Näytä vastaamattomat viestit | Näytä aktiiviset viestiketjut Tänään on 29 Maalis 2020 09:29



Vastaa viestiin  [ 3 viestiä ] 
 Finland-nimen alkuperä 
Kirjoittaja Viesti
Ylihärmiö
Ylihärmiö
Avatar

Liittynyt: 14 Helmi 2011 04:02
Viestit: 9042
Vastaa lainaamalla
Viesti Finland-nimen alkuperä
Arvioidaanpa eräiden Finland-nimen selitysten uskottavuutta. Apuna käytän Gerhard Köblerin netin löytyviä sanakirjoja Altnordisches Wörterbuch (muinaisnorjan sanakirja) ja Germanisches Wörterbuch (kantagermaanin sanakirja). Myös ruotsin etymologinen sanakirja löytyy netistä.
http://www.koeblergerhard.de/germwbhinw.html
http://www.koeblergerhard.de/anwbhinw.html
http://runeberg.org/svetym/

Meillä on siis varma tieto siitä, että muinaisnorjan nimitys finnr viittasi saamelaisiin, ja muinaisruotsin finne viittasi suomalaisiin. Lisäksi antiikin lähteissä esiintyy samannäköisiä nimityksiä, mutta on pelkkää arvailua, keihin niillä oikeastaan viitattiin. Ptolemaioksella oli phinnoi, Tacituksella fenni. Mikä siis on tämän eksonyymin (ulkopuolisten käyttämä etnonyymi eli kansannimitys) alkuperä?

1. Finland ’löytömaa’, ’keräilijöiden maa’, ’vaeltajien maa’
Kantagermaanin verbi *fenþan, myöh. *finþan ’löytää; kävellä?’ oli muinaisnorjassa finna. Koska tämä on verbi, siitä saadaan ihmiseen viittaava substantiivi tekijäjohdoksella: odottaisi siis sanaa finnare ’löytäJÄ, vaeltaJA’ tms. Siksi tämä selitys ei ole äänteellisesti erityisen uskottava. Sama koskee versiota ’löytömaa’: siihenkin odottaisi johdinainesta, lähinnä partisiippia: ’löydetty maa’. Ei pelkkää verbivartaloa vain läntätty land-sanan eteen, vaan siitä piti ensin tehdä nomini.

2. Finland ’ihmisten maa’
Muinaisnorjan finnr palautuisi äännelaillisesti kantagermaanin sanaan *fenna-, joka olisi kantaindoeurooppalaisen sanan säännöllinen jatkaja: IE *pes-no- > heetin pesnas ’mies’. Tämän selityksen vahvuus on äänteellinen säännönmukaisuus sekä se fakta, että maailman kielissä hyvin usein kansannimitykset juontuvat juuri ’ihmistä, miestä’ merkitsevistä sanoista. Tämän selityksen heikkous taas on, että sana on nykygermaanissa oikeastaan käytännössä tuntematon, eikä sitä siksi löydy esim. kantagermaanin sanakirjoista. Sen ainoa jatkaja olisi juuri tuo skandinaavinen finnr-nimitys.

3. Finland ’suomaa’
Muinaisnorjassa oli sana fen 'suo'. Se palautuu kuitenkin kantagermaanin sanaan *fanja, ja siinä on tapahtunut j:n aiheuttama umlaut-muutos *a > e. Nämä skandinaaviset muutokset ovat tapahtuneet vasta vuoden 500 jKr. jälkeen, eli tuo ’suo’-sana on liian nuori sopiakseen antiikin kirjoittajien fenni/phinnoi-nimien selitykseksi. Ja selitys jää hyvin vaillinaiseksi, ellei se pysty selittämään juuri noita nimen vanhimpia ilmentymiä.

4. Finland ’hieno maa’
Ruotsin sanalla fin ’hieno’ on kyllä vastineita nykyisissä germaanisissa kielissä (mm. englannin fine), mutta sanue on silti lainattu latinasta, eikä se palaudu kantagermaaniin. Lisäksi sanassa on pitkä vokaali, eli siitä tulisi kansannimi **fiin, ei finn.

TUOMIO:
Kaikissa selityksissä on heikkoutensa. Vähiten ongelmia on kuitenkin vaihtoehdossa 2: finnr tulisi vanhasta ’ihmistä’ merkitsevästä sanasta.

_________________
~ "Per aspera ad hominem - vaikeuksien kautta henkilökohtaisuuksiin" ~

Y-DNA: N1c1-YP1143 (Olavi Häkkinen 1620 Kuhmo? >> Juhani Häkkinen 1816 Eno)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Elina Mäkilä 1757 Kittilä >> Riitta Sassali 1843 Sodankylä)


08 Tammi 2020 12:51
Profiili WWW
Hiljainen hämäläinen
Hiljainen hämäläinen

Liittynyt: 09 Maalis 2019 15:01
Viestit: 36
Vastaa lainaamalla
Viesti Re: Finland-nimen alkuperä
Jaska kirjoitti:
3. Finland ’suomaa’
Muinaisnorjassa oli sana fen 'suo'. Se palautuu kuitenkin kantagermaanin sanaan *fanja, ja siinä on tapahtunut j:n aiheuttama umlaut-muutos *a > e. Nämä skandinaaviset muutokset ovat tapahtuneet vasta vuoden 500 jKr. jälkeen, eli tuo ’suo’-sana on liian nuori sopiakseen antiikin kirjoittajien fenni/phinnoi-nimien selitykseksi. Ja selitys jää hyvin vaillinaiseksi, ellei se pysty selittämään juuri noita nimen vanhimpia ilmentymiä.


Tämän mukaan PIE:n sanassa *pen- oli kuitenkin e-kirjain (https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fen&rdfrom=Fen#Etymology_1):

> From Middle English fen, fenne, from Old English fenn ("fen; marsh; mud; dirt"), from Proto-Germanic *fanją (compare West Frisian fean, Dutch veen, German Fenn, Norwegian fen), from Proto-Indo-European *pen- ("bog, mire"). Compare Middle Irish en ("water"), enach ("swamp"), Old Prussian pannean ("peat-bog"), Sanskrit पङ्क (paṅka, "marsh, mud, mire, slough").

Toinen etymologia englannin sanalle "fen" (https://www.etymonline.com/word/fen):

> "low land covered wholly or partly by water, a marsh abounding in coarse vegetation," Old English fenn "mud, mire, dirt; fen, marsh, moor," from Proto-Germanic *fanja- "swamp, marsh" (source also of Old Saxon feni, Old Frisian fenne, Middle Dutch venne, Dutch veen, Old High German fenna, German Fenn "marsh," Old Norse fen, Gothic fani "mud"), from PIE *poino-, from root *pen- "swamp" (source also of Gaulish anam "water," Sanskrit pankah "bog, marsh, mud," Old Prussian pannean "swampland"). Italian and Spanish fango, Old French fanc, French fange "mud" are loan-words from Germanic. The native Latin word was limus or lutum.

Sanan "Pannonia" esitetään myös olevan PIE:n sanan *pen- kognaatti (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Pannonia): "Borrowed from Latin Pannonia, ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *pen- ("moist; wet; mud; swamp; water")."

En ollut varma, puhuttiinko Tacituksen Germanian alkuperäisessä latinalaisessa versiossa "fenneistä" e-kirjaimella, mutta näköjään siinä esiintyivät vain sanat "Fennorum", "Fennosque" ja "Fennis": https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Germania_(Church_%26_Brodribb).

Jaska kirjoitti:
Nämä skandinaaviset muutokset ovat tapahtuneet vasta vuoden 500 jKr. jälkeen, eli tuo ’suo’-sana on liian nuori sopiakseen antiikin kirjoittajien fenni/phinnoi-nimien selitykseksi.


En usko kaikkiin Anatoly Fomenkon jutuista, mutta Fomenkon mukaan Tacituksen teokset ovat oikeasti keskiajalla tehtyjä väärennöksiä: https://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&pg=PA386. (Edit: PDF-versio Fomenkon kirjan samasta kappaleesta: http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N07-EN-373-409.pdf.)

Edit 2: Tässä on otteita yllä linkitetystä Anatoly Fomenkon kirjasta (luku 7, alaluku 2):

> Towards the end of the XIX century the French expert Hochart and the English expert Ross have independently proclaimed the _History_ of Cornelius Tacitus to have actually been written in the XV century by the eminent Renaissance humanist Poggio Bracciolini.
>
> [...]
>
> Poggio Bracciolini [...] is the author of the historical study guide of Roman monuments and the famous History of Florence, which is a work that resembles the chronicle of Tacitus.
>
> [...]
>
> "The search, preparation, and copy-editing of ancient authors were an additional source of income for him. In the XV century... this had been a _very lucrative activity_. With the aid of the Florentine scientist and publisher Niccolo Niccoli (1363-1437)... Poggio Bracciolini had founded a studio of sorts that occupied itself with redacting ancient texts, having engaged a large number of partners and counteragents, very educated ones, but most of them had been marked by obloquy... The first findings were made by Poggio Bracciolini and Bartholomeo di Montepulciano in the epoch of the Constantian council... in _a forlorn and humid tower_ of the St. Gallen monastery... "in _a forlorn and humid tower where a prisoner would not be able to survive three days_" they managed to find a pile of ancient manuscripts – the works of Quintillian, Valerius Flaccus, Asconius Pedianus, Nonius Marcellus, Probus, and others. The discovery created more than a sensation – it initiated an entire literary epoch". ([21], pages 358-366).
>
> Some time later Bracciolini "discovered" fragments "from Petronius" and the _Bucolic_ by Calpurnius. The circumstances of these findings remain nebulous.
>
> Apart from the originals, Bracciolini also traded in copies, which he sold for great sums of money. For instance, having sold a copy of a manuscript by Titus Livy to Alphonse of Aragon, Poggio made enough money to buy a villa in Florence.
>
> "He charged Duke D'Este a hundred ducats (1200 francs) for the letters of St. Jerome, and that with great irritation... Poggio's clients were the Medici, the Sforza, the D'Este, the aristocratic families of England, the Duchy of Burgundy, cardinals Orsini and Colonna, rich people like Bartolomeo di Bardi, universities, which... either began to set up libraries, or have been busy extending their old book storages". ([21], pages 363-366).
>
> Let us now regard the history of the discovery of Tacitus' books.
>
> The main copies of the works by Tacitus – the so-called First and Second Medicean Copies – are kept in Florence, in a book storage which had Poggio amongst its founders. According to the Scaligerian chronology, these copies are the prototypes of all the other ancient copies of Tacitus.
>
> The first printed edition of Tacitus is supposed to have appeared in the alleged year 1470 from the Second Medicean copy, or a copy thereof that is supposed to have been kept in the St. Marcus library in Venice. "However, it had disappeared from there, or maybe hadn't been kept in the library in the first place" ([21], pages 366-368).
>
> "The two Medicean copies... _contain the entirety of the historical works of Tacitus that have reached our days_" ([21], pages 366-368).
>
> [...]
>
> Hochart and Ross have collected all of the references to Tacitus made before Poggio's discovery in the XV century. It turns out there are very few such references, and they are all general and vague enough that they could refer to people who have nothing in common with the author of the _History_.
>
> [...]
>
> How did the "discovery of Tacitus" really occur? "In November 1425 Poggio notified Niccoli in Florence from Rome that "some monk" was offering him a batch of old manuscripts... including 'several works of Tacitus unknown to us'" ([21], page 382). Niccoli agrees upon the deal immediately. However, the actual purchase takes several months for some reason.
>
> "Poggio procrastinates, giving different excuses... He gives a rather meandrous answer to Niccoli's inquiry that only makes clear the fact that he had not been in the possession of the Tacitus' book yet... In what concerns the monk, Poggio blatantly lies and appears confused: the monk is allegedly a friend of his, but for some reason failed to have visited Poggio while in Rome... the books were in Hersfeld, but had to be collected in Nuremberg, etc."([21], page 382).
>
> Niccoli demanded the book catalogue "discovered" by Poggio, being rather irritated. It turned out that "there were no works of Tacitus in the catalogue"!
>
> "Such strange rigmarole of miscomprehensions that look clearly artificial marks the years 1427 and 1428" ([21]). Finally, Poggio notifies Niccoli in 1428 that the mysterious monk had arrived in Rome again – but without any book!
>
> "The almost quinquennial procrastination led to the fact that Poggio's discovery had been made public prior to having been actually made, and many strange rumours surrounded it. The latter made Niccoli worry greatly, to which Poggio replied: "I know all the songs that are sung in this respect... so this is what I'll do: once Cornelius Tacitus arrives, I shall hide him well from strangers." One would think – as Hochart justly remarks – that the most natural protection of the manuscript from vicious rumours would be making it public for the scientists, explaining all the ways, means, and secrets of its appearance. Poggio, on the contrary, promises to palter yet again..." ([21], pages 374-382).
>
> Hochart and Ross have found that "in a much later edition of his letters to Niccoli, Poggio, having lost track of the dates of his Tacitus-related correspondence of the years 1425-1429, had for some reason _forged the dates_ of 28 December 1427 and 5 June 1428 in two of the letters that were made public" ([21], pages 374-382).
>
> In these letters Poggio asks Niccoli to send him (?!) another copy of Tacitus that had allegedly already been in Niccoli's possession. Comparing the dates of the correspondence and the texts of the letters, Hochart claims the mysterious "second copy" to have been nothing else but the First Medicean copy that had allegedly been discovered many years after!
>
> Hochart is of the opinion that "_the letter dates are faked_, they have been composed post factum after Niccoli had made Tacitus public in order to validate the reputation of the first... copy [the so-called Second Medicean one – A. F.] that had entered the collections of several palatine libraries, and prepare the way for the second copy" ([21], pages 374-382). Today's historians are of the opinion that these two copies had been discovered in a reverse order.
>
> Amphitheatrov, whom we often quote here, wrote the following:
>
> "Studying the history of the origins of the First Medicean Copy [the second to have been discovered – A. F.]... one cannot fail to notice the recurrence of the legend that had engulfed the copy of Niccolo Niccoli 80 years ago... a northern monastery figures here again, as well as some mysterious, unnamed monks. Some German coenobite brings the first five chapters of the _Annals_ to Pope Leo X. The Pope is delighted, and presumably designates the monk as the editor of the work. The coenobite refuses, pleading semi-literacy. One clearly sees the resurrection of the legend about the provisioner of the Second Medicean Copy [the first to have been discovered – A. F.] and the Hersfeld monk... the legend calls Arcimboldi the intermediator in this deal... however, Arcimboldi doesn't mention this with a single word, despite the fact that he is supposed to have received 500 sequins from Leo X in order to pay for it – that amounts to 6000 francs, an entire fortune considering the cost of money [this makes chronology irrelevant! – A. F.]. All of these mysterious monks with no name, origin, and place of residence are the continuers of the falsification system started by Poggio Bracciolini in the eyes of Hochart. No one ever sees them or knows anything about them, whilst today one of them brings a lost decade of _Titus Livy_ from Sweden or Denmark, tomorrow another one comes from Corbea or Fulda with a work of Tacitus, etc. – they always come from the North that is far away and hard to reach, and they always bring exactly the goods that are sought after and that the book market of the century is starved for" ([21], pages 374-382).
>
> The study of Poggio's correspondence leads to stronger suspicions. The authors of the letters either fail to mention the findings, or give mutually exclusive versions.
>
> "Bayle tells us [already in the XVIII century – A. F.] that Pope Leo X wanted to find the missing chapters of Tacitus so much that he promised an _indulgence of sins_ for them as well as money and power. Is it surprising that they were found with haste? [Chronology is of little relevance here – A. F.]. Therefore, both parts of the Tacitus' codex are of equally _mysterious origins_. Hochart assumes that the relation of legends and mystery that surrounds them indicate a common origin and family, namely, that they have been _forged in the Roman studio of the Florentine Poggio Bracciolini_". ([21], pages 374-382).
>
> [...]
>
> "His [Poggio's – A. F.] sojourn in London was marked by greatly frustrated hopes for Beaufort's generosity... In 1422... Piero Lamberteschi offers him a project of some historical work that is supposed to have been based on Greek sources and done in the utmost secrecy over the period of three years, for which Poggio shall receive a fee of 500 golden ducats. "Let him pay me six hundred, and I'm game" – writes Poggio, leaving Niccoli to take care of the matter. "The task that he offers pleases me greatly, and I hope to produce something worthy of reading." A month later he writes: "if I see... that Piero backs up his promises with deeds, it shall not just be the Sarmatians that I shall study, but the Scythians as well... Keep the projects that I'm telling you about secret. If I shall indeed go to Hungary, it should remain unknown to everyone except for a few friends".
>
> In June: "Rest assured that if I'm given enough time... I shall write something that shall please you... When I compare myself with the ancients, I believe in myself. If I really get to it, I shan't lose my face before anyone..." His subsequent location remains a mystery. According to Corniani, he had really lived in Hungary for some reason. Tonneli tells us that he went straight to Florence. Whether his mysterious deal with Lamberteschi reached any results at all remains an enigma as well. Lamberteschi's name disappears from Poggio's correspondence, which Hochart explains by the fact that Poggio himself was the editor of his collected letters.
>
> Even if the deal had fallen through and come to nothing, what possible residue could have been left by this episode? The following: "Lamberteschi was offering Poggio the creation of some secret historical work. The secrecy was planned to be great enough to make Poggio work in Hungary while everyone would think him to have still been in England. For this work he would have to study the Greek authors... and compete with the ancient historians, which he both feared and yearned for. And, finally, all the demands for secrecy that he had been ready to comply with demonstrate that the deal, albeit literary and scientific, had been a murky one". ([21], pages 393 ff).
>
> Lamberteschi had a moral right to confront Poggio with such a suggestion, since the latter had already been caught red-handed at the manufacture of a forgery. Several years before, Poggio had published the Commentaries of Q. Asconius Pedianus via Niccoli.
>
> "The original for these Commentaries hasn't been seen by anyone, and all the copies have been made by Niccoli from another copy that Poggio had sent him from Constance. It was a great success, despite the fact that... the world of science soon sensed that something was wrong... The success of the sham Asconius Pedianus had ensued in an entire series of forgeries bearing the name of the same fictitious author, but they were all too rough, and immediately got exposed as fakes. Poggio... just happened to have been more artful than the others...
>
> Prior to his involvement in the Tacitus business, he tries to sell some amazing copy of Titus Livy to Cosmas Medici and Leonello D'Este – again in an atmosphere of mystery, with a faraway monastery on some North Sea island, Swedish monks and the like somewhere in the background. It is improbable that we're speaking of an actual oeuvre being forged, but a forgery of a copy may well have taken place. It is known that Poggio had been a master of Lombardian handwriting, which the manuscript that he tried to entice the princes with had been written in... however, something went wrong there, and the precious copy had disappeared without a trace... It is significant that over this period the usually prolific Poggio fails to write anything of his own...
>
> However, he spends lots of time educating himself – systematically and unidirectionally, apparently training himself for some serious task of great responsibility concerning the Imperial period in Roman history. Niccoli barely manages to send him the works required: Ammianus Marcellinus, Plutarch, Ptolemy's Geography, etc". ([21], pages 394 and ff).
>
> Hochart is of the opinion that Poggio had been alone when he began the forgery, but was probably soon forced to engage Niccoli as well. They must have planted the so-called Second Medicean Copy first, holding the First one back hoping to "skin the same steer twice." However, the market had soon been addled by a great number of exposed forgeries. Poggio refrained from risking it the second time. The First Copy must have entered circulation by proxy of his son Giovanni Francesco after he had made away with the fortune of his father.
>
> Apart from the works mentioned, the Poggio-Niccoli syndicate had put the following "Classical" texts into circulation:
>
> The complete Quintillian, some tractates by Cicero, seven of his speeches, Lucretius, Petronius, Plautus, Tertullian, some texts of Marcellinus, Calpurnius Seculus, etc.
>
> The market became agitated after the finding of Tacitus. In 1455 "Enoch D'Ascoli had found Tacitus' _Dialogue of Orators_, _Agricola's Biography_, and _Germany_, (a monastery in the north yet again) whose language and character differ from the _History_ and the Annals significantly... The _Facetiae_ ascribed to Tacitus appeared on the market, and the sham took a long time to expose" ([21], pages 350-351).

Fomenko viittasi John Wilson Rossin kirjaan "Tacitus and Bracciolini: The Annals Forged in the XVth Century" (1878): http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9098.


Viimeksi muokannut Lri päivämäärä 01 Helmi 2020 14:01, muokattu yhteensä 3 kertaa



09 Tammi 2020 10:50
Profiili
Ylihärmiö
Ylihärmiö
Avatar

Liittynyt: 14 Helmi 2011 04:02
Viestit: 9042
Vastaa lainaamalla
Viesti Re: Finland-nimen alkuperä
Lri kirjoitti:
Jaska kirjoitti:
3. Finland ’suomaa’
Muinaisnorjassa oli sana fen 'suo'. Se palautuu kuitenkin kantagermaanin sanaan *fanja, ja siinä on tapahtunut j:n aiheuttama umlaut-muutos *a > e. Nämä skandinaaviset muutokset ovat tapahtuneet vasta vuoden 500 jKr. jälkeen, eli tuo ’suo’-sana on liian nuori sopiakseen antiikin kirjoittajien fenni/phinnoi-nimien selitykseksi. Ja selitys jää hyvin vaillinaiseksi, ellei se pysty selittämään juuri noita nimen vanhimpia ilmentymiä.


Tämän mukaan PIE:n sanassa *pen- oli kuitenkin e-kirjain (https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fen&rdfrom=Fen#Etymology_1):

> From Middle English fen, fenne, from Old English fenn ("fen; marsh; mud; dirt"), from Proto-Germanic *fanją (compare West Frisian fean, Dutch veen, German Fenn, Norwegian fen), from Proto-Indo-European *pen- ("bog, mire"). Compare Middle Irish en ("water"), enach ("swamp"), Old Prussian pannean ("peat-bog"), Sanskrit पङ्क (paṅka, "marsh, mud, mire, slough").

Toinen etymologia englannin sanalle "fen" (https://www.etymonline.com/word/fen):

> "low land covered wholly or partly by water, a marsh abounding in coarse vegetation," Old English fenn "mud, mire, dirt; fen, marsh, moor," from Proto-Germanic *fanja- "swamp, marsh" (source also of Old Saxon feni, Old Frisian fenne, Middle Dutch venne, Dutch veen, Old High German fenna, German Fenn "marsh," Old Norse fen, Gothic fani "mud"), from PIE *poino-, from root *pen- "swamp" (source also of Gaulish anam "water," Sanskrit pankah "bog, marsh, mud," Old Prussian pannean "swampland"). Italian and Spanish fango, Old French fanc, French fange "mud" are loan-words from Germanic. The native Latin word was limus or lutum.


Sama selitys on kyseessä, ja kumpikin lähde todistaa kantagermaanin *a:sta (*fanja). Nimitystähän ei ole syytä olettaa lainatun kantaindoeuroopasta.

Lri kirjoitti:
Sanan "Pannonia" esitetään myös olevan PIE:n sanan *pen- kognaatti (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Pannonia): "Borrowed from Latin Pannonia, ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *pen- ("moist; wet; mud; swamp; water")."

Joo, germaanissa konsonantiston muutosten vuoksi säännöllisesti IE *p > G *f.

Lri kirjoitti:
En usko kaikkiin Anatoly Fomenkon jutuista, mutta Fomenkon mukaan Tacituksen teokset olivat oikeasti keskiajalla tehtyjä väärennöksiä: https://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&pg=PA386.

Jaahas! Mielenkiintoinen väite. PDT_Armataz_01_14

_________________
~ "Per aspera ad hominem - vaikeuksien kautta henkilökohtaisuuksiin" ~

Y-DNA: N1c1-YP1143 (Olavi Häkkinen 1620 Kuhmo? >> Juhani Häkkinen 1816 Eno)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Elina Mäkilä 1757 Kittilä >> Riitta Sassali 1843 Sodankylä)


09 Tammi 2020 11:45
Profiili WWW
Näytä viestit ajalta:  Järjestä  
Vastaa viestiin   [ 3 viestiä ] 

Paikallaolijat

Käyttäjiä lukemassa tätä aluetta: Ei rekisteröityneitä käyttäjiä ja 1 vierailijaa


Et voi kirjoittaa uusia viestejä
Et voi vastata viestiketjuihin
Et voi muokata omia viestejäsi
Et voi poistaa omia viestejäsi

Etsi tätä:
Hyppää:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.
Käännös, Lurttinen, www.phpbbsuomi.com uncommitted-decoy