Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Is translation evil?

 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies Post Reply
22 messages over 3 pages: 1 2 3  Next >>
Zegpoddle
Diglot
Newbie
United States
Joined 3226 days ago

7 posts - 29 votes
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Spanish

 
 Message 1 of 22
08 July 2015 at 8:51am | IP Logged 
A surprising number of people on this site mention translation as one of their language-learning techniques.
This is in sharp contrast to most classroom language teachers, who generally steer students away from
translation and regard it as a crutch that will delay or prevent the achievement of real proficiency. I’m curious to
know how many of you share this aversion and, conversely, how many of you find translation a useful learning
tool (and why).

I imagine the arguments for and against translation could be laid out like this:

ADVANTAGES/BENEFITS

1. Translation saves a lot of time and effort, especially for beginners who are not yet proficient enough to
use target-language monolingual dictionaries. Tedious, roundabout definitions entirely in L2 would be
discouraging, if not impossible, and would impede the achievement of basic fluency.

2. Translation can help make input comprehensible–-that is, it can bring i+1 (or i+2 or i+10) input within
the grasp of a learner. In that sense, it is analogous to, and no worse than, any other technique for making L2
input more accessible to learners, such as visual cues, rephrasing, simplified text in graded readers, etc.

3. Translation is natural and probably inevitable, especially for beginners and especially for first-time
foreign-language learners. Since it’s going to happen anyway, it would be counterproductive to try to avoid or
prohibit it; much better to harness it for whatever aid it can provide to the learning process. As the learner
advances to the intermediate and higher levels of proficiency, mental translation will become quicker (more
automatic) and, eventually, disappear on its own (or at least become so fast and unconscious as to be
undetectable).

4. Translation can stimulate great resourcefulness (learning different ways to say the same thing) and
attention to detail
in your L2. Few activities, if any, can deepen your understanding of the contrasts between
your first and second language as profoundly as the struggle to convert an idea from L1 to L2 or back again in
the most precise yet effective possible wording.

5. (This last point is more of a warning than a benefit) If you throw out translation, say goodbye to many
tried-and-true language learning tools
such as organized word lists, parallel/interlinear texts, and most
SRS/flashcard systems like Anki. (Please don’t tell me you can find a picture to replace every
word/phrase/sentence on the L1 side of your cards because that becomes much more difficult once you exhaust
concrete nouns/verbs/adjectives and you start getting into more abstract concepts. Let me know when you find a
good photo to immediately and precisely convey the meaning of the French relative pronoun dont.)

DISADVANTAGES/DRAWBACKS

1. Translation slows you down. Native speakers of the L2 will find your response time unacceptably long if
you have to mentally translate everything they say into your L1, then think (presumably in your L1) of a good
response, then translate all of those L1 words into L2. It’s much more efficient to learn to think directly in the
target language
as much as you can, the sooner the better. This will also improve your speed with the other
three skills (listening, reading, writing) and perhaps help you step inside the mental space and worldview of the
L2 speakers sooner than you would otherwise. (I swear I’m a different person in French and German than I
am in English. The European me has said and done things that the American me would never have dreamt of.)

2. Translation is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of language and will render your L2 usage
less nativelike
if you rely on it too much. Translation reinforces the false idea that your L2 has an
equivalent for every word/phrase in your L1. Even for experienced learners who have outgrown this naïve
misconception, materials that rely on translation pay scant attention to the complex semantic network in which
all words are bound (connotations and nuances of meaning that words may have in one language but not the
other; which other words they do and don’t frequently collocate with; the differing situations and contexts in
which native speakers would use a particular word but not its apparent synonyms; etc.). In fact, translations
short-circuit the natural process of acquiring all these subtleties and distinctions that can only be learned by
extensive exposure to the target language, not by trying to shoehorn the L2 vocabulary you are learning into L1-
appropriate categories or “boxes,” a serious mistake that will prevent your speaking and writing from ever
approximating anything native speakers would produce, no matter how “advanced” you think your proficiency
level is.

3. Translation is a boring way to learn a language. It is the default approach of outdated materials and
sticks-in-the-mud who have ignored the last seventy years of research into effective second-language-
acquisition methodology. We should not reward these dinosaurs or their lazy publishers or host institutions by
continuing to buy materials or take courses influenced by the deservedly obsolete grammar-translation
approach. Save your time and money for more eclectic, lively learning materials and teachers that keep up your
motivation with fun activities like role-plays, mysteries that you have to help solve, sentences to re-
order/match/complete/fix, writing headlines for bizarre-but-true news articles…the whole spectrum of varied,
interactive learning tasks that creative modern courses are full of. Leave dull translation-based approaches to the
monks like Arguelles who get off on that kind of soul-crushing tedium for twelve hours a day.

(I've overstated some of these points a bit to goad you into reacting to them.)

My two questions are:

(1) Can you think of any more positive or negative reasons to add to the lists above?

and, more importantly,

(2) If you do use translation to any extent in your learning, what do you do, if anything, to maximize its
benefits while minimizing the dangers listed above?



6 persons have voted this message useful





Iversen
Super Polyglot
Moderator
Denmark
berejst.dk
Joined 6463 days ago

9078 posts - 16473 votes 
Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan
Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian
Personal Language Map

 
 Message 2 of 22
08 July 2015 at 10:31am | IP Logged 
Zegpoddle wrote:
ADVANTAGES/BENEFITS (summarized)

1. Translation saves a lot of time and effort, especially for beginners who are not yet proficient enough to use target-language monolingual dictionaries.
2. Translation can help make input comprehensible–-that is, it can bring i+1 (or i+2 or i+10) input within the grasp of a learner.
3. Translation is natural and probably inevitable, especially for beginners and especially for first-time foreign-language learners.
4. Translation can stimulate great resourcefulness (learning different ways to say the same thing) and attention to detail in your L2.
5. (This last point is more of a warning than a benefit) If you throw out translation, say goodbye to many tried-and-true language learning tools such as organized word lists, parallel/interlinear texts, and most SRS/flashcard systems like Anki.

DISADVANTAGES/DRAWBACKS

1. Translation slows you down. Native speakers of the L2 will find your response time unacceptably long if you have to mentally translate everything they say into your L1, then think (presumably in your L1) of a good response, then translate all of those L1 words into L2.
2. Translation is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of language and will render your L2 usage less nativelike if you rely on it too much.
3. Translation is a boring way to learn a language. It is the default approach of outdated materials and sticks-in-the-mud who have ignored the last seventy years of research into effective second-language-acquisition methodology.

My two questions are:

(1) Can you think of any more positive or negative reasons to add to the lists above?

and, more importantly,

(2) If you do use translation to any extent in your learning, what do you do, if anything, to maximize its benefits while minimizing the dangers listed above?


Excellent overview.

For me translation is an important (bordering on indispensable) part of my language learning, and the real dinosaurs are those who for some misguided ideological motives try to outlaw it. But I don't think the majority of language are that extreme, and if I met one I would loose any shred of confidence in that person.

It is clear that you can't keep up a conversation if you first have to translate everything to other person says into your own L1, formulate a response in that L1 and then translate the whole thing into L2. Not only would it be a slow process, but you would also a have to take a lot of differences between the way things are formulated in the two languages into account, and the end result might still be more stilted and unidiomatic than a thought that originated in the foreign language. But if you have holes in your L2 vocabulary, then thinking the corresponding L1 word and searching for a translation of it is one way of getting over the impasse. Reformulating the whole sentence is another, and both things take time. But both is better than coming to a screeching halt.

In fact you would have to be quite advanced to do all those translations back and forth in realtime, and precisely the advanced learners will know how to avoid them. No peril there. Worried teachers: do us a service and relax.

What then about translations as part of a learning method? Well, there is no better way to reveal your L2 lacunes than trying to find translations for things you ought to be able to say/write in your L2. But the irony is that the end result, a finished and spotless translation, is quite irrelevant. The important step is to identify the holes and get them filled up with suitable expressions and words, and it is better to focus on those using SRS or wordlists format or whatever than it is to polish a an L1->L2 translation. So why do it? Well, for me it is mostly something you do to allow your teacher to spot your holes - presumably to help you fill them out, but also to control your progress.

L2->L1 translations are even more suspect. I know that society still needs good human translators, but these people work for those who couldn't be bothered to learn the source language of things they want to read. A language learner has a different agenda, and for them it is more important to check that they understand everything in the foreign texts than to prove that they can write spotless texts in their own language. My own conclusion from this is that the best L2->L1 tranlsations are the most literal ones because they don't undermine your understanding of the grammatical and semantic structures of the source language. Word for word translations are actually better for you than pretty 'literary', but free translations, and in those cases where there are unguesssable second meanings of some idiomatic expression then add a comment - don't falsify the actual content of the original formulation. And this for once is is one point where I do think that most teachers are on the wrong track.

Finally: using translations to make incomprehensible texts comprehensible is such a simple and logical concept that I can't see why anyone in their sane mind should be against it. Personally I find that monolingual dictionaries are an abomination. They are less precise and less informative than a bilingual dictionary of the same size, and if you really need to know a lot about something then you would be better served with a lexicon article or an article on Wikipedia. Monolingual wordlists are even worse (including those that have some specific purpose like frequency or Swadesh lists. If I don't know what a French cigogne is then it doesn't help me to be told that it is a big white or black bird with a long beak. Telling me that it is a 'stork' in English is much more informative and much faster - if I already know the bird, that is. If not, I would need a whole article about it in either French or English to tell me all the details, not just a oneliner in a monolingual dictionary.

The situation is obviously different with expressions where the meaning and usage patterns of the words don't match those in your native L1. But the simple rule is here that you should know the meaning of the words those weird foreigners actually use and that they say like that in the situations where you would have said something completely different. It even tells you something something about the way they think.

PS: Have you ever thought about the different words for breakfast? In English it is the time where you get something to eat after getting nothing for hours on end. In French it is just a minor thing that reminds you of a more important meal ('petit dejeuner' versus 'dejeuner' - where de-jeuner in itself means breaking your fast). Croatian has something similar: doručak is '(leading up) to ručak, and ručak is lunch. In Spanish it ultimately derives from getting something to bite into (almuerzo < Latin admorsus). In Danish it is simply something eaten in the morning (morgenmad), similary πρωινό in Greek is a derivation of πρωι, morning, and in German it is 'a piece' eaten early (Frühstück). Italian 'colazione' is strange because it allegedly comes from Latin 'collatio', a meeting - as if it always is eaten in plenum. And the Swedes have their frukost ('early eat'), whereas a cold Danish frokost is eaten in the middle of the day - often instead of the hot 'middagsmad' (midday food (dinner)), which has kept its name even though most families eat it in the early evening. But a cold meal eaten at that time is called "aftensmad" (evening food).

As I said, knowing what people REALLY say gives you a lot of cultural information for free, and it even helps you to memorize those expressions.


Edited by Iversen on 09 July 2015 at 9:17am

12 persons have voted this message useful



Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 6357 days ago

9753 posts - 15779 votes 
4 sounds
Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish

 
 Message 3 of 22
08 July 2015 at 12:37pm | IP Logged 
I think it's pointless to lump all kinds of translation together:
-translating your thoughts from L1
-doing translation exercises
-translating for the benefit of others
-using a dictionary
-using a pre-made translation (parallel text)

For me that's basically a sliding scale where the top half is harmful or at least boring. I think we all agree that the first item is best avoided. I'm not sure it can really be untangled from the 2nd one. After that it gets more blurry. I personally find pictures or excessive simplification much more boring than parallel texts or dictionary lookups. I tend to think that this maximalism only prevents more people from trying out this learning strategy. This goes against the idea of using several methods and getting the best out of them.

To add to Iversen's awesome examples, in Polish kolacja is supper.
5 persons have voted this message useful



shk00design
Triglot
Senior Member
Canada
Joined 4204 days ago

747 posts - 1123 votes 
Speaks: Cantonese*, English, Mandarin
Studies: French

 
 Message 4 of 22
08 July 2015 at 7:01pm | IP Logged 
For learning to read and write, you can rely on translations to some extent. The polyglot Luca L. suggested reading the same articles on Wikipedia in English, French and other languages for comparisons. You wouldn't rely on Google Translate because the translated version doesn't always correspond to the original material because there may be several meanings for the same words and you need to know the context of the text.

When it comes to speaking a new language, you try to avoid using your native language as much as possible unless you really don't remember a word / phrase. Basically you'd think in a new language all the time as the guest speakers in this video suggested:
One Simple Method
1 person has voted this message useful



Cavesa
Triglot
Senior Member
Czech Republic
Joined 4769 days ago

3277 posts - 6779 votes 
Speaks: Czech*, FrenchC2, EnglishC1
Studies: Spanish, German, Italian

 
 Message 5 of 22
08 July 2015 at 11:20pm | IP Logged 
Thanks for a really true post, Iversen. I totally agree one must not put together all the kinds of translation and finding the lacunes with translation exercises has been very useful to me.

Another good aspect of translation exercises is getting out of your comfort zone when it comes to producing the language, no matter whether in spoken or writen form. Many more creative active exercises allow us to keep using the same basic vocabulary and structures and avoid what we don't know, sometimes even without us really noticing. Even some people in the country stagnate for a long time as they are not forced to improve. Translation exercises not only point out those already mentioned gaps but they as well force me to venture in the weak area again and again, so that I get more opportunities to get comfortable.

I'd say most of the usual traditional vs. "modern" language learning methods battles are wrong. Both extremes are usually wrong. Not getting further from the translation towards immersion and thinking in the language, that is of course a problem. But avoiding translation exercises, dialogues with translation and vocabulary lists, tools like srs and so on, just because they are not cool these days is equally mistaken in my opinion. And what teachers say is not that relevant, in my opinion, most of them are flawed anyways because sometimes the language learning industry is too influenced by marketing. I've actually started to make real progress only after I ditched vast majority of advice teachers have ever given me, truth be told.

I more or less agree with many points in the original post, with the exception of the "translation is boring" paragraph.
-It doesn't need to be boring. The idea of what is and what is not boring is actually just a matter of personal opinion. And usually, when you notice something works for you, it gets less boring, at least that's what happens to me.
-I wouldn't offend those old dinosaur publishers, many are not lazy, quite the opposite. Many old fashioned courses (both old and new) are by far superior to the modern fancy ones. Actually the best courses I've ever used are traditional in style, with modern audio, up to date language and wide selection of exercises.
-Actually, I hate most of the "fun activities" in modern courses and in the classrooms. The results and progress, that is the fun, the path that leads to results is fun, sense of accomplishment is fun. And if someone needs a teacher to motivate them (as you advise everyone to find such teachers), I don't think their motivation is strong enough. And it is not that simple to find such a teacher anyways. I mostly expect my teachers of any subject just not to demotivate me too much. Even with such low expectations, they usually fail. I'm grateful for the dinosaurs! :-D

Yes, many modern resources and tools are really good (and many of them are still based on translation, as was mentioned). Sure, you need to get rid of translating at some point. But the clear distinction old=boring=useless vs new=fun=efficient is simply not true.

Don't forget that the last decades of language learning research happen to be decades of very intensive marketing research as well. Grammar translation method is unlikely to be the main catch of a shiny product you want to target millions with (and your priority is to sell many copies, real results are secondary) but it does actually work, if you combine it with input, immersion, practice and so on. I actually think it got such bad reputation only because it was being used in the pre-internet era. Therefore the follow up steps we consider normal today on htlal were plain impossible back than. Following your logic, today's Europe should be full of people awesome at at least one or two foreign languages because majority of kids at schools (and adults at language schools) is being taught by modern teachers and fancy coursebooks with tons of fun activities without the "old, boring" wordlists, grammar tables, and translation exercises.

Sadly, the reality is different. And I've noticed that most people who fail miserably at speaking do not fail because of being unnatural and translating too slowly. They fail because they hadn't learnt their grammar properly, hadn't memorised the vocabulary that wouldn't stick just from "fun" activities and input, many would clearly benefit from some more drills, including translation exercises.

I actually admire professor Arguelles, I woudln't consider him a dinosaurish monk. He is a clear proof that the dinosaur methods work just fine, even though most of us prefer to at least supplement them with the modern stuff. Sure, he puts in twelve hours (or more perhaps) a day but that is not a sign of methods' inefficiency, that is what you need to do when you wanna know dozens of languages.

Yes, you goaded me into replying. ;-)
8 persons have voted this message useful





emk
Diglot
Moderator
United States
Joined 5292 days ago

2615 posts - 8806 votes 
Speaks: English*, FrenchB2
Studies: Spanish, Ancient Egyptian
Personal Language Map

 
 Message 6 of 22
09 July 2015 at 2:48am | IP Logged 
Serpent wrote:
I think it's pointless to lump all kinds of translation together:
-translating your thoughts from L1
-doing translation exercises
-translating for the benefit of others
-using a dictionary
-using a pre-made translation (parallel text)

I agree with Serpent: There are so many kinds of translations, and so many ways to use them, and I think it's a mistake to lump them all together.

Translation for comprehensible input. For example, if you want to use comprehensible input from the very beginning, then translations are your best best for quickly rendering L2 input comprehensible. Lots of excellent methods are based on L2 audio/L2 text/L1 text, for example:

- Assimil
- L/R
- Subs2srs

If you don't use translations for comprehensibility at the early stages, then you need something like Total Physical Response, or pantomime, or really frustrating immersion, the kind where you don't even know how to talk about eating, or finding the bathroom, or basic social stuff. My personal inclination is to use parallel texts and audio from the very beginning, because it saves a huge amount of time (and I really don't enjoying lingering at levels where I can't converse, read books or watch TV productively).

Translation for vocabulary. Here, my feelings are a lot more complicated. Some of the following questions are perfectly reasonable, but others will get a language learner in trouble.

- "How do I say 'oak' in French?" → Translation is the best way to answer this question, assuming you already know what an oak tree is.

- "How do I say 'seagull' in French?" → This will reliably cause a huge ornithological argument about the difference between mouette and goéland, because French uses a biologically-inconsistent naming system.

- "How do I say 'bullshit' in French?" → The versatile and useful English word "bullshit" doesn't map cleanly to any single word in French. There's a lot of choices here, depending on what nuances you want to communicate.

- "How do I say 'any' in French?" → The word "any" is highly idiosyncratic feature of English grammar, and many languages have nothing like it. You're ultimately going to have to express these ideas by starting from scratch in French.

I agree with Iversen that translation is highly useful for familiar natural types such as "swan". But at the same time, this depends a lot on the language: When I encounter an unknown type of bird or tree in Egyptian, it's almost always unfamiliar in Egyptian, French and English, because the Nile is a very different natural environment than New England, and I just don't know the species. (Also, there was a really huge number of bird species along the ancient Nile, and sometimes it seems like every one of them must have its own hard-to-distinguish hieroglyph, but that's a different rant.)

Other sorts of translation. Should B1 students spend a lot of time translating essays from their L1 to their L2? I can't see why, except maybe that it's easy for a teacher to grade. Should C1 students? Quite possibly yes, at least on an occasional basis, because as several people have pointed out, it helps identify holes in their formal written language. What about L2 listening comprehension? Well, I find translation to be absolutely poisonous for listening comprehension, because it keeps me from understanding my L2 "naturally" in real time—but I think this is actually a purely personal idiosyncrasy of how I learn languages. And so on.

I just don't see any one-size-fits-all answer here. Some traditional language-learning methods rely very heavily on translation, and this works well for some people. But there are equally-effective methods which use parallel translations of input up through B1, and which are almost entirely monolingual thereafter.
6 persons have voted this message useful





Iversen
Super Polyglot
Moderator
Denmark
berejst.dk
Joined 6463 days ago

9078 posts - 16473 votes 
Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan
Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian
Personal Language Map

 
 Message 7 of 22
09 July 2015 at 8:47am | IP Logged 
emk wrote:
- "How do I say 'oak' in French?"
- "How do I say 'seagull' in French?"
- "How do I say 'bullshit' in French?"
- "How do I say 'any' in French?"
(...)
When I encounter an unknown type of bird or tree in Egyptian, it's almost always unfamiliar in Egyptian, French and English, because the Nile is a very different natural environment than New England, and I just don't know the species.


The issue here is the different ways different languages express different concepts - insofar we can assume that they actually DO express the same concepts, which is debatable. My point is that you can at least start out with the words the foreign language actually uses, and sometimes each part of an expression has a clear meaning so that the whole expression is comprehensible - it was just not what you had expected, and the whole expression has another meaning which you may try to illustrate by a reference to the kind of thing you would have said in your own language. But even in this case there is mostly some kind of logic behind the secondary meaning, and once you have caught it you don't need the reference to a completely different construction in your own language.

I'm actually more worried about the small insignicant words which any native speaker will apply according to a mixture of whim and rules - like "da" in Danish or "er" in Dutch or "quoi" in French. It may be impossible to give an exact translation of such words, even allowing for translations into several L1 words or expressions that each cover a certain field. Or there is a clear translation, but it doesn't explain why the word is used in some situations and not in others.

The cure is to look at a lot of examples, and to make this efficient you have to look at them more or less at the same time - picking up one here, one there will make it much more difficult to see any kind of pattern. Besides you should use examples which are comprehensible - drawing conclusions from things you don't understand is quite difficult - and in practice this means that you should know the meaning of all the OTHER words in your examples so that it only is the 'inscrutable' element that still eludes you. However when you have seen it in enough such contexts you will know how it is used.


Edited by Iversen on 09 July 2015 at 9:26am

2 persons have voted this message useful



PeterMollenburg
Senior Member
AustraliaRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 5236 days ago

821 posts - 1273 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: FrenchB1

 
 Message 8 of 22
09 July 2015 at 10:03am | IP Logged 
Hmmm interesting. I really don't have much of intelligence to add. I'm kind of curious
as to why the word 'lacune(s)' was used in the middle of English writing. I didn't
recognize this word, and upon looking up a definition it states that it is indeed
French. My trusty French-English dictionary ;) states it is a 'gap'. I'm not trying to
derail the thread, just for the record. I'm by no means well-read and I"m sure that
shows among those who are well read, was this 'lacune' added for prose? to add a
little style to the point as the OP is a French learner? Either way thanks for the new
word ;)

On another note... after spending well over a year add every single new French word I
came across with an English translation(s) I discovered that this kind of activity
although has many pros also has a lot of cons. With my latest SRS deck I do sometimes
use a translation (in English) to get to my French answer. I agree, small words like
stork in which a French definition would be painful are preferable for having an
English translation. Sometimes I use a French definition and an English translation. I
wouldn't usually do so for a word such as stork as I agree with Iversen it's too
messy, but for the sake of an example:
Grand échassier au plumage noir et blanc, aux pattes et au bec rouges, migrateur,
trouvant surtout sa nourriture dans les zones humides (EN: stork)
Like I said bad example but sometimes this works very well. I think all in all don't
stress about relying on your native language/English for clarification. Perhaps try to
lean on using L2 as much as possible, but often (depending on your level) you will
need L1 translations depending on how 'unclear' the word/phrase is.

It's interesting that I found Destinos equally if not more effective than French in
Action. The first uses a lot of translation as do many courses, the 2nd doesn't.
Whatever gets you there in the end I guess. I agree with emk immersion in the
beginning is too painfully slow. If you consider that it has been stated that if you
throw an adult into an immersion environment they may never advance beyond the primary
school level of a language user of that language they are immersed in. It's a
generalization, but it illustrates the need to understand and for this 'tools'
are needed, very often this is one's native language

PM


2 persons have voted this message useful



This discussion contains 22 messages over 3 pages: 2 3  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 1.8125 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.