Re: [xmca] Seeking help with Vygotsky translation

[Bella Kotik-Friedgut <bella.kotik@gmail.com>]

David, I consider that "общение" may be translated as "communication" or
"contact" depending on the context, but "social relations" would be
"общественные отношения".
Bella Kotik

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:

> David,
> I don't read Russian, but when I explored different translations of
> Leont'ev into German and English, I noted the following, which I wrote in a
> footnote to a paper on the Leont'ev/Holzkamp approach:
>
> There are other difficulties with the English translation, for example,
> when it does not make the distinction between “социально” and “общественно,”
> which are rendered in the German translation as “sozial” and
> “gesellschaftlich,” but as “social” in the English translation rather than
> in terms of the corresponding “social” and “societal.”
>
> It seems that Anglo-Saxon's prefer the stem "social" rather than "societal"
> (gesellschaftlich) that one would find in German. There may be a bias to
> have social relations when in fact the relations are societal (as Holzkamp
> and the members of his group would translate from the Russian).
>
> Michael
>
>
> On 2009-11-20, at 10:32 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
>
> I'm kind of lost here (on p. 48 of Chapter One in the Minick version).
> Vygotsky says that "oбщение" requires a system of means of which the
> prototype has been, is, and always will be human language which is born from
> the needs of human beings to communicate in labor.
>
> Seve translates "oбщение" as "communication", Meccaci as "social
> relations". It seems to me that Minick's translation "social interaction" is
> a very reasonable compromise, particularly since my dictionary says
> something like "contact".
>
> So then Vygotsky has this:
>
> Полагали, что средством общения является знак, слово, звук.
>
> I translate that as "It was assumed that the means of contact was the sign,
> the word, the sound itself".
>
> Minick has "In particular, it has been assumed that sign, word, and sound
> are the means of social interaction."
>
> Seve has "It was thought that the sign--the word, the sound--is a means of
> communication."
>
> Meccaci: "It was thought that the sign, the word, the sound made up the
> means of social relations."
>
> Now I'm assuming that this is an attack on the ASSOCIATIONIST theory of
> word meaning. Vygotsky says that it is not the sound itself (as behaviorists
> think) or the word itself (as Saussureans think) or even the sign itself (as
> Trubetzkoy, the formalists and the Prague school think); it's the underlying
> act of thinking, which in turn reflects underlying acts of labor, which
> provide the means of communication, social relations, contact.
>
> So far so good! But then...
>
> Слово в общении главным образом только внешняя сторона речи, причем
> предполагалось, что звук сам по себе способен ассоциироваться с любым
> переживанием, с любым содержанием психической жизни и в силу этого
> передавать или сообщать это содержание или это переживание другому человеку.
>
> Seve says that this means "In communication, the word is essentially
> nothing but the exterior aspect of language, but it was nevertheless
> supposed that the sound in itself can be associated to any sort of lived
> experience, to any kind of content in psychological life, and can therefore
> transmit or communicate this content or this experience to another."
>
> Meccaci: "The word in social relations is nothing more in the first
> instance than the external aspect of speech, but at the same time it was
> thought that the sound in itself could be associated to any lived
> experience, to any content of psychical life and in virtue of this it might
> transmit or communicate this content or this experience to another
> individual."
>
> But my own reading is much closer to what Minick says: it has been assumed
> (by others) that the word in communication is just the external aspect of
> speech (that is, it's nothing but a sign, a word, a sound, and not an
> underlying act of generalization that can develop). And besides (or
> moreover) it was also thought (by others) that any sound could go with any
> lived experience, any old content of the mind and communicate it to others.
> Both of these ideas (that is, the idea that the word in communication is
> nothing but an object and not an underlying act of thinking and the
> associationist idea of anything with anything) are the product of
> over-analysis, that is, analysis into elements and not units,
>
> Who is right? Is it assumed by others or assumed by Vygotsky that the word
> is just the external aspect of speech? Is the second proposition going to
> begin with "nevertheless" or  "and besides"?
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 11/19/09, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Seeking help with Vygotsky translation
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Cc: "Alex Kozulin" <alexk@icelp.org.il>
> Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 7:55 PM
>
>
> David-
>
> Speaking only to the first paragraph. I am almost certainly in my content
> as
> my spelling and typing, but I doubt that I said that the Minnick version
> was
> done in a hurry. What is true is that members of LCHC spent one year of
> LCHC
> lab time (when Jim Wertsch was here on the faculty and working with us)
> reading the translation, debating use of terms, and struggling, as you are
> now, to understand what we were reading.
>
> My understanding the Kozulin translation is that only the parts deleted
> from
> the manuscript made available (by whom? Luria? to whom? Bruner?:) were
> changed in the translation but I have never taken the time to find out. I
> will cc Alex, who certainly has to know the true state of those affairs.
> mike
>
> 2009/11/19 David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
>
> > Yes, Minick is vastly superior! But Mike says that the Minick translation
> > was done in a hurry (I think in a little over a year) and I think it
> shows.
> > We've been working on our translation (into Korean) for well over a year
> > now, and I would say we are really only about half finished (we have a
> > working text, but about half of it is heavily based on Minick's reading
> and
> > we have to go over it again with the Russian).
> >
> > Here's an example I was working on this morning. Minick's got this:
> >
> > "The methods we intend to apply in our investigation of the relationshiop
> > betweent hinking and speech permit a synthetic analysis of the complex
> > whole. The significance of this approach is illustrated by yet another
> > aspect of hte problem, one that has remained in the background in
> previous
> > research. Specifically, the initial and the primary function of speech is
> > communicative. Speech is a _means of social interaction_ a means of
> > expression and understanding. The mode of analysis that decmoposes the
> whole
> > into its elements divorces the communicative function of speech from its
> > intellectual function. Of course, it is generally accepted that speech
> > combines the function of social interaction and the function of thinking,
> > but these functions have been conceptualized as existing in isolation
> from
> > one another, (sic) they have been conceptualized as operating in parallel
> > with no mutual interdependence. It has always been understood that both
> > functions are
> >   somehow combined in speech. But traditional psychology left entirely
> > unexplored issues such as the relationship between these functions, the
> > reason that both are present in speech, the nature of their development
> and
> > the nature of their structural relationship. This is largely true of
> > contemporary psychology as well." (p. 48)
> >
> > Even if you have very poor Russian (as I do) you can take the Russian
> > version (attached) and plug it into Babelfish. Then you compare it with
> the
> > French or Italian or the Japanese version, and you can rewrite the babble
> > you get out of Babelfish. Here's what you get:
> >
> > "The methods which we intend to apply to the study of the relations
> between
> > thinking and the speech have the advantage that they make it possible to
> > connect all the merits inherent to analysis with the possibility of a
> > synthetic study of the properties inherent in any complex unity as such.
> We
> > can easily be convinced of this on the basis of an example from an
> > additional side of the problem which interests which too has always
> remained
> > in the shadow. The initial function of speech appears to be its
> > communicative function. Speech is, first of all, a means of social
> contact,
> > a means of expression and understanding. In the analysis which decomposes
> > into elements, this function of speech is also usually torn off from
> > intellectual functioning, and both functions were assigned to speech as
> if
> > in parallel and independent one from one another. Speech somehow combines
> in
> > itself all the functions of social contact and the function of thinking,
> but
> > what relation
> >   these two functions stand to each other, what causes the presence of
> both
> > functions in speech, how their development occurs and how they are
> > structurally united the one to the other, all this has remained and
> remains,
> > until now, not studied."
> >
> > Now, it seems to me that there are at least four differences here. First
> of
> > all, Minick's version leaves out the phrase on the advantages of analysis
> so
> > that the whole paragraph is really just about synthesizing the
> intellectual
> > and communicative functions of speech, This destroys the transition
> Vygotsky
> > wants to make between synthesizing the intellectual and communicative
> > functions of speech on the one hand and analyzing into the basic unit of
> > thinking on the other.
> >
> > Secondly, because Minick leaves out the phrase on the advantages of
> > analysis, he cannot include the reference to it (“We can easily be
> convinced
> > of this”) in the next sentence.
> >
> > Thirdly, Minick uses “divorce” instead of “decompose”. But “decomposing”
> is
> > exactly what Vygotsky means by “analysis”: he means taking a whole apart
> > into its component basic units. Mike has pointed out that Vygotsky was
> > heavily influenced by the Gestalt psychologists, and of course, we can
> see
> > in this in Vygotsky’s concern in a form of analysis that “decomposes,”
> > leaving the basic unit whole. But there is a negative influence as well:
> > Vygotsky’s desire to DIFFERENTIATE himself from Gestalt. Vygotsky’s whole
> > distinction between higher and lower psychological functions is not, in
> > general, recognized in Gestalt psychology, so they do not see eye to eye
> on
> > the psychological nature of word meaning at all.
> >
> > Fourthly, Minick adds a contrast between “traditional” and “contemporary”
> > psychology at the end of the paragraph. This presumably means
> introspective
> > vs. behaviorist, or perhaps Wundt vs. Wurzburg, or even all previous
> schools
> > of psychology vs. Gestalt. Of course, it’s probably very true that none
> of
> > these schools have really posed the problem the way Vygotsky has, by
> showing
> > that the social communicative functions of speech and the reflective,
> > inter-mental functions turn in parallel because they are internally
> linked,
> > by the axle of word meaning, and not simply because they are going over
> the
> > same ground independently of each other. But the original paragraph does
> not
> > appear to say this.
> >
> > So what do we gain by avoiding originality? I think we gain the original
> > emphasis on LINKING analysis into units with the synthesizing of the
> > intellectual and the social functions of speech (Habermas would say
> > teleological rationality with communicative rationality). Just as Marx’s
> > study of the commodity makes it possible to see how exchange value and
> use
> > value stand in relation to each other, how their development occurs, and
> how
> > they are united to each other, linking analysis into units and functional
> > synthesis will allow us to see how the intellectual function of thinking
> and
> > the communicative functions of speech stand in relation to each other,
> how
> > their development comes about, and how they are mutually defining.
> >
> > I think taken together these differences are at least as important as the
> > ones that Julia Gillen found in comparing the then new Minick translation
> > with the Kozulin version back in 2000 (See "Versions of Vygotsky", in the
> > British Journal of Education). Gillen argued that this new translation
> was
> > going to make for a completely new understanding of Vygotsky, something
> that
> > Mike also suggests in his editorial.
> >
> > That might have been a little overoptimistic. But perhaps it isn't now.
> > What we really need is to make the translation of this great work
> > inter-individual and inter-generational, so that we can add on to Minick
> > just as Minick added on to Hanfmann and Vakar, and just as Mike is adding
> on
> > to whoever originally translated "Interaction between obuchenie and
> > development" into Chapter Six of "Mind in Society".
> >
> > Of course, there's copyright. I gather that the reason why Kozulin was
> not
> > able to completely retranslate Thinking and Speech is that MIT actually
> OWNS
> > the rights to the English translation of Thinking and Speech, and they
> don't
> > want that to happen, presumably because they've already paid for it and
> they
> > don't intend to sink anymore money down that particular rathole.
> >
> > I'm not sure how Plenum got around this. I suppose they bought the rights
> > to the Russian Collected Works as a whole from VAAP, and this included
> > Thinking and Speech, but only in the 1982 version which appears in the
> > Russian Collected Works.
> >
> > Now, I wonder how this changes with the seventy-fifth anniversary of our
> > beloved teacher's death (last June). I think that Western copyright laws
> are
> > generally interpreted to mean that seventy-five years after the death of
> an
> > author the whole of their work passes into the public domain. Let's
> suppose
> > that the rights to translation of a copyrighted work don't actually
> outlive
> > the original copyright (although apparently the NYPD still arrests gay
> men
> > for publically soliciting sex even though the sex itself is now
> > legal!). That means that it might be legal to retranslate Thinking and
> > Speech into English now, starting from the 1934 edition which Vygotsky
> > himself supervised and slavishly avoiding any form of originality as best
> we
> > can. Like many things in life though, I think that it's worth doing even
> if
> > it's not particularly legal.
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Seoul National University of Education
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 11/19/09, Jonathan Tudge JRTUDGE <jrtudge@uncg.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Jonathan Tudge JRTUDGE <jrtudge@uncg.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Seeking help with Vygtosky's translation
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 12:23 PM
> >
> >
> > Hi, Artin and David,
> >
> > My knowledge of Russian never was that great, and now has rusted
> > considerably, but I've compared the two versions that you mentioned
> > initially, Artin, with the original Russian.  As you, David, showed
> > clearly with the two translations that you supplied, the English version
> > from the 1987 Plenum publication is far far closer to the original
> Russian
> > than is the 1962 version.  In fact, I've always treated the 1962 text as
> > an extended summary of the original, rather than as a translation per se,
> > because it leaves out whole sections of the original and paraphrases
> other
> > sections.  From what I remember, the 1986 expanded version, revised by
> > Kozulin, is closer to the original than is the 1962 version, but is
> > nowhere near as accurate as is the 1987 text.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > PS...David, we must be showing our age if we both experienced that little
> > bit of child torture!
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Jonathan Tudge
> > Professor
> > 155 Stone
> >
> > Mailing address:
> > 248 Stone Building
> > Department of Human Development and Family Studies
> > PO Box 26170
> > The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
> > Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
> > USA
> >
> > phone (336) 256-0131
> > fax   (336) 334-5076
> >
> > http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Tudge/Tudge.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Goncu, Artin" <goncu@uic.edu>
> > Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > 11/19/2009 12:05 AM
> > Please respond to
> > "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >
> >
> > To
> > "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > Re: [xmca] Seeking help with Vygtosky's translation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your very helpful reply.  I do appreciate it.
>  All
> > the best, Artin
> >
> >
> > On Wed, November 18, 2009 4:42 pm, David Kellogg wrote:
> >> Greetings from Seoul, Professor Goncu, where your two books on play are
> >> often read and appreciated.
> >> Â
> >> As Meccaci remarks (and van der Veer confirms), there is really no very
> >> good LITERAL translation of Thinking and Speech into English and there
> > is
> >> never likely to be. Partly this is the fault of the overenthusiastic
> > early
> >> translators but partly it is the fault of copyright laws which prevent
> > the
> >> translation of this work from becoming, as would be really proper, an
> >> inter-individual and inter-generational enterprise.
> >> Â
> >> Those who know other languages can rely on the excellent French
> >> translation by Seve or the BRILLIANT Italian translation by Meccaci
> >> himself. Here's what they have, retranslated into English by me:
> >> Â
> >> Seve: It would be miraculous if the assimilation of a foreign language
> >> during the process of school learning was a replica, a reproduction of
> >> that of the mother tongue, which was carried out long ago and under
> >> completely different conditions. But these differences, however profound
> >> they may be, must not mask from us the fact that the two processes of
> >> assimilating the mother tongue and assimilating the foreign language
> > have
> >> between them so many points in common that it appears that at bottom
> > there
> >> is a single class of verbal development processes, to which the
> > extremely
> >> original process of the development of written language also attaches
> >> itself, for this does not repeat any of the precedents but instead
> >> represents a new variation of a single unified process. What is more,
> >> these three processesâ??the assimilation of mother tongues and foreign
> >> tongues and the development of written languageâ??each exercise a
> > complex
> >> action on the others, and this testifies
> >>   incontestably to their belonging to single and same class of genetic
> >> processes and to their internal unity. The assimilation of a foreign
> >> language is also, as we have said, an original process because it
> >> utilizes the whole of the semantic aspects of the mother tongue which
> > are
> >> the result of a long development. The learning of the mother tongue is
> >> based therefore on the knowledge of the mother tongue. Less evident and
> >> less well known is the relationship of inverse dependence between these
> >> two processes: the foreign language exercises in reverse an influence
> >> upon the mother tongue of the child. Goethe understood this very well,
> > he
> >> who said that one who does not know a foreign language does not really
> >> know his own. Research entirely confirms this idea of Goethe, because it
> >> shows that the mastery of a foreign language raises the mother tongue as
> >> well to a superior level in the sense that the child becomes aware of
> >> linguistic form, that he generalizes verbal
> >>   phenomena, that he utilizes more consciously and more volitionally the
> >> word as an instrument of thinking and as an expression of a concept. One
> >> can say that the assimilation of a foreign language raises the mother
> >> tongue to a superior level as much as the assimilation of algebra raises
> >> the level of arithmetic thinking to a superior level, because it permits
> >> the child to understand that all arithmetic operations are a particular
> >> case of algebraic operations, they give him a freer, more abstract, more
> >> generalized, and at the same time more profound insight into operations
> >> using concrete quantities. Just as algebra frees the thinking of the
> >> child from the hold which concrete numbers had upon it, in the same way,
> >> but by other paths, the assimilation of a foreign language frees his
> >> verbal thinking from the hold of forms and concrete linguistic
> > phenomena.
> >> Â
> >> Meccaci:Â It would be a miracle if the development of a foreign language
> >> during the course of instructed learning in school repeated or
> > reproduced
> >> the course, made much earlier and in other conditions, of the
> > development
> >> of the mother tongue. These differences, although profound, should not
> >> hide from us the fact that these two processes of the developing mother
> >> tongue and the foreign one have between them very much in common and are
> >> at bottom members of a single class of processes of verbal development,
> >> and, in addition, they are accompanied by the extremely original process
> >> of development of written language which does not repeat the preceding
> >> processes but represents a new variation in this unique process of
> >> linguistic development. What is more, these three processesâ??the
> >> development of the mother tongue and the foreign tongue and the
> >> development of written languageâ??are found in an extremely complex
> >> interaction which shows incontestably that they
> >>   belong to a single class of genetic processes which has an internal
> >> unity. As we have seen above, the development of a foreign language is
> > an
> >> original process, because it uses the whole of the semantic aspects of
> >> the mother tongue, which are born during a prolonged process of
> >> development. The learning in school of a foreign language is based in
> >> some way upon the knowledge of the mother tongue. Less evident and less
> >> well noted is the reverse dependence between these two processes, which
> >> consists of the inverse influence of the foreign language on the mother
> >> tongue of the child. Nevertheless Goethe understood this very well when
> >> he said that oen who does not know any foreign language does not truly
> >> know his own. Research has completely confirmed this idea of
> > Goetheâ??s,
> >> showing that the mastery of a foreign language raises the mother tongue
> >> to a higher stage, in the sense that the awareness of the forms of
> >> language, of the generalizations of the phenomena
> >>   of language, of the more voluntary and more conscious use of words as
> >> instruments of thinking and as expressions of concepts. If we may say
> > so,
> >> the assimilation of a foreign language raises the level of the maternal
> >> language (rech) for the child as much as the assimilation of algebra
> >> raises to a higher level the childâ??s arithmetic thinking, because it
> >> permits the child to understand any arithmetical operation as a
> >> particular case of algebraic operations, furnishing the child a freer,
> >> more abstract, more generalized and at the same time more profound and
> >> rich view of operations on concrete quantitites. Just as algebra frees
> >> the thinking of the child from its dependence on concrete numbers and
> >> raises it to a higher level of more generalized thinking, in the same
> > way
> >> the assimilation of a foreign language in completely diverse ways frees
> >> verbal thinking from the grip of concrete forms and concrete phenomena
> > of
> >> language.
> >> Â
> >>
> >> There is another very relevant passage in Chapter 6, section 5:
> >> Â
> >> Seve: But between these two opposed paths there exists a reciprocal
> >> interdependence, just like that between the development of scientific
> >> concepts and spontaneous concepts. The conscious and intentional
> >> assimilation of a foreign language is, to all the best evidence, based
> > on
> >> a certain level of development of the mother tongue. When the child
> >> assimilates a foreign tongue, he already has at his disposal from the
> >> mother tongue a system of significations which he transfers into the
> > other
> >> language. But inversely as well, the assimilation of a foreign language
> >> breaks the trail for the mastery of the higher forms of the maternal
> >> language. It permits the child to conceive his mother tongue as a
> >> particular case of the linguistic system, and, as a result, gives him
> > the
> >> possibility of generalizing the phenomena that are proper to it, which
> >> signifies also seizing conscious awareness of his proper verbal
> > operations
> >> and mastering them. Just as algebra is an
> >>   generalization and therefore a seizure of conscious awareness of
> >> arithmetic operations and their mastery, the development of a foreign
> >> language on the basis of the mother tongue signifies a generalization of
> >> linguistic phenomena and a seizure of conscious awareness of verbal
> >> operations, that is to say their translation onto the higher plane of a
> >> language which has become conscious and volitional. It is precisely in
> >> this sense that we must understand the aphorism of Goethe: â??He who
> >> knows no foreign language does not at bottom understand his own.â?�
> >> Â
> >> Meccaci: But between these two roads which proceed in opposite
> > directions,
> >> there exists a reciprocal interdependence, much like that between the
> >> development of scientific concepts and that of spontaneous concepts.
> > This
> >> conscious and voluntary assimilation of a foreign language bases itself
> >> very evidently upon a certain level of development of the mother tongue.
> >> The child assimilates a foreign tongue because he has at his disposal a
> >> system of knowledge of the mother tongue and can transfer this into the
> >> sphere of the other language. Conversely, the assimilation of the
> > foreign
> >> language opens the road to the mastery of the superior forms of the
> > mother
> >> tongue. It permits the child to conceive of the mother tongue as a
> >> particular case of a language system and gives the possibility of
> >> generalizing the phenomena of the mother tongue; this means the seizure
> > of
> >> conscious awareness of its proper verbal operations and mastering them.
> > In
> >> the same way, algebra is a
> >>   generalization and therefore a seizure of consciousness of
> arithmetical
> >> operations and allows their mastery, so too the development of a foreign
> >> language on the base of the mother tongue signifies the generalization
> > of
> >> the linguistic phenomena and the seizure of consciousness of verbal
> >> operations, in other words their translation to a higher level of
> >> conscious and volitional language. This is the real sense in which we
> >> must understand the maxim of Goethe: He who does not know any foreign
> >> language, does not really know his own language at bottom.â?�
> >> Â
> >>
> >> David Kellogg
> >>
> >> Seoul National University of Education
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Artin Goncu, Ph.D
> > Professor,
> > Educational Psychology
> > College of Education M/C 147
> > 1040 W. Harrison St.
> > Chicago, IL 60607
> > http://education.uic.edu/epsy/browseour%20faculty.cfm
> > (312) 996-5259
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>



-- 
Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca