Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Linguistic innovations and evolution of registers in the Deir el-Medineh community: scribal networks and families during the 20th dynasty St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Linguistic innovations and evolution of registers in the Deir el-Medineh community: scribal networks and families during the 20th dynasty St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS."— Presentation transcript:

1 Linguistic innovations and evolution of registers in the Deir el-Medineh community: scribal networks and families during the 20th dynasty St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS – ULg) Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011

2 0. Aims and outline of the talk  Relation between scribal variation and language change in pre-Demotic Egyptian  Methodologically oriented  Limitations, promising ways of investigation; what are the question worth asking of the material (not blindly applying sociolinguistic methodologies)?  “The best case scenario in the worst cultural environment”  Variation in pre-Demotic Egyptian (c BCE) – “scribal mistakes”  Deir el-Medineh as a “text community” – written material (plus and minus)  Two dimensions of variation  Diaphasic dimension  Correlating diachronic evolution and diaphasic variation  Situational parameters and the evolution of registers  Diachronic variation  Possibility of a scribal network analysis  Its results when applied to the letters of a five generation family of scribes  Conclusions: multidimensional continuum of variation and multidimensional approaches to language change Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011

3 0.1. Variation in pre-Demotic Egyptian  The cultural environment  Writing is knowledge and other truisms ( sStA n mdw-ntr “secret of the hieroglyphs”, see Baines 1990)  Social hierarchy, decorum (esp. religious), formality and conventionalization of the written performance (see Vernus 1990)  The scribal milieu  Literacy in Ancient Egypt (see Baines & Eyre 1983) = c. 1% of the population  The scribal elite (see Ragazolli 2010): social cohesion, self-thematization, emulation of the past (see Stauder 2010) and standardized registers (standardization, as a process, is hardly visible, except for narratives) Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 → Elusiveness of the traditional dimensions of variation

4 0.1. Variation in pre-Demotic Egyptian  Schematizing the standardized written registers Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 Greater FormalityGreater Vernacularity Greater Standardization Greater Variation Idealized language space Conventions linked to the genres → selection of registers Structured varieties (Milroy 1992: 66) Linguistic features of the standardized scribal repertoire See Berruto 2010

5 0.2. The Community of Deir el-Medineh Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011

6 0.2. Deir el-Medineh: A text community Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  The “best case-scenario”  Place → more data  Huge quantity of written material (Černý & Posener [IFAO = 8000 documentary vs 7000 literary] + Cairo, Berlin, Oxford, London, Paris, Turin, etc.)  High degree of Literacy (Baines & Eyre 1983 vs Janssen 1992)  Time → more variation → relaxation of the selections in the repertoire, cf. destandardization (Grossman here)  End of the New Kingdom (20th dyn.)  Autonomy and affirmation of the individual (cf. authorship)  Social networks (hierarchical structure, place for working and living → sociolectal features, but almost no tertium comparationis, see Sweeney 1994)  Metadata available (see Nevaleinen 1999) essentially through administrative and legal documents

7 0.2. Deir el-Medineh: A text community Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 Families and scribal lineage

8 0.2. Deir el-Medineh: A text community Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  The best case-scenario  Place → more data  Huge quantity of written material (Černý & Posener [8000 documentary vs 7000 literary] + Cairo, Berlin, Oxford, London, Paris, Turin, etc.)  High degree of Literacy (Baines & Eyre 1983 vs Janssen 1992)  Time → more variation → relaxation of the selections in the repertoire, cf. destandardization (Grossman here)  End of the New Kingdom (20th dyn.)  Autonomy and affirmation of the individual (cf. authorship)  Social networks (hierarchical structure, place for working and living → sociolectal features, but almost no tertium comparationis, see Sweeney 1994 and 1995)  Metadata available (see Nevaleinen 1999), essentially through administrative and legal documents  BUT unsolved issue = Matching scribes and writings  Matching is possible BUT  Documents have been considered “poor”, linguistically

9 0.2. Deir el-Medineh: A text community Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  The records of scribe Qenhirkhopshef  Prominent member of the Deir el-Medineh community and scribe of the Tomb under Ramesses 2 (and his followers): his tenure of the office of scribe last at least 46 years (see Černý : 331)  His handwriting is very easy to single out (‘enfant terrible of hieratic’)

10 0.2. Deir el-Medineh: A text community Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 Gardiner (1935: 23): “The writing of Kenhikhopshef is undoubtedly the most cursive and least legible of all the scripts that have survived from then Nineteenth Dynasty.”

11 0.2. Deir el-Medineh: A text community Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  The records of scribe Qenhirkhopshef  Prominent member of the Deir el-Medineh community and scribe of the Tomb under Ramesses 2 (and his followers): his tenure of the office of scribe last at least 46 years (see Černý : 331)  His handwriting is very easy to single out (‘enfant terrible of hieratic’)  Written material = 29 documents (Donker van Heel 2003: 41-42)  Copies of literary texts (e.g. Battle of Qadesh on pChester Beatty III vs.)  Impressive number of graffiti in the Theban mountain (titles &ct.)  Administrative texts like “lamps used and weigh” (10), “labour absences and progress of work in the Tomb” (2), “lists” (5), “deliveries of commodities and accounts” (7)  Number of documents that may be exploited linguistically = 5  A note about a special event (oCairo CG 25552)  Two letters to viziers (oCairo CG & pChester Beatty III vs.) + the beginning of a third one (oCairo CG 25807)  A magic spell + part of a letter (pBM EA 10731)

12 0.2. Deir el-Medineh: A text community Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  The best case-scenario  Place → more data  Huge quantity of written material (Černý & Posener [8000 documentary vs 7000 literary] + Cairo, Berlin, Oxford, London, Paris, Turin, etc.)  High degree of Literacy (Baines & Eyre 1983 vs Janssen 1992)  Time → more variation → relaxation of the selections in the repertoire, cf. destandardization (Grossman here)  End of the New Kingdom (20th dyn.)  Autonomy and affirmation of the individual (cf. authorship)  Social networks (hierarchical structure, place for working and living → sociolectal features, but almost no tertium comparationis, see Sweeney 1994 and 1995)  Metadata available (see Nevaleinen 1999), essentially through administrative and legal documents  BUT unsolved issue = Matching scribes and writings  Matching is possible BUT  Documents have been considered “poor”, linguistically  ? comparing his habits as copyist and as scribe/author  ? his writings compared to the ones of other members of the community

13 0.2. Deir el-Medineh: A text community Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  The best case-scenario  Place → more data  Huge quantity of written material (Černý & Posener [8000 documentary vs 7000 literary] + Cairo, Berlin, Oxford, London, Paris, Turin, etc.)  High degree of Literacy (Baines & Eyre 1983 vs Janssen 1992)  Time → more variation → relaxation of the selections in the repertoire, cf. destandardization (Grossman here)  End of the New Kingdom (20th dyn.)  Autonomy and affirmation of the individual (cf. authorship)  Social networks (hierarchical structure, place for working and living → sociolectal features, but almost no tertium comparationis, see Sweeney 1994 and 1995)  Metadata available (see Nevaleinen 1999), essentially through administrative and legal documents  BUT unsolved issue = Matching scribes and writings  Matching is possible  Matching is difficult, when not impossible → need of convergent criteria  Palaeography (see Janssen 1987 & 1994: 96; Gasse 1992: 56-70) [!may be dictated!]  Content (ambiguity of the ir.n formula → “made by” copyist, author or both) + internal criteria (prosopography, special events, etc.)  Linguistic features (idiolectal features, see Sweeney 1994, Polis 2010)

14 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  Correlating diachronic evolution and diaphasic variation  Ordering synchronic heterogeneity (cf. Weinreich, Labov, etc.)  Scribal consciousness of genres and registers 1. The 3 rd pers. pl. suffix pronoun: - sn (old) vs - w (new)  Diachronic evolution (based on Winand 1995: 194)

15 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 Diachronic distribution of the two 3rd pers. pl. suffix pronouns according to syntactic environments

16 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  Correlating diachronic evolution and diaphasic variation  Ordering synchronic heterogeneity (cf. Weinreich, Labov, etc.)  Scribal consciousness of genres and registers 1. The 3 rd pers. pl. suffix pronoun: - sn (old) vs - w (new)  Diachronic evolution (based on Winand 1995: 194)  Diaphasic repartition in Amennakhte’s writing

17 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 Distribution of the two 3 rd pers. pl. suffix pronouns according to literary registers sDm=f PossessifPreposition Royal encomion sn = 100% w = 0% sn = 100% w = 0% / Teaching sn = 0% w = 100% / sn = 100% w = 0% Hymn and poems sn = 0% w = 100% sn = 0% w = 100% sn = 0% w = 100%  The royal encomion is among Amennakhte’s latest literary productions  The hymn and poems behave like documentary texts !!!No conservativeness linked to his centrality => evolution of the literary repertoire => ?authorization?!!!  Relative formality is indeed an important parameter correlating with the diaphasic dimension

18 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 Evolution of the distribution of the 3 rd pers. suff. Pronouns in 2 of Amennakhte’s documentary texts  Between year of Ramesses III and year 3 of Ramesses VI  This points to an evolution of repertoire of a senior scribe over some 15 years; ?with some effects on junior scribes’ repertoire; prestige → influence? GenitiveObject sDm=f Prep. pTurin 1880 =sn 0% 15%87% =w 100% 85%13% pAshmolean =sn 0% 25% =w 100% 75%

19 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  Matching diachronic evolution and diaphasic variation  Ordering synchronic heterogeneity (cf. Weinreich, Labovn etc.)  Scribal consciousness of genres and registers 1. The 3rd pers. pl. suffix pronoun : - sn (old) vs - w (new) 2. The graphemic realization of the preposition Hr in the “First Present” pattern with infinitive  General diachronic trend: gradual disappearance of the preposition  Subject + Hr [prep] + do/infinitive → Subject + do/infinitive = “I do/am doing”  Not merely free/random variation but:  Possible influence of the syntactic environment in literary texts

20 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  In pGardiner 25 rt (hymn to the city of Thebes) and vs (satirical poem)  When the P1 construction is used in an independent clause → preposition written  Vs 4-5 twk Hr ir.t mSay.w n bnw  “you are doing expeditions worthy of a millstone”  When the P1 construction is used in an dependent clause → preposition NOT written  Rt 1-2: i.ir=w wrS iw=w (Hr) ssm.t m rn.s  “they do nothing else but moan the all day long in her name”

21 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  Matching diachronic evolution and diaphasic variation  Ordering synchronic heterogeneity (cf. Weinreich, Labov, etc.)  Scribal consciousness of genres and registers 1. The 3rd pers. pl. suffix pronoun : - sn (old) vs - w (new) 2. The graphemic realization of the preposition Hr in in the “First Present” pattern with infinitive  General diachronic trend: gradual disappearance of the preposition  Subject + Hr [prep] + do/infinitive → Subject + do/infinitive = “I do/am doing”  Not merely free/random variation but:  Possible influence of the syntactic environment in literary texts  In documentary texts, however, the distribution seems to be random  Actually the case in some of them (need further study)  BUT the situational parameter is worth having a look at…

22 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  An extreme case: drafts of letters to the Vizier vs other letters  Hypothesis: impact of the social stratification on written communications  The size of the corpus is extremely small: for the 20th Dynasty, we only know of 6 drafts of letters to the Vizier → qualitative as well as quantitative approach  oLouvre N. 696 [Ramesses III, year 23; from the scribe Amennakhte]  oNash 11 [Ramesses III; from 2 foremen]  oOIC [Ramesses III; from the scribe Neferhotep]  oBM EA oGardiner 99 + oCairo [Ramesse III or later; from the deputy Amenkhau]  oGardiner 59 [Ramesses IV; from ?]  pDeM 13 [Ramesses IX; from Maanakhtef]

23 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  Interesting results  The preposition Hr is written in 95% of the occurrences (only exception = in the letter to the Vizier Nebmâatrânakhte [= Ramesses IX])  This contrasts strongly with what we have in the corpus of the 20 th Dynasty letters as a whole: the preposition Hr is written down in less than 25% ( Hr = 23% vs omission of Hr = 77%)  Situational parameter definitely matters in this case!  Moreover, other features (some of them rare) show that particular attention was paid to these letters  Palaeography  Spellings/morphology  2 nd p. suffix pronoun: = kwi instead of = k (common feature of literary texts)  Subjunctive: final yod is always written (e.g. iry )  Perfective: see the not so uncommon iryw (ir-y-w) / irwy (ir-w-y) / didy (di:di-y)  Negative Verbal Complement: m dy (not m rdi.t )  Relative form of the past: always with prothetic yod, e.g. i.sHn

24 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  Moreover, other features (some of them rare) show that particular attention was paid to these letters  Palaeography  Spellings/morphology  Syntax  m-Dr sDm=f temporal clause  m hAb pw “this is a missive (to let you know that) ?double encoding, with the particle of the cleft-sentences?

25 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  This leads to the next point: the occurrence of hypercorrect constructions 1. Third Future. There are two different constructions for the future depending on the nature of the subject  iw [aux.fut] = f [ 3m.sg] r [prep.allative] sDm [hear/inf] “he will hear”  iri [aux.fut] NP ø sDm[ hear/inf] “NP will hear”  In the letters to the Vizier, two occurrences of the hypercorrect construction  iri [aux.fut] NP r [prep.allative] sDm[ hear/inf] “NP will hear”  iri pAy=n nb r swhA n=n m pAy=f iy.t “our lord will boast to us when he comes” (oNash 11)  iri pAy=i nb r wxA pA gm nA md.wt n aDA nty bw Dd=w “our lord will seek out the one who made up these lies that they did not say” (oBM EA etc.)

26 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  This leads to the next point: the occurrence of hypercorrect constructions 1. Third Future. There are two different constructions for the future depending on the nature of the subject  iw [aux.fut] = f [ 3m.sg] r [prep.allative] sDm [hear/inf] “he will hear”  iri [aux.fut] NP ø sDm[ hear/inf] “NP will hear”  In the letters to the Vizier, two occurrences of the hypercorrect construction  Usually explained as an analogical process (see Winand 1992: 501; “les exemples de iri SN r sDm […] doivent sans doute s’expliquer par l’analogie avec la construction pronominale, davantage employée”)  The “analogical” or “hypercorrect” construction with the preposition appears in different types of documents, BUT, in all the instances, a hierarchical superior (gods, king, vizier, etc.) is the subject  From predictive to optative future: “may my lord seek out the one who lied” The investigation of situational parameters may lead to the identification of functional opposition

27 1. Diaphasic dimension Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  This leads to the next point: the occurrence of hypercorrect constructions 1. Third Future. A functional opposition between iri NP sDm and iri NP r sDm ? 2. The preposition Hr in constructions where it does not belong etymologically:  Conjunctive pattern: mtw=f Hr sDm (sic)  Perfective negative: bwpw=f Hr sDm (sic)  Explained as an “infinitive marker”, much like “to” in English (cf. Di Biase-Dyson, Kammerzell & Werning 2009: 362)  However, it occurs only in literary composition, which tends to rule out the “infinitive marker” interpretation in favour of actual hypercorrect constructions The literary registers triggers hypercorrect constructions  We may describe the Late Egyptian linguistic system beyond free variation 1. Correlating the relatively independent evolution of registers and macro-diachronic variation 2. Explaining the idiosyncrasies of some registers based on the scribal self- representation of the formality scale and prestigious standard 3. Taking into account the situational parameters and the context of production

28 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  Methodological issue  May we use Scribal Network Analysis (esp. Milroy 1987 & 2002; Bergs 2005) in order to account for language variation and language change of the type attested in Ancient Egyptian and, more specifically, in the Deir el-Medineh community?  In other words, is SNA an useful heuristic device when it comes to describing variation and language change in the Late Egyptian of the 20 th dynasty?  The Deir el-Medineh community as a scribal network (Milroy’s Network Strength scale)  High density (territorially based cluster)  Multiplex  Working hierarchy in the institution of the Tomb  Living in the same village → ties of kinship in neighbourhood and constant relation with the other individuals of the gang  Manufacturing together artifacts for the outside world (cf. Conney’s informal workshops)  High transactional content

29 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  The data (dependent and independent variables in order to correlate language uses with the network structure)  The linguistic data  Illustration with one of the most favourable case-study: Amennakhte’s family This generates uniform network norms Not to be equated with the standard variety => leveled vs standard variety + Local teaching

30 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April Hsb.t 18 Abd 1 pr.t sw sS-nsw DHwty-ms n Xnw sA 3. sS-nsw xa-m-HD.t sA nsw sS Hri-Sri sA 4. sS-nsw imn-nxt n Xnw 1. Year 18, first month of the winter season, day The king’s scribe of the interior, Thutmose, son of 3. The king’s scribe KhaemHedje, son of the king’s scribe Harshire, son of 4. The king’s scribe of the interior Amennakhte

31 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 Families and scribal lineage

32 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 Amennakhte Harshire Khaemhedjet Thutmose Butehamun Ankhefenamun Ramsesses III 21th Dynasty c. 100 years

33 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 AmennakhtHarshireKhaem- hedjet ThutmoseButeh-amunAnkhef- enamun Letters1 [+ 1?]1 (lacuna)1981 (unpubl.) Admin.2 [+ 3?]11 Name11 Literary Texts71 Note that Amennakhte’s name appears on (at least) 127 documents

34 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  The data (dependent and independent variables in order to correlate language uses with the network structure)  The linguistic data  Illustration with one of the most favourable case-study: Amennakhte’s family  Huge amount of published (as well as unpublished) material that is waiting for further studies Generate uniform network norms (cf. Granovetter 1973) !!! Not to be equated with standard norm !!! + Local teaching

35 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  The data (dependent and independent variables in order to correlate language uses with the network structure)  The linguistic data  The social data  Structure  Internal to the community  Lot of prosopographical studies (information about families, lineage of individuals in the different functions of the tomb, etc. coming from the administrative documents); unfortunately never sociological studies…  External (link with the Theban area)  Links with other administrative and religious centers  Informal workshops and deliveries of goods  Travels and relations with people ranging from Memphis to Lower Nubia  Quick example with 6 communications (Amennakhte’s centrality is not assumed)

36 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 Amennakhte Harshire Neferhotep oOIC Vizier To (pLouvre N. 696) Wife oBerlin Amenhotep oTurin N (KRI VI, 209) Amenmose oDeM 336 (= KRI 5,567) Y (lacuna) oDeM (= Grandet 2006: 10) Maanakhtef pDeM 11 (= KRI 6,668) X-mose (lacuna) oBerlin 12630

37 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  The data (dependent and independent variables)  The linguistic data  The social data  Structure  Content (quality of the relational properties of individuals)  Multiplexity (an illustration)

38 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 Amennakhte Harshire Neferhotep oOIC Vizier To (pLouvre N. 696) Wife oBerlin Amenhotep oTurin N (KRI VI, 209) Amenmose oDeM 336 (= KRI 5,567) Y oDeM (= Grandet 2006: 10) Maanakhtef pDeM 11 (= KRI 6,668) X-mose (lacuna) oBerlin Symmetry (both sS n pA xr ) assymmetry ( sS n pA xr vs rmT-is.t ) Father - Son Assymetry sS n pA xr vs sS ? Assymetry sS n pA xr vs carpenter

39 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  The data (dependent and independent variables)  The linguistic data  The social data  Structure  Content (quality of the relational properties of individuals)  Multiplexity  Clusters? Community, family, etc. (archeological context + written material)

40 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011 Amennakhte Harshire Neferhotep oOIC Vizier To (pLouvre N. 696) Wife oBerlin Amenhotep oTurin N (KRI VI, 209) Amenmose oDeM 336 (= KRI 5,567) Y oDeM (= Grandet 2006: 10) Maanakhtef pDeM 11 (= KRI 6,668) X-mose (lacuna) oBerlin Symmetry (both sS n pA xr ) assymmetry ( sS n pA xr vs rmT-is.t ) Father - Son Assymetry sS n pA xr vs sS ? Assymetry sS n pA xr vs carpenter

41 2. Scribal Network Analysis Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011  The data (dependent and independent variables)  The linguistic data  The social data  Structure  Content (quality of the relational properties of individuals)  Multiplexity  Defining clusters? Community, family, etc. (archeological context + written material)  Lot of metadata BUT the matching of scribes names and documents remains problematic in most instances, so that it is usually impossible to link the linguistic data to the huge amount of independent social variables at our disposal

42 3. Conclusions: Scribes as agents of language change  As a matter of principle, yes as their agentivity is responsible for the introduction and the diffusion of linguistic innovations in the Ancient Egyptian written material at our disposal  However, at the moment, the state of art in Egyptology imposes restrictions on the possible types of question that one may ask to the written records  The diaphasic dimension of variation (registers and situational features) is really promising, mostly because all the data we need are self-contained in the document  The SNA is definitely promising, but still looks like a life time enterprise  Individual innovation that spread to a larger group of scribes?  Might have been the case for the temporary new spelling of bwpw as mbwpw which appears to be a successful written actuation in the written norm (maybe reflecting phonological constraints) with a limited diffusion (Ramesses III to Ramesses V in Deir el-Medineh) Scribes as Agent of Language Change – Cambridge. 4-6 April 2011


Download ppt "Linguistic innovations and evolution of registers in the Deir el-Medineh community: scribal networks and families during the 20th dynasty St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google