Translation talk:Joshua

Sources: chapters 16 and 1

For my translation of chapter 16, I've used as my source text the traditional Masoretic Text, and for translating I've relied on four English public domain versions for help: John Nelson Darby's Translation, the Authorised/Common Version/King James Bible, Young's Literal Translation, and Walter Porter's ACV. In addition, I've used Strong's Concordance and Brown-Driver-Brigg's Hebrew Lexicon for help with Hebrew. When really stumped, I've turned for assistance to the Septuagint Greek Text and its translation by Brenton, and to the Vulgate and its Douay-Rheims translation. Fontwords 17:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

---

For Chapter 1, I have used the Masoretic text, The Torah, a Modern Commentary edited by W.G. Plaut, the Authorized King James Version, and the Haftarot (Reform, Plaut) English and Hebrew, 1981. -- Pinkfud (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Sources, 2-7, 9-15, 17-24

I'm working my way through chapter 2. My source is the Masoretic Text, but I feel free to borrow readings from the KJV and Gesenius when it seems appropriate. Alephb (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Going further, more of the same strategy. Alephb (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

As usual, I also feel free to borrow, here and there, from the wording found in any pre-1923 (public domain) resource. Alephb (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you doing chapter 10 as well? JustinCB (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I did. Sorry for the delayed reply -- I missed this comment of yours. If you want any part of Joshua, just tell me, though, and I'll leave it for you. Alephb (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you translate chapter 16 as well? JustinCB (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, good catch. I've revised he header to this section to reflect that 16 was translated back in 2007 by User:Fontwords. Alephb (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind translating the parts of Sirach(ecclesiasticus) that are extant in Hebrew from Hebrew(it's in the Quamran scrolls that you mentioned you have a copy of)? I can translate the rest from Latin. JustinCB (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources, 8

The latest contributor has added chapter 8 based on their own translation from the Clementine Vulgate. Alephb (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to anyone changing the spelling of names to more common transliterations, or changing the wording to agree more with the original languages.

For some of the wording, I used the Wycliffe translation of the Vulgate, especially the parts where its wording is less technical than how I might translate the Latin without it(for example its reading of "blessing and cursing," rather than the technical "benedictions and maledictions"), and sometimes its readings helped give a clearer translation(for example, "insidias", which more often translates as "traps" or "ambushes", makes more sense as "ambush bivouacs", which was influenced by its translation, "busshementis"). JustinCB (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. For the present, I'm mostly working on adding new translation when I have the time, but if you ever want a consult on a particular question about Hebrew, I can usually help. Over the last month, I think you and me are the only two people who have added any text. If you feel like "claiming" a particular book so we don't unnecessarily duplicate work, let me know and I'll make sure to do my fresh translating somewhere else. Right now I'm starting to work through Judges. Alephb (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I started on Deuteronomy where you left off. I started on the song of Moses(Deuteronomy 32:1-43) in a poetic translation(not literal), so I'm using Wycliff's translation and the king james more, as my Latin in some places could be better and I'm making a poetic and not literal translation. With this chapter, I was testing the waters, how well the other translators(or translator) would take someone with vulgate latin(much of the vulgate vocabulary[excluding the basics] survives in english as technichal terms in the bible and church) but no hebrew or greek. JustinCB (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm claiming the Wycliffite prologue. JustinCB (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Very well. The Wycliff prologue is yours. I'm personally going to stick to translating actual biblical text in the meantime. If it's rough-draft material, I have no objections to using the Vulgate, as long as you're not planning on taking all the already-translated stuff from Hebrew and making it match the Vulgate (which I think is not your intent at all). For whatever it's worth, I'm a lot more comfortable in Hebrew than Latin. I took three years of it in school, but that was a long time ago. Alephb (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't want to change it to match the vulgate(it isn't THAT good of a translation that I want to replace the originals with it[it is the earliest surviving source for 2 esdras and the epistle to the laodacians, so if THOSE aren't translated yet, I might do them later]), but only to use it for a rough draft and its prologues as an introduction. I'm better in Middle English than in Latin, and I think being a native speaker of English gave me an advantage in learning Middle English, just as some of the native speakers of Modern Hebrew say natively speaking Hebrew helped them with biblical Hebrew. Both Middle English and Biblical Hebrew are difficult for a native speaker of the modern language to understand without some learning, but the learning is easier for native speakers of the modern language. Once you know some words that aren't in use anymore, figure out the inflections(which are only slightly different from those in the King James Bible), and get used to the spelling, it isn't too different from Modern English. JustinCB (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

A native speaker of modern Hebrew would have an excellent head start if they are willing to allow for the fact that there are significant differences between how the language is spoken now and how it was written 2500 years ago. The morphology is practically all the same -- the main differences are some issues involving the meaning of verb forms, and a large number of words that have experienced shifts in meaning. Where native English use has been continuous in a single location over the last thousand years, Hebrew died and was resurrected by the conscious effort of Jews who spoke European languages. It caused some fairly dramatic changes. A bright speaker of modern Hebrew plus a concordance and a few reference books could pretty quickly get up to speed on biblical Hebrew. Alephb (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an comparison and no comparison is perfect. The best comparison to how Hebrew was before the late 1800's is probably Latin. That being said, Middle English is probably a fairly good comparison because of the influence of French. Anyways if you gave an English speaker who hasn't studied Middle English a copy of the Ormulum or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight or Havelock the Dane, they wouldn't be able to understand it very well, if at all. I doubt that you or anybody else who hasn't studied Middle English will know what all(or even most) of these Middle English words and phrases mean: i3en
3oten calues
3eld to him his weed
hem
3ouen
3ede awey
turne a3en
bacbitris
Goddis vikers
tweyne
yuel
a3enseing
boren
oo
quyke
huyre
All of these appear in the original Wycliffite Prologue, which isn't exactly written in an obscure dialect. JustinCB (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no. I definitely don't know those words. I would be guessing on any of them. There's also been some spelling change between ancient and modern Hebrew, but much, much less so. Alephb (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

A primarily written and/or widely written language is going to have fewer changes in spelling than a primarily spoken/not widely written language. Latin is spelled almost the same as it was in Jerome's time(by comparison, English didn't even have an alphabet and Hebrew had been spelled almost the same for almost 1000 years). If you're patient, know Modern English and are not easily bothered by spelling differences, you can teach yourself Middle English. I was trying to give some examples of difficult words and phrases; most of the time the words and phrases are more like:
puttide
3iftis
alle the princes of the puple
hangide in iebatis
taak hise cote
maker of nou3t
strong veniaunces
and the like. JustinCB (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the translations of the first set of words and phrases:
eyes
molded(literally poured) calves
give him back(literally yield to him) his pledge
them
given
went away
turn back/around(literally turn again)
backstabbers(backbiters)
God's fighters
two(twain)
evil
grumbling against(literally against-saying)
born
one
living(the modern form is quick)
wages/hire JustinCB (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You're quite right about spelling. I'd guess the way that Hebrew grammar depends on holding "root" consonants together and altering vowels and prefixes and suffices around those root letters might also have some preservative effect. For Hebrew, the big differences I notice between modern and ancient tend to be that often a modern word (though spelled the same) will have a different meaning, and that the grammar is often different. But aside from some little differences with how vowels are indicated, the spelling is incredibly constant.

If you decide you ever want to teach yourself biblical Hebrew, I'd be happy to generally point you toward some resources and/or answer questions as they come up. You can hit me up on the talk page. If you don't, no worries. Just making sure you know the offer's there. Alephb (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to learn some biblical Hebrew and to point out that grammar is another paralell between Middle/Modern English and Modern/Biblical Hebrew. In Middle English(and to a lesser extent, Early Modern English), forms of "be" are used for the subjunctive mood, so(in modern spelling), "they are rotten men" is a slightly surer/more emphatic for "they been rotten men". This usage is gone, and "been" is only the past participle. This mostly has no effect on a translation, but it's very strange if you only know modern english(however, it can sometimes affect translation when it's used for "even if" like in "be there ever so many", which is clumsy to translate[it ends up being something like "even if there are more than there ever were before"]). There's also some archaic grammar with words like "doubt", "think", where you would have something like "for me doute the truth of tho bocis"(meaning "because I doubt the truth of those books") and verbs having multiple forms because of using forms from other dialects and no standard spelling(most words are spelled multiple ways, too). I guess it's only fair that I should offer to point you in the right direction for learning Middle English after accepting your offer for Biblical Hebrew. JustinCB (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"gallows"

The word translated in chapter 8 as "gallows" doesn't seem to translate well in english, except for as "gibbet," which would get the reaction, "What's a gibbet?" Here "gallows" makes sense, but in other places it doesn't, like when they hang a hundred or so criminals, the word(if it were translated "gallows") would mean a hundred or separate gallows, or a hundred or so gibbets, which would mean a hundred or so nooses in ONE gallows, and a hundred or so display cages for the bodies. JustinCB (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Where the Latin has patibulus, the Hebrew has ets, the most recent basic meaning of which is "tree(s)." The Hebrew word ets, in the grammatically singular form, is used for both plural and singular trees, wood, and things made of trees. In Esther, Haman builds an enormous ets to hang Mordechai on, and Deuteronomy says, "Cursed is anyone hung on an ets." So, in my opinion, Jerome has the right general idea and so do you. I'm not at all sure, though, whether a noose is necessarily involved in gibbeting someone on an ets. After all, the cross-bar of a cross is also referred to as a patibulum. Alephb (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been changed to "executed and put on display" to reflect the lack of nooses. JustinCB (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even realize the English word gibbet implied nooses. I wasn't so much criticizing the translation choice as I was just responding to your comment here. Anyhow, I liked how chapter 8 turned out, whether you word it the one way or the other. Thanks for pitching in. Alephb (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. The previous translation was "hung and put on display", which has basically the same meaning and connotation as "hung in a gibbet"(which is that it would require what they're hung on if it isn't a noose), but uses more common words(as this translation, while not in basic english, shouldn't require most native speakers to consult a dictionary. As far as an "ets" is concerned, it seems to me that it would mean "large wooden stake", or "cross"(I think "cross" is less likely, but the Jehova's Witnesses say that an "ets"[At least I think it was "ets"] is the same thing as the cross["ets" is translated into Greek with the same word as is used for Jesus's cross], and they use that to say that Jesus wasn't actually hung on a cross, but a huge wooden stake). JustinCB (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"Jews," Gerizim

Hey User:JustinCB -- I made a few changes that I think move chapter 8 a bit closer to the Hebrew. I'd be happy to discuss any of them, and if you have objections to any of them I'd be happy to change things back to your preferred form for the time being. I don't want to be stepping on your toes here, but you said you didn't mind moves toward the Hebrew, so I went ahead and made a few of those sorts of moves. Alephb (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't bother me at all as long as it's good english(I fixed it in two places["the Joshua" and "the Israel"]) JustinCB (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, those are embarassing! Thank you. I'll try to take more care in the future. I saw "the Jews" and just replaced "Jews" with the equivalent Hebrew expression. (For what it's worth, the term Yehudim ("Jews") almost never appears in the Bible prior to the Babylonian captivity. Before that, it's usually an expression more like "Israel" or "Israel and Judah," or something along those lines.) Alephb (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I changed the other instances of "the Jews"(except for in footnotes) to "Israel" or "the Israelites" JustinCB (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

All right. For reasons I don't fully understand, it looks like Jerome paraphrased harder in Judges 8 than I usually remember him doing. Not all the instances of his using the term "Jews" reflect an original reading of "Israelites," due to how he's paraphrasing as he goes along. I've looked back through the verses where the translation now has "Israel" or "Israelites" and made some changes to pull the wording a bit closer to the Hebrew. When I get a chance, I'll look through the rest of the verses too. Alephb (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of the paraphrase, especially word order and sentence structure and some vocabulary and wording(see the epistle to the Laodacians) comes from me, but "increased through birth" comes straight from the vulgate JustinCB (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been trying to leave as much of your sentence style intact as possible, wherever the end results fits pretty well with the Hebrew. If you feel I've made something too woodenly literal, I'd be happy to change it back to a more paraphrased style. In some ways, what you're producing here is a lot better English than in some of the chapters I've done. The "increased through birth" shows up where the Hebrews has zqnym "elders." I wonder if that might be an old Latin idiom for old people. I also wonder if Jerome's text of Judges differed significantly from today's standard Hebrew text -- every now and then in Judges 8 he seems to go places that are hard to explain given the Hebrew text of today. I'd hesitate to chalk it up to error, too, because Jerome had a strong command of Hebrew. Alephb (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to chalk it up to my error as well because I used Wycliffe's translation, and it's unlikely that we're BOTH wrong(and I bet you've at least glanced at the Vulgate for this, and it's even less likely that you would be confused[with 3 years of "being exposed to heathen men's errors"{per John Purvey} in latin{that is, in college}].). It could be readings from Greek introduced during the Middle Ages from the old vulgate(the old vulgate was translated from the septuagent), variant readings(just in Latin) from the old vulgate introduced in the Middle Ages, a variant Hebrew tradition, my errors, or a combination of those. It isn't as if "increased through birth" doesn't make sense, as the Hebrews, in just a few generations, went from being an only child born to a couple in their old age to a multitude that took several large cities with the help of God. JustinCB (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious how many of the Clementine Vulgate's readings come from the dead sea scrolls/quamran manuscripts, the septuagent, the old vulgate, and other sources. JustinCB (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, "restatement of the law of Moses" is from the Vulgate, but I wonder if that means Deuteronomy because in the summary of the pentatuch in the Wycliffite prologue(Chapter 3), he says that Deuteromy is a "reiteration and confirmation of all the law going before," and in Chapter 4(summary of Joshua-2 Samuel), he says that Joshua wrote "the Deuteronomy of Moses" on the stones. Of course it's possible this restating of the law of Moses IS the composition of Deuteronomy. JustinCB (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Usually, when the Masoretic Text varies from Qumran or the Septuagint, Jerome sticks close to the MT. Whatever he translated from was a lot closer to the MT than to Qumran, which makes sense because he had Jewish teachers and Judaism had basically standardized its text by roughly the time of Jerome. But I bet we'd find non-Masoretic readings here and there if we looked hard enough.

As for Deuteronomy, are you familiar with the English etymology of the name "Deuteronomy"? I don't want to tell you all about it if you've already heard. Alephb (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it comes from terms meaning "second law", but if it has special significance, you'll have to enlighten me. JustinCB (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, while JEROME certainly follows the Hebrew/Masorite text, he revised the old vulgate, which translated(sometimes in paraphrase) the septuagent, and, during the Middle Ages some readings, and even entire books(like the epistle to the Laodacians) from the old vulgate were incorporated into Jerome's vulgate. JustinCB (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right -- it's from Greek for "second law." But that, in turn, is from Hebrew mishne hatorah hazot, which in its plainest sense means "a copy of this law," referring to how the king was supposed to make "a copy of this law." But mishne also can mean "second" (thing of how a "copy" is a "double" of something). So the Septuagint read this as "this second law", which came to be interpreted as meaning that Deuteronomy was a "second law," because of how it summarized/expanded on the earlier legal materials in Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers.

I don't know Wycliff real well, but I would guess that he was working with this tradition of using this secondary sort of meaning for mishne. It's not wrong to think of Deuteronomy as a "second law" in some senses -- although I don't think that's what the original verse 17:18 was originally referring to. Alephb (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that "summary of the law of Moses" is a literal translation of an idiom meaning "Deuteronomy", which means that the Latin of verse 32 reads "And he wrote there on the stones Deuteronomy, of the law of Moses, which he wrote in front of all the Israelites.", and "increased through birth" for "elders" in verse 33 as you said earlier, and I used "Jews" for referring to the Israelites in a few places, even when it was literally "people"; and those are the most significant variant readings. It's possible verses 32 and 33 were corrupt or incorporated readings from the old Vulgate in the Latin(or the Hebrew explicitly referred to Deuteronomy but was corrupted between Jerome and the Masorites). JustinCB (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so before we talked about the situation in Deuteronomy 17:8, where we find mishne torah hazot, "a copy of this law." And I may have slightly scrambled the two verses in my mind.

Here in Joshua 8:32 we find a similar phrase, mishne torat moshe "a copy of the law of Moses." The Septuagint here reads deuteronomion nomos Moyses, which might be read as "Deuteronomion, a law of Moses." It looks to my eyes like the "nomos/nomion" bit has gotten double-copied in the Septuagint here, but that's just my guess. The Vulgate then reads the same as the Septuagint here: Deuteronomium legis Moysi. That's really interesting, because of how Jerome usually won't take the Septuagint over the Hebrew.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Jerome wasn't (at least deliberately) rejecting the Hebrew reading. Then I can think of two possibilities. One, he was taking the Hebrew mishne as the title of the book, "Mishne, the law of Moses," and then translating "Mishne" by the more familiar term "Deuteronomy." Not impossible.

The other possibility I can imagine is if there was a (no longer extant) Hebrew text which read mishne torah, torat moshe "Mishneh Torah, the law of Moses." Then the Septuagint would be doing a decent job of translating the Hebrew (though I would guess that this Hebrew version was itself afflicted by the accidental doubling of a word).

I've consulted my copy of the Qumran scrolls, and it looks like none of the texts that have survived contain Joshua 8:32, unfortunately. What do you think of maybe keeping a translation of the Hebrew "copy of the law of Moses" in the main text and footnoting the existence of the Septuagint and Vulgate readings? Alephb (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of all this speculating on my

That sounds just fine, just note that the Vulgate reading might be a mideval re-incorporation of a reading from the pre-Jerome Vulgate. Also, for another sample of my translation from Latin, see the Epistle to the Laodiceans. JustinCB (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, one of the readings in some editions of the Vulgate and the Wycliffe translation is "the Deuteronomy of Moses", and from the same Latin but a different edition of the Wycliffe translation, the reading is "a summary of Moses's law", not(as the current Hebrew says) "a copy of Moses's law". JustinCB (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize the word could also be taken as "summary." That would also make some contextual sense, at least -- it would make sense that whatever gets written on stones would be not the entire law, but a summary of it. I wonder if there might be some chance that the Hebrew could have meant this or maybe something like it -- after all, in about 1000 AD, when Maimonides wrote a condensation and simplification of biblical and traditional Jewish law, based on the Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud, he called his book Mishneh Torah. Alephb (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If you'd like to adjust the footnote in some way, go for it. Alephb (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"Summary of the law of Moses" also makes sense because Joshua did what was written in the VOLUME of the law(which implies a book, not stone tablets). Why he wrote the summary and how it relates to Deuteronomy is less clear, but what IS clear is that Jerome neatly reconciled the Greek and the Hebrew(and it likely ISN'T corrupt as I speculated earlier). JustinCB (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Random side fact -- unless I'm missing something, Jerome is the only Latin-literate non-Jewish person who bothered to learn how to read Hebrew for the next eight hundred years or so. Your observation fits well with the general trend on Jerome -- it usually looks like his Hebrew text was very close to the Masoretic Text of today, and he clearly had a strong knowledge of the Septuagint and used it at some times to help interpret the Hebrew text. Alephb (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

...although he was clearly upset by its errors. 800 years?! Wasn't it more like 1200? JustinCB (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have an extremely vague memory of maybe someone about 1200 AD knowing some Hebrew, so I went with 800 just to be safe. A quick internet search is not turning this person up, so I might be imagining them. But definitely there was no significant Christian interaction with the Hebrew text itself until 1506, when cardinal Reuchlin wrote a dictionary and grammar of Hebrew. Alephb (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that you're thinking of the eviction of the Jews from England. That eventually facilitated learning Hebrew because they left their books, including some about Hebrew, and some (false) claims of people studying them from that time until people actually started studying them exist. There are even some claims about Wycliffe based on some out-of-context quotes about Jerome. JustinCB (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed the text of the verse to "a summary of Moses's Law" but footnoted the more literal "a copy of Moses's Law" JustinCB (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Chapter Titles

I added chapter titles. If you don't like them, you can change them. JustinCB (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, my preferred way of changing them would be to remove them all. Not because they are bad titles, but because they reinforce a way of organizing the text that is foreign to it. If you're really all right with it, I'd take them all out. If you object, I'll leave them in.

To be perfectly honest I'm not too happy with the mere existence of the chapter numbers themselves, although I think they need to be in there in some form so people can easily look up passages. If there was some way to make them less intrusive, I'd be happy. In many cases, they're not too awful, but sometimes, like at the transition between 1 Samuel 3 and 4, they seem downright wrong. Alephb (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I was just following suit with another translator who didn't like the way events are emphisized over chapters and came up with this brilliant compromise to emphisize both. You've got more logick than they had, so do what ever seems best. JustinCB (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

All right. I'll pull them out for now. Alephb (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You can pull them out on other pages too if you want. You can base the titles on something that wasn't arbitrarily defined 500 years ago so that they will make more sense. JustinCB (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yippee! Will do. Alephb (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I already removed the titles in the pentatuch(of course, the other books, many never had chapter titles, and the Epistle to the Laodacians has two sections: Wycliffite note[I've never seen a prologue in Latin, but the Middle English has a short note] and the epistle). I mostly did that because of personal experience that sometimes people sit around talking about doing stuff and nothing gets done, and that nobody will kick up a fuss because the other editor hates chapter titles more than I do. JustinCB (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Initiative is always good. There's plenty of stuff I would support doing to some of the text already there that I haven't done because I've been spending my Wiki-hours adding new text. Given that this is a project over ten years old now, there's just more that needs done than people willing to do it. Alephb (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)