HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrt@hawk.dsto.gov.au (John Terry)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: ethymology of foobar
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:39:38 GMT

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:

[much irrelevant stuff deleted]

PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!

The subject line is SNAFU'd (which seems to be a regular occurrence!).

The word is ETYMOLOGY!  Yes that's right! No 'h'!!!!!!!
            ^^^^^^^^^
You'd think that, at least in this group, people would get that right!

Perhaps followups should be directed to
sci.lang.american.common.(mis)spelling!!!!!!!
-- 
John R Terry					    jrt@aeg.dsto.gov.au
Head, Avionic Computer Systems,			    Ph:  +61 8 259 6982
Aircraft Systems Division, DSTO Salisbury, S.Aust.  Fax: +61 8 259 5507
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: [Anglolingvo/English] easy to learn English?
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.esperanto
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:10:06 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug12.181330.3716@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <2A885C3B.10024@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>>
>>And I'd rather not speak a language that classifies my mom as a female
>>father, thank you.
>>
>
>Perhaps you are unjust to Esperanto. I know of no language that contains
>gender information while being gender-symmetric, i.e. in which you can tell
>if the person mentioned is male or female AND in most such cases neither is
>derived from the other with an ending meaning "female" ("male" in any 
>language?). Esperanto simply avoids exceptions in this case, like
>in everything else.

I do not think I am being unjust.  My mom is my mom, not my Mrs. Dad.
My dad is my dad, not some word kernel.  Think about it -- in most
instances, the female parent is the basic one; look at any litter of
puppies or examine any old human Paleolithic settlement.

Anyhow, I don't like a language that relegates an entire section of
humanity to a suffix.  Yes, I KNOW lots of them do that, but Esperanto
should be able to surmount this; it HAS no excuse of "historical value"
or even "habit" to explain it.  Zamenhof plainly thought that the father
was basic and the mother a variant on him.  My parents play varying
roles, one is NOT a variation on the other.  As such, in my estimation,
Eo does not represent my reality enough to make me want to learn it. 

>Anyway, Esperanto is not meant to be the language in which one would express
>love to one's mother, 

Then you can keep it for yourself. 

>but a language of communication between people of
>different nationalities - who are usually unattached enough that there's no
>need to worry about such lack of emotions.
>
>Sven

What a dead language then.  You suppose that NO ONE ever talks about
emotions in Esperanto?  If it is that limited, then as a lingua franca,
it sucks.

Regards,
Janis C.
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: ethymology of foobar
From: comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:14:32 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

smit@urz.unibas.ch writes:

>In many of manuals I've seen the word 'foobar' as a placeholder
>for any name. (e.g. "send the file 'foobar')

>Does anybody know the origin of that word?

>Stefan

US WWII military slang.  Levels of f'ed-uppedness (note for the
obscenity-impaired:  "f'ed" is an abbreviation for "fouled".  Not what you
thought!):

FU	F'ed up
SNAFU	Situation Normal, All F'ed Up
FUBAR	F'ed Up Beyond All Recognition

jj

John Thayer Jensen                      64 9 373 7599 ext. 7543
Commerce Computer Services              64 9 373 7437 (FAX)
Auckland University                     jt.jensen@aukuni.ac.nz
Private Bag 92019
AUCKLAND
New Zealand
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Subject: Re: Russian dative + infinitive
Summary: Though name indicates German origin, infinitive does not.
Keywords: Alfred von Neumann
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:46:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.234259.3037@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

  [...]
>> 
>> #         What, me worry?  (Alfred E. Neuman)
>> #         Him learn Russian? Forget it!
>> 
>> I wonder if this construction existed before Mad Magazine popularized
>> it in the 50s.  It seems to me that when I first heard it, it had a
>> definite "me Tarzan" ring to it -- i.e., its value derived from the
>> fact (?) that it violated normal grammatical rules.
  [...]
>               Also: are there analogues in other languages?  I'll
>start with German: NO!  German infinitives are militantly subjectless
>(well, most of the time);  the subjectless (1) is OK, (2) with accusative
>"subject" is not, and (3) with nominative works only if the nominative
>constitutes a *separate* question, indicating that it is not the subject
>of the infinitive.
>
>	(1)  Was?  Russisch lernen?   'What?  Learn Russian?'
>	(2)  Was?  *Mich Russisch lernen?   'Me learn Russian?'
>	(3)  a.  Was?  Ich?   Russisch lernen?
>	     b.  Was?  *Ich Russisch lernen?   'I learn Russian?'

Basically I agree with your statement about German: Infinitives are
subjectless - most of the time. But there *are* times when they contain
(something like) a subject, at least in colloquial usage. Your sentence
(3b) is acceptable (with an emphatically stressed "ich"), questioning
why I - of all persons - should learn Russian.

I would not regard that construction as elliptic, derived from

             Was? Ich [soll] Russisch lernen?   'I am to learn R.?',

because it rather seems to be related to the form

             Waaas? Ich und Russisch lernen? Das gibt's doch nicht!
             'What? I and learn R.? No way!'

which is not uncommon and indicates that the infinitive "lernen" has
taken the role of a noun. This, however, does not (IMHO) qualify the
German construct as a possible origin of AvN sentences.

Instead I'd like to pass the buck on to our French speaking friends:
Wouldn't a sentence like

             Moi, apprendre l'anglais??

(Excusez my French; I don't even remember the word for Russian.
And forgive me if this is bluntly wrong.)

fit into the AvN pattern? The pronouns 'moi', 'lui', which are
suitable to start all sorts of sentences with, correspond to the
English 'me', 'him' well enough to support the conjecture of a
Franglais influence, don't they? 

--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Ab morgen wird gearbeitet."
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Esperanto's embedded sexism
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:28:46 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <y8cHPB1w164w@jwt.UUCP>, bbs-hrick@jwt.UUCP (Rick Harrison) writes:
>  
> Janis C writes:
>  
>>I do not think I am being unjust.  My mom is my mom, not my 
>>Mrs. Dad.  My dad is my dad, not some word kernel...  
>>Anyhow, I don't like a language that relegates an entire section 
>>of humanity to a suffix.  

The fact is that the words languages use, and the way they are 
formed, often have little to do with meaning.

You can prove this to yourself empirically: suppose there is a sign
in a cafeteria that says

	EVERYONE MUST BUS HIS OWN TRAY

If 'his' referred to male diners, all the men would bus their trays
and the women would leave theirs on the tables.  But needless to say,
both men and women would respond to the sign by bussing their trays.

As for affixes, Esperanto 'patrino' no more means 'female father'
than English 'princess' means 'female prince.'  Female fathers and
female princes do not exist.  Notice further that if they did exist,
these words COULD NOT be used to refer to them; we would have to 
find new words or paraphrases.

If people insist on finding "meaning" in the historical accidents of
word-formation (technically known as the etymological fallacy), then
two things follow: (a) they are not talking about meaning in the 
usual sense (what speakers intend to convey and what hearers possibly
understand); and (b) all human languages will have to be rebuilt from
the ground up.

>>Esperanto should be able to surmount this; it HAS no excuse of 
>>"historical value" or even "habit" to explain it.  

Esperanto is not an a priori constructed language; it inherits the
histories of its sources.  It could not have been otherwise.

>>Zamenhof plainly 
>>thought that the father was basic and the mother a variant on him.  

The etymological fallacy: we can conclude nothing about what he
thought from his word-formations.  He was modelling them on his
European sources.  (Notice that Turkish and Chinese cultures are at
least as sexist as European culture--perhaps more so, but I won't 
insist on it--despite the fact that neither language has gender-
specific pronouns.)
  
> Please don't judge all planned
> language enthusiasts by the behavior of fervent Esperantists.

And vice versa.

	- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
From: oneil@husc10.harvard.edu (John O'Neil)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: axe
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:33:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.ONEIL.92Aug19223307
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu's message of 19 Aug 92 17:53:12 GMT

In article <2A928A88.25055@orion.oac.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

   (As an aside, the previous discussion on whether or
   not English is easy to learn never touched on the issue of
   pronunciation.  English is a bit of a bear that way, compared to stuff
   like Spanish and Japanese -- mostly due to the long consonant
   clusters.  These make it alien to a speaker of a more CVCVCV language.)

On the other hand, Georgian has some amazing initial consonant
clusters, making English look somewhat wimpy on this measure.  My
favorite is 'gvprtskvnis' "he is peeling us".  However, native English
speakers get a break on this one -- none of the consonants are
glottalized.

--
John O'Neil
"Occasionally I believed I had thoughts of my own --  who does not now
 and then become the victim of such delusions?"
						-- Paul Feyerabend
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Gender neutral pronouns
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:55:22 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <1992Aug15.110024.29464@discus.technion.ac.il> davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:

# Hebrew has gender specific pronouns for II and III persons
# (singular and plural). The first person has a single pronoun for
# both sexes. [...]

Thanks for the rundown on Hebrew pronouns.  But actually, my posting
was referring back to this exchange between you and Roger Greenwald:

# In article <1992Aug5.194441.6056@alf.uib.no> hlirg@alf.uib.no (Roger
# Greenwald) writes:
#
# >In article <1992Aug5.103147.20713@discus.technion.ac.il>
# davidba@carmel.technio n.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
#
# >>
# >>Hebrew is even worse than English in this respect, we differ by gender
# >>also in the first and second person. (There is no gender-specific first
# >>person pronoun but there is seperate conjugations).
# >
# >Please tell us why you think it is so terrible that FIRST person
# >should have a gender marking? I would assume that in 99.99% of
# >cases, the SPEAKER is in fact either a male or a female.

Roger apparently assumed that first-person and second-person pronouns
could only have literal referents.

Of course, gender neutralization is still an issue in the plural,
since groups can be mixed. But English also uses the first-person
plural as a generic/hypothetical:

        Often we find that honey catches more flies than vinegar.

English uses the second person in the same way, but I think the
reflexive shows that it's singular:

        If you cut yourself you should always see a doctor right away.

And English can even use the first-person singular as a
generic/hypothetical:

        If I wanted to get pregnant, I could do it just as well before
        midnight.

To my ears, anyway, this sentence sounds OK even if spoken by a male.

So my point was, if Hebrew uses its pronouns and verb forms in the
same way, the same issues that plague us in deciding which gender to
use in the third person also applies to the first and second.

So to Michael Zeleny (or other native speaker of Russian):

Russian uses the second-person singular as a generic, and as far as I
know, the agreement is always masculine.  I don't know whether the
first person is used this way.  But what if the verb requires a female
subject?  Can you say the following as hypotheticals with masculine
agreement?

        Esli by ja xotel zaberemenet'...
        'If I wanted to get pregnant ...'

        Esli by ty xotel zaberemenet'...
        'If you (one) wanted to get pregnant ...'

David Johns
From: cl314407@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Ax'd to deth'd an'd other'd
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:19:52 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville



	EEEEEK! folks!  

	I thought this was a discussion group proper!

	I'm dropping the other shoe!  I've been 'ax'd' to death!

				To               m
				CL314407@ulky    vx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Subject: [pronouns] Re: Gender neutral pronouns
Followup-To: soc.culture.china,sci.land
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:17:05 GMT


     Of course, Chinese has one ta1.  Spoken, it is one ta1, but
from the original ta1 deviated a special written ta1 for females about
eighty (?) years ago, and the orinal was used for male and neutral.
I use this old written ta1 for neutral:
 /  \
/|+---+
 ||   |
 | | /
 | |/
 | |  |
 | +--+

     In Japanese, there is kare, but recently (?), deviated a female
specific kanozyo.  There are all from the European assymetric usage.
What a mess!

					*Zhong* Qi-Iao, U.S.A.
From: v187ef4y@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Patrick J Crowe)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: New words for gender neutral pronouns in English
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:42:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: acsu.Bt906w.2s8
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <2A91B612.15919@orion.oac.uci.edu>, cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis
 Maria Cortese) writes...
>In article <SCHILLER.92Aug18174601@tira.uchicago.edu>
>>Anyway, you can't impose new words on people. If the speakers so
>>desire, some formulation will arise on its own.
> 
>IT ALREADY HAS!!  People are using "they" as a singular, gender-neutral
>pronoun more and more; it sounds a little unusual, but you get used to
>it, and I've found myself using it a few times as well. 

Very true.  There was a piece on this very issue recently in the "On Language"
column in the New York Times, saying don't do it, but it gets used anyway.  I've
been doing so for years now, though I don't think I started with the intent of
avoiding gendered terms in indeterminant-gender situations.  In any case, the
precedent was set when English lost a distinct second-person plural pronoun.
[don't flame me; I'm talking about 'standard' English]

Pat Crowe, SUNY at Buffalo
Disclaimer: If you claim I represent my department's opinions, you'll be 
laughed out of academia.
From: eddie@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Eddie Rooney)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Question about ASCII IPA
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:44:59 GMT
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research, Edinburgh University

In article <1992Aug19.231944.28751@news.eng.convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
|> From the keyboard of stu5s14@bcrka287.bnr.ca (James Cherry):
|> :I noticed in Tom Christiansen's post the following IPA symbols and his
|> :descriptions of them:
|> :
|> :    F) voiceless bilabial fricative
|> :    M) labio-dental nasal
|> :    V) voiced bilabial fricative
|> :
|> l'm sure there are some languages with an /F/ but 
|> I can't remember any right now.

Japanese (the 'f' in "Fuji", e.g.).  You might also use it yourself when you
say "Phew!"

=========================================================================

Edmund Rooney					email:eddie@cstr.ed.ac.uk

Centre for Speech Technology Research
University of Edinburgh
80, South Bridge,
Edinburgh EH1 1HN
Scotland

=========================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
From: gal2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Jacob Galley)
Subject: Re: ethymology of foobar
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Reply-To: gal2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:16:35 GMT

In article <SCHILLER.92Aug17171733@tira.uchicago.edu> schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:
>There are many stories, but the one which seems most
>plausible is that it is an acronym for
>
>Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition
>
>with the U from up rewritten as "oo"
>
>Eric Schiller
>University of Chicago

I quote without permission (of course) from _The New Hacker's Dictionary_
edited by Eric Raymond, M.I.T. 1991:

>foobar n. Another common metasyntactic variable; see foo. Hackers do
>*not* generally use this to mean FUBAR in either the slang or jargon
>sense.

>FUBAR n. The Failed UniBus Address Register in a VAX. A good example
>of how jargon can occasionally be snuck by the suits; see foobar.

The 'foo' entry is too long to be worth typing in here, and the hackish
etymology is quite obscure. It does cite the older military-jargon
'FUBAR' though.

Follow-ups to alt.usage.english,
Jake.

-- 
"What's so interdisciplinary about studying lower levels of thought process?"
				  <-- Jacob Galley / gal2@midway.uchicago.edu
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Esperanto's embedded sexism
Date: 16 Aug 92 19:03:54 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug16.002920.3039@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>
>The point is that _patrino_, like (most? all?)
>nouns referring to females, is *formed* in exactly the way that a
>word for 'female father' would be.

Not really.  This holds only if you take it that "in" means precisely
`female', so that "Xin" turns out to mean `female X'.  If instead you
assume that "X" means `male X', "Xin" means `female X' and "geX" (in
the plural) means `pair of male and female X', the female father
problem won't arise.

>Furthermore, since the supposed
>point of Esperanto word formation rules is that the meaning of a
>word is to be discovered by the less than fluent by picking it
>apart, an intermediate semantic representation 'female father' is
>in fact *expected*.

Not if we agree that "patr" means `parent' rather than `father'.  The
semantic component `male' is expressed by a zero morpheme, just as the
component `singular' is expressed by a zero morpheme if the plural
ending "j" is not present.

>The new Esperantist is
>precisely supposed to find meaning in the -in- suffix, just as the
>learner of English is supposed to find meaning in -ing, -(e)s, etc.

Yes, and the meaning of "in" is `the female counterpart of'.  How's that?

>We certainly can conclude that he thought maleness was "basic" and
>femaleness somehow less basic, or a least less worthy of being taken
>seriously.

Did he also think plurality was "less worthy of being taken seriously"
than singularity?  I don't see how we can conclude anything of the sort.

What I find irritating is that he chose to use roots bearing the
component `masculinity' in the source languages (eg "patr", "vir",
"knab") for words in which the sex is actually indicated by the
following (possibly null) morpheme.  But I reckon someone with no
knowledge of any of the sources wouldn't have a problem with this.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: English Orthography (was "easy to learn?")
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:03:24 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Aug15.072449.23236@leland.Stanford.EDU> richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter) writes:

>If we get along without the pronunciation carrying the history and meaning of
>the word, why can't the spelling get along without this?

Because in all English speking countries (except the US :-) written
English differes significantly in syntax and vocabulary from spoken.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
From: fly@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul D. Fly)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: lojban
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:01:33 GMT
Organization: UB

Hi all,

just a quick question.  I read an introductory to lojban and found it
interesting.  I don't really want to jump head first into it (and pay
for materials), but I'd like to see a little more, especially in regard
to structure and word cell type of stuff.  Is there anything of this 
natural available over Internet?

Thanks much!

-- 
Paul Fly                      | "Thinking is more interesting than knowing,
fly@acsu.buffalo.edu          |  but less interesting than looking."
v092pxca@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu |    --Goethe
From: hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:38:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug20.204242.5942@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

> Can any linguists out there tell me which languages (if any) make the
> distinction between:
> 
> 		the inclusive and exclusive "we"

Turkic, with a little cheating :-). In Turkish/Turkic phrases like
'all of us' or 'some of us' are one word e.g.

Hepimiz, [all of us/we] or Baribiz [ditto], Bazimiz [some of us/we] 

This is prety close although they're not probably considered 
pronouns in languages like English where they are whole phrases.

> 		the inclusive and exclusive "or"


Turkish.  'Ve' is AND. 'Yahut' is OR. It's permissible to say
'veyahut' maybe 've yahut' which comes out to AND/OR. To me it
implies an inclusive OR. So 'yahut' means XOR.  I think.
-- 

	mark	


   hubey@pilot.njin.net                   hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
 ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey                  hubey@logos.montclair.edu
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Karandash/Caran d'Ache
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:16:37 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug20.155147.4671@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
[re Turkish _karde,s_ < _karda,s_ `sibling', cf. Turkmen _garda,s_]
>There are
>a few other words in Turkish where pre-existing vowel harmony has been lost;

Yes, eg _anne_ `mother', _elma_ `apple' (cf. Kazakh _alma_).

>one is "merhaba" (hello), from the Arabic "marhaba" - the Arabic form has
>vowel harmony but the Turkish one doesn't, exactly the opposite of what you'd
>expect.

This is not quite correct.  Arabic has only three vowel phonemes, each
of which has a considerably broader range of possible realisations
(depending on the neighbouring consonants) than any of the eight
vowels of Turkish.  In particular, the Arabic phoneme /a/, of which
there are three occurrences in _marHaba(:)_, can be realised as a
number of low vowel sounds, some of which would sound like /e/ or /o/
to the Turkish ear.  (I suppose the other two /a/s are prevented from
fronting by the pharyngeal consonant in the second syllable and the
compensatory length in the third.)

Briefly, /marHaba:/ is already [m&rHaba:] or even [merHaba:] in Arabic.

Still, I imagine the word must have had the form _marhaba_ in some
Turkish dialects, or else I don't see where the contemporary Bulgarian
slang _maraba_ `hi there' may have come from.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK