There are 5 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. the concept of slavic conlangs Slovio, Slovianski, Slovioski and Neo
From: Vojtěch Merunka
1b. Re: the concept of slavic conlangs Slovio, Slovianski, Slovioski and
From: Jan van Steenbergen
2a. novegradian and neoslavonic
From: Vojtěch Merunka
2b. Re: novegradian and neoslavonic
From: Jan van Steenbergen
3a. Re: Exquisite Corpse
From: Arthaey Angosii
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. the concept of slavic conlangs Slovio, Slovianski, Slovioski and Neo
Posted by: "Vojtěch Merunka" vmeru...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 12:04 pm ((PST))
Hi,
I developed neoslavonic language independently of Jan. I published a
book and after this contacted miscellaneous slavic groups on the
Internet and I met with Jan. We found that our methods are indeed
different, but produce almost the same goals:
Neoslavonic in an artificial extrapolation (or evolution) of the Old
Slavonic language (not the younger Old Church Slavonic, but the original
language from IX-XI centuries being also "artifficial conlang" in its
period). This language has well preserved literacy heritage defining its
corpus of about 6000 words. I modified this language by the same or
almost the same features as they were with living slavic languages, kept
its rich grammar and finally made some artificial adjustments towards
unification of conjugation and verbal tense patterns in order to remove
exceptions.
Slovianski started several years ago as modification of Slovio by more
natural grammar. Their method is based on making intersections from
living natural languages. (They call it "voting machine".) In case of
differences or ambiguous results made by the voting machine, Jan prefers
protoslavic roots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic_language).
So, our approaches are pretty similar and we agreed to use the same
dictionary in the future. In my opinion, there could be a multi-layer
concept of the practically used slavic conlang based on the same
dictionary kernel:
1st layer - this is the Slovio level. (www.slovio.com) No cases, simple
verbal system, ... - similar to Esperanto. This language can be good for
easy and basic communication of non-slavs with slavs etc. And it works!
2nd layer - this is the first layer plus more grammar: 6-7 but still
simplified cases, 3 verbal tenses, 2 participles, phonetical orthography
having only one "i" instead of "i" and "y" and only one "e" instead of
"e" and "ie" etc. This is almost current status of Slovianski or similar
Slovioski. This language can be good for basic communication among
people from different slavic nations (turism, shopping, ...).
3rd layer - this is the 2nd layer plus yet more grammar: full 7 cases,
optional dual, 6 verbal tenses, 4 participles, morphological orthography
keeping both "i" with "y" and "e" with "ie", defined categories of
subordinate clauses and multi-sentence structures, etc. plus transformed
words from the old slavonic corpus, which enables to solve this problem:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/False_Friends_of_the_Slavist This language
is aimed for full communication, automated translations between slavic
languages, law, technology, science, art etc. This level is almost
current status of Neoslavonic, which is shared by Jan as
"http://steen.free.fr/slovianski/nauczny_medzsuslovjanski.html";. This is
also the common basis, we collaborate with.
In my opinion:
It is not reasonable to stay in our fixed positions (Slovio, Slovianski,
Neoslavonic/Novoslovienski) and take never-ending debates on the same
matter of orthography, complexity level, ... in the Facebook and other
forums within our group of few people. Moreover, there started recently
some hostile behavior among members of this group like unnecessary
changes of patterns or words, disputes over authorship, redesigning of
already made work, etc.
The concept of practically used slavic conlang has been proven several
times in the practice and works. Our languages looks very similar from
the external perspective of unintersted persons. We have positive
results from Bulgaria, Slavomacedonia, Serbia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Poland
and Russia. This is why we moved our attention to the practical testing
and started E.U.-supported courses:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/trainingdatabase/index.cfm?fuseaction=DisplayCourse&cid=26829
If we want to put an interslavic conlang into the living practice, we
need to have more results, more experiences and more feedback.
best regards
Vojta
On 02‐12‐10 23:45 , Adam Walker wrote:
> Is Jan really working with you on this project? I haven't seen him post for
> some time. I wondered what he was up to.
>
> Adam
>
> 2010/12/2 Vojtěch Merunka<vmeru...@gmail.com>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*assoc. prof. Vojtěch Merunka, Ph.D.*
vmeru...@gmail.com <mailto:vmeru...@gmail.com>
http://sites.google.com/site/vmerunka
*Department of Information Engineering*
/Faculty of Economics and Management/
Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague
*Department of Software Engineering in Economy*
/Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering/
Czech Technical University in Prague
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: the concept of slavic conlangs Slovio, Slovianski, Slovioski and
Posted by: "Jan van Steenbergen" ijzeren_...@yahoo.co.uk
Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 4:05 pm ((PST))
Hi everybody, it's been a while! :)
--- Adam Walker skrzypszy:
> Is Jan really working with you on this project? I haven't seen him post for
> some time. I wondered what he was up to.
Yeah, I haven't posted much to the Conlang list lately. Lately, well, a couple
of years actually. Christophe and I have actually one more thing in common
than just conlanging: we both have made it our life's task to invent the 48-
hour day. But I haven't succeeded yet (have you, Christophe?). And so, I
simply don't have the time anymore to deal with high-traffic lists and groups.
I
do post a lot to the Slovianski forum though:
http://s8.zetaboards.com/Slovianski/index/
But don't you worry, I'm alive and kicking. Still spending more than half of my
time working on conlanging in some way. And while I've been working almost
exclusively on Slovianski for the last two years, I'm still and artlanger at
heart.
--- Vojtěch Merunka skrzypszy:
> Neoslavonic in an artificial extrapolation (or evolution) of the Old
> Slavonic language (not the younger Old Church Slavonic, but the original
> language from IX-XI centuries being also "artifficial conlang" in its
> period).
This has always puzzled me, so I started digging a bit. One thing you should
be aware of is that in literature in English never uses the term "Old Slavonic"
-
it's always "Old Church Slavonic". Later, this language existed in several
local
versions: a Serbian one (later displaced by the Russian one), a Bulgarian, a
Czech and a Russian one.
Also, it is very uncertain if this language was really artificial, and if so,
in how
far. As far as I know, it was mostly based on a Macedonian dialect.
> Slovianski started several years ago as modification of Slovio by more
> natural grammar.
Ho ho, you're absolutely wrong here! This is indeed what Mark Hucko has been
saying all the time, but just take a look at his other writings (including his
antisemitic rants, his pseudo-scientific stuff about the Etruscans being Slavs,
etc.) and you'll recognise him for the raving lunatic he really is. The people
who initiated Slovianski back in 2006 had never been Slovio users, and Slovio
has never a base or even an influence in its development. If there is any
connection at all, it just that a lot of people have never liked Slovio in the
first
place, and some of them decided to create something different.
Of course, there have been differences in approach, and there still are. Ondrej
Rečnik advocated a pidgin approach, much like Lingua Franca Nova, for
example. The idea of the entire grammar and vocabulary being an
extrapolation of linguistic comparison of the living Slavic languages was
entirely my idea.
> Their method is based on making intersections from living natural
> languages. (They call it "voting machine".) In case of differences or
> ambiguous results made by the voting machine, Jan prefers
> protoslavic roots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic_language).
Yes, that's true. Mind, "voting machine" is just a funny name. It's not that I
actually use it much for coining words. The idea is that the Slavic languages
can be subdivided into six groups (I agree with you that the traditional
division
into three has its disadvantages), and that each of them is treated equally.
Basically, words and grammatical forms are acceptable if they exist in at least
half of them.
> So, our approaches are pretty similar and we agreed to use the same
> dictionary in the future. In my opinion, there could be a multi-layer
> concept of the practically used slavic conlang based on the same
> dictionary kernel:
>
> 1st layer - this is the Slovio level. No cases, simple verbal system, ... -
> similar to Esperanto. This language can be good for easy and basic
> communication of non-slavs with slavs etc. And it works!
I just wouldn't call this "Slovio level". Slovio is just too different from
other
projects to be a candidate for anything. Not that Hucko would even think of
that, BTW (he mostly raves about interslavic projects being one big anti-
Slavic Jewish conspiracy). But besides, Slovio is clearly a schematic language,
and there's no way schematicism and naturalism can be merged into one
language. Any compromise between those can only result in the creation of a
monster. Besides, adopting Slovio would also imply adopting the Slovio
dictionary. And be honest: if you take a good look at it, you'll find that some
10% of the words were randomly picked from the Slavic languages, 90% was
taking from Russian, and most compounds are calques from German.
Slovio grammar won't qualify either, because it is way to unnatural. For an
Esperanto-based global IAL with Russian instead of Romance/Germanic based
roots, that's not a problem. For a language that claims to be "interslavic", it
mostly definitely is.
I wouldn't bother too much about Slovio. It has had its merits, but that's over
now. With no more than 2-4 users, it is practically dead.
For this level, I've made a proposal called "Slovianto". The name is a bit
tongue-in-cheek, I admit. Remember the good old days when Padraic, I and a
few others were staging a fake IAL flamewar here,
with "Kernopanto", "Venedino sen Flekso", "Jovianto", "Romaklono" and the like?
Well, that's where I got the idea!
> 2nd layer - this is the first layer plus more grammar: 6-7 but still
> simplified cases, 3 verbal tenses, 2 participles, phonetical orthography
> having only one "i" instead of "i" and "y" and only one "e" instead of
> "e" and "ie" etc. This is almost current status of Slovianski or similar
> Slovioski.
Well, not entirely, Vojta. Slovianski has evolved quite a lot during the past
year. Slovianski actually DOES have _y_, it's just that South Slavs and others
who have a problem with it can just as well write _i_ instead. Likewise,
Slovianski DOES have _ě_, it's just that it is usually not written (but it is
not
forbidden either). This is probably the biggest of the last year: instead of
having one closed system, I've built in a lot of flexibility.
> This level is almost current status of Neoslavonic, which is shared by Jan
> as "http://steen.free.fr/slovianski/nauczny_medzsuslovjanski.html";. This is
> also the common basis, we collaborate with.
Yes yes. I hope we can get started very soon!
> In my opinion:
> It is not reasonable to stay in our fixed positions (Slovio, Slovianski,
> Neoslavonic/Novoslovienski) and take never-ending debates on the same
> matter of orthography, complexity level, ... in the Facebook and other
> forums within our group of few people.
Agreed. Well, you know my opinion: it would be best if we make all Slovianski,
Slovioski and Novoslovienskij history, and start working on something new
together, taking our current projects as a starting point. This new language
should have the flexibility to allow for several options in the field of
simplification levels and also of regional applications. Choices should NOT be
based on what Russian or OCS does, nor on what you want or what I want,
not on what Slovianski does or Novoslovienskij does, but on which choice
works best under which circumstances. This will, of course, require a lot of
compromise and also some sacrifice on both our parts, but if we can manage,
then success is almost guaranteed!
> Moreover, there started recently some hostile behavior among members of
> this group like unnecessary changes of patterns or words, disputes over
> authorship, redesigning of already made work, etc.
I take it you're referring to Hucko? Take my advice and neglect him.
> If we want to put an interslavic conlang into the living practice, we
> need to have more results, more experiences and more feedback.
Yes, and that is not as easy as it seems. All authors of similar projects have
problems with that. Just writing something on a forum won't solve the issue.
Usually, you will get the same sort of response:
- "Cool, I can understand most of it"
- "Useless crap, nobody is going to learn that anyway - get a life"
- "Let's use English/Russian/Esperanto"
As for 2 and 3, these just come with the trade. Don't feel insulted by that
kind
of reactions, because it's normal. Sad but true.
But also be careful with 1. If people say they can understand most of it, that
probably means that you are on the right path, but it doesn't confirm that all
your choices were right.
Also, be careful with whom you ask. For example, you said that you got
positive responses from Poland, but believe me, the Polish conlanger forum is
not a representative group at all. I know these people: they are all language
geeks like us, many of them know other Slavic languages as well, many of
them are very familiar with Church Slavonic, and many of them have created
their own Slavic artlangs. If they see a Slavic imperfect or aorist, they'll
probably say "cool". What they forgot to tell you is that nobody in Poland
would ever understand those forms.
The kind of feedback we really need is like: "Look, you've done a nice job, but
if you want to improve it, please consider this: [...]". Plus the words from
your
sample that they don't understand (or understand only from context). But
unfortunately though, it rarely happens that somebody will take the time for
that.
Cheers,
Jan
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. novegradian and neoslavonic
Posted by: "Vojtěch Merunka" vmeru...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 1:35 pm ((PST))
Hi!
My answer is written between Your lines :o)
cheers
Vojta
On 03‐12‐10 09:47 , Roman Rausch wrote:
>> Do You work on some Slavic (or similar) zonal conlang, which might be
>> intelligible for ordinary people from some the indo-european group of
>> nations? [...]
>> Look at his collection of about 60 Slavic conlangs:
>> http://steen.free.fr/slovianski/constructed_slavic_languages.html
>>
> Are they all auxilary languages?
Yes, they all are zonal constructed auxiliary languages. Some of them
are only few concept proposals, but many of them have written book,
journal paper or something like it. It is very amazing, indeed.
> On CALS I have stumbled upon a very
> interesting Slavic artlang, Novegradian:
> http://cals.conlang.org/language/novegradian/
>
Oh, original novgorodian (Nizhny Novgorod is the city northwest from
Moscow) was the independent nothern (or north-west) branch of slavic
languages and Novgorod medieval republic was the similar prosperous city
state as Amsterdam, Venice etc. Novgorod city was in 1478 included into
the Russian Empire and in 1570 the 2000 of its inhabitants were murdered.
Yes, I like alternative histories as the creator of modern novegradian
did. He worked with the idea of continuing political independence of
Novgorod, I worked with the idea of continuing and evolving Old Slavonic
language by sts Kyrillos & Methodios as "the latin of the entire slavic
world" in the similar way as it is with modern standard literacy Arabic.
> *Novegrad is an auto-denominative, cognate to Russian Novgorod. This was a
> medieval city and state in Northern Russia, a kind of republic with an
> assembly, engaged in trade relations with the Hanseatic league. It had a
> specific dialect which for example lacked the Slavic second palatalization
> and had other interesting features. Eventually, Novgorod has lost in a power
> struggle to Moscow and its speech went extinct.
> This conlang seems to deal with an alternative history where Novgorod has
> survived as an independent state and experienced a development similar to
> Belarus or the Ukraine.
> It comes with a comprehensive grammar:
> http://www.veche.net/grammar/index.html
> And even a website of the imagined modern state:
> http://www.veche.net/
> I can only congratulate the author, whoever he is, I found this a very
> interesting and enjoyable conlang project.
>
>
The same from me, indeed.
Well done, sir!
But this is a toy at all! I propose to use this language in a historical
movies about old Russia, when they will be taken. In the same way as Mel
Gibson did with Latin and Aramaic in "The Passion of the Christ" :o)
>> Our language is Novoslovienskij (
>> https://sites.google.com/site/novoslovienskij/faq)
>>
> It works amazingly well, I could understand everything, Russian being one of
> my two mothertongues. Normally, I can read other Slavic languages very well,
> but listening comprehension is much more difficult. If speakers of other
> Slavic languages can understand it just as well, then it really does the
> trick, although I can imagine that Bulgarian speakers will still find the
> highly inflecting nature difficult.
>
Thank You! Drago mi jest, gospodi! :)
Also Bulgarians understand it well. Their modern language is different,
but remember, that they have practical experience with Church Slavonic. :o)
> In the youtube video you say that Polish and Russian are far from the Slavic
> average and cannot become the fundament of a common language.
This video?
besedovanie: https://sites.google.com/site/novoslovienskij/youtube
> Then what do
> you actually consider an average Slavic language?
>
Neoslavonic, of course :o)
But more seriously: I studied miscellaneous works on the subject of
Slavic languages similarities and classification. I think that
tree-based hierarchic models are wrong way. I propose to use
heptatochomic network model by V. V. Ivanov(*) filled by metrics by
Zhuravlev(**), which looks like this (please set monospaced font):
+---------------lechitic (polish)------northern(novgorodian)
polabian | |
(lusatian,...) | |
+-------------czechoslovak-------------------eastern(UA,BY,RUS)
| |
| |
slovenian-serbocroatian----macedonian-bulgarian
The ideal candidate for interslavic language from current modern
languages is probably Slovak or something shift bit closer to Rusyn. But
if we extend this model to extinct languages, the best candidate is Old
Slavonic.
(*) Ivanov, Vjaczeslav V. 1990. Genealogiczeskaja klassifikacia jazykov.
(**) Zhuravlev, Anatolij F. 1994. Leksiko-statisticzeskoe modelirovanie
systemy slavjanskogo jazykovogo rodstva. Moskva: Indrik. Formula of the
lexicostatistical model at page 63.
There are also another not so scientific but also meaningful arguments
for the preference of modernized Old Slavonic:
1) Old Slavonic was already a conlang! It was ingeniusly constructed
from balcanian slavic dialects, panonian and moravian. Later, its
successor Church Slavonic influenced eastern languages. So, we can say,
that this "old conlang" covered the entire slavic world.
2) Old Slavonic is usualy assigned to the sub-group of southslavic
languages by its grammar and phonetics. Southslavic phonetics and
grammar (e.g. verbal system) is good candidate for an inter-Slavic
language. Southern accent is not so soft as eastern, and has very
similar phonetics with romance languages and Greek. This is not a bad
company, is it?
3) The idea of interslavic communication using politicaly and
linguistically neutral artificial slavic language different from their
mother tongue is just very well accepted at the southern Slavic people.
This is not the case of Russians, Czechs or Slovaks, for example.
4) Southern Slavs have practical experience in writing the same language
simultaneously in Latin and Cyrillic.
:o)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*assoc. prof. Vojtěch Merunka, Ph.D.*
vmeru...@gmail.com <mailto:vmeru...@gmail.com>
http://sites.google.com/site/vmerunka
*Department of Information Engineering*
/Faculty of Economics and Management/
Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague
*Department of Software Engineering in Economy*
/Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering/
Czech Technical University in Prague
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: novegradian and neoslavonic
Posted by: "Jan van Steenbergen" ijzeren_...@yahoo.co.uk
Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 8:34 pm ((PST))
--- Vojt�ch Merunka skrzypszy:
>>> http://steen.free.fr/slovianski/constructed_slavic_languages.html
>>
>> Are they all auxilary languages?
Almost. Although I have to say, most of them (especially the more recent
ones) are not much more than sketches.
What really distinguishes an auxlang from an artlang is not always easy to
say. Libor Sztemon presented his languages as "auxlangs", but my guts tell me
that he was an artlanger who enjoyed creating languages like all of us do, but
felt somehow obliged to justify his efforts by attaching this "higher purpose"
to
them.
>> On CALS I have stumbled upon a very interesting Slavic artlang,
>> Novegradian: http://cals.conlang.org/language/novegradian/
>> [...]
>> http://www.veche.net/
Yeah, it's a remarkable piece of work, really. Fascinating! And extremely well-
developed. I've rarely seen so much detail in a conlang/conworld project. It
could have been a nice addition to Ill Bethisad...
>But more seriously: I studied miscellaneous works on the subject of
>Slavic languages similarities and classification. I think that
>tree-based hierarchic models are wrong way. I propose to use
>heptatochomic network model by V. V. Ivanov(*) filled by metrics by
>Zhuravlev(**), which looks like this (please set monospaced font):
>
> +---------------lechitic (polish)------northern(novgorodian)
> polabian | |
>(lusatian,...) | |
> +-------------czechoslovak-------------------eastern(UA,BY,RUS)
> | |
> | |
> slovenian-serbocroatian----macedonian-bulgarian
Yeah, this is a model very similar to the one Slovianski uses: six branches, or
subbranches, while the Polabian/Sorbian one is usually not taken into
consideration. I'm not so sure about juxtaposing Czechoslovak and Eastern,
though.
I tend to see the Slavic languages as a wheel, or circle:
Russian - Belarussian - Ukrainian - Rusyn - Polish - Cashubian - Lower
Sorbian - Upper Sorbian - Czech - Slovak - Slovene - Serbo-Croatian -
Macedonian - Bulgarian - back to Russian
But it really depends how you look at it. Phonologically, the most obvious
distinction is North - South (where Czech and Slovak are closer to the South);
lexically, the East/West distinction is at least as important as the
North/South
distinction.
But tell me, does Ivanov actually call Old Novgorian a "North Slavic language"?
I've been looking for sources for the hypothesis of a fourth (North Slavic)
group, but couldn't find it.
>The ideal candidate for interslavic language from current modern
>languages is probably Slovak or something shift bit closer to Rusyn. But
>if we extend this model to extinct languages, the best candidate is Old
>Slavonic.
Well, there are in fact several candidates. Slovak and Rusyn are indeed pretty
much at the epicentre of the Slavic languages, but they have a lot of their
own specificalities as well. Another good candidate would be Old Ruthenian
(a.k.a. Old Belorussian). And Church Slavonic, as you say. But the best
candidate would of course be a modernised form of reconstructed Proto-
Slavic! :)
>There are also another not so scientific but also meaningful arguments
>for the preference of modernized Old Slavonic:
>
>1) Old Slavonic was already a conlang!
I have heard that theory, but as far as I know, it is absolutely not a broadly
recognised one.
>2) Old Slavonic is usualy assigned to the sub-group of southslavic
>languages by its grammar and phonetics. Southslavic phonetics and
>grammar (e.g. verbal system) is good candidate for an inter-Slavic
>language. Southern accent is not so soft as eastern, and has very
>similar phonetics with romance languages and Greek. This is not a bad
>company, is it?
Well, that's a matter of taste, really. To me, it is doubtful that South Slavic
grammar (excluding Slovene) is such a good candidate, because it is so
radically different from the remaining Slavic languages. IMO an Interslavic
language should avoid forms that are not understandable at all to over 75% of
the Slavic population.
The greatest disadvantage of OCS, however, is not that it is archaic, but that
it never covered the whole Slavic territory. There has never been any mutual
influence with Polish at all, and its influence on Ukrainian has been very
limited
as well. It is not more understandable to a Pole than, say, Classical Latin is
to
a Frenchman. That's something that always must be taken into account -
especially if you consider that the number of Polish speakers is about as high
as the number of Czech, Slovak and South Slavic speakers together!
Therefore, I still think it is a great source of input, but it should be
handled
with care. Except for the soft consonants, the phonology of OCS is very
South Slavic indeed. For example, the reflex of CSl. tj/dj as s^t/z^d is
typical
for Bulgarian, but doesn't exist anywhere else (not even in standard
Macedonian), except for numerous OCS borrowings in Russian. I would strongly
recommend you to consider this. Also lexically OCS is a bit of a mousetrap,
because it contains lots of words that are understandable to South Slavs only
(and not for the remaining 90% of the Slavic population). Therefore, to be
useful as a real Interslavic language, it needs lots of adjustments.
Cheers,
Jan
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Exquisite Corpse
Posted by: "Arthaey Angosii" arth...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 3:41 pm ((PST))
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Samuel Stutter
<sam.stut...@student.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> Concerning progress, I have received the sentence, the meerkats are in the
> bag and operation hairbrush is a go.
> In other words, it's with me at the moment and I will have sent it on by the
> end of today.
According to http://wiki.frath.net/Conlang_Exquisite_Corpse it should
be Lars' turn. Status?
--
AA
Messages in this topic (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
