”, in OMOTO, Keiichi & TOBIAS, Phillip V., The Origins and Past of Modern Humans-Towards Reconciliation, Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 231–246 
  53. ^ RUHLEN, Merritt, “Il Dene-caucasico: una nuova famiglia linguistica”, Pluriverso 2: 76–85 
  54. ^ KESSLER, Brett (2001), The Significance of Word Lists: Statistical Tests for Investigating Historical Connections Between Languages, Stanford: CSLI Publications, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 1575862999 
  55. ^ PICARD, Marc (1998), “The Case Against Global Etymologies: Evidence from Algonquian”, International Journal of American Linguistics (New York: Douglas C. McMurtrie) 64 (2): 141-147, ISSN: 0020-7071 
  56. ^ SALMONS, Joseph (1997), “'Global Etymology' as Pre-Copernican Linguistics”, California lɪŋ gwɪs tɪk Notes (Fullerton: Program in Linguistics, California State University) 25 (1): 1, 5–7, 60, ISSN 1548-1484 
  57. ^ BENGTSON, John D. & RUHLEN, Merritt (1994), “Global Etymologies”, in RUHLEN, Merritt, On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 277-336: p. 291 & note 3, ISBN 0804723214 
  58. ^ KAUFMAN, Terrence (1990), “Language History in South America: What We Know and How to Know More”, in PAYNE, D. L., Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American Languages, Austin: University of Texas Press 

[edit] External links

Languages