October 3 Information

I have an idea for a "humorous T-Shirt"

I was doing things before they were cool before "doing things before they were cool" was cool. I know there should be a comma (or maybe two) in there, but I don't know where! Any help on punctuating my future-shirt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetLace ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 October 2008

Nothing wrong with leaving the punctuation as-is, as far as I can see. As a T-shirt, it might be a bit long but you can probably experiment with a few designs to test that. Confusing Manifestation( Say hi!) 03:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I see no case for any commas, but can I suggest the wording be:

• I was doing cool things before it was cool to do things before "doing things before they were cool" was cool.

You could even dispense with the quotes:

• I was doing cool things before it was cool to do things before doing things before they were cool was cool. -- JackofOz ( talk) 03:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, Jack---I was secretly hoping you would answer. I stalk these refdesks endlessly but am too timid to ever answer a question myself. *sigh* Your wit and patience, not to mention knowledge, always impresses me.

I must say though, you've completely mystified me. I have a firm grasp on "buffalo buffalo..." but if I'm to wear what you suggest on a shirt, I'd definitely need to understand it better. I don't need a sentence diagram, but maybe you could break it down for me? I apologize if I'm being terribly dense. NetLace ( talk) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

No worries, and thanks for the compliment. OK, how do I go about this?

• Today, if you do a cool thing, that's a cool thing to do.

• If you did one of those things before it was generally recognised as a cool thing to do, you could say "I was doing cool things before they were cool". OK so far?

• There was a time when it became a cool thing in itself to have done cool things before doing cool things generally became considered a cool thing to do. Your claim would then be "I was doing cool things before <doing things before they were cool> was cool".

• But what you're claiming, as I understand it, is that even before that, you were already doing things that mightn't have been recognised then as cool, but are now recognised as cool. So now you're saying "I was doing cool things before <it was cool to do things before <<doing things before they were cool>> was cool>".

Does that make sense? I may have omitted some steps in the logic. I must say it's a strange experience to be explaining someone else's motto for them, but there you go. I really like this, and do you mind if I borrow it? I'll give you full credit, but a secret kickback wouldn't go astray. :) -- JackofOz ( talk) 03:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Jack, I too admire your patience and helpfulness. As for using someone else's ideas, "credit where credit is due, and cash when they really get anxious". BrainyBabe ( talk) 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo anyone?!? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

to Jayron--I already mentioned that above!

to Jack--

By all means borrow it but I must say, it isn't my motto. I make shirts that tickle my fancy, another example is: Gazpacho is a dish best served cold.

I fear that you've added a second layer to the "before it was cool." I'm not actually saying that I'm doing "things that are cool." I'm playing with the notion that far too many of my peers take pride in having liked a band/author/movie before it became mainstream. So I'm one-upping them by saying that the entire CONCEPT of "liking something before it was cool" is now passé, and frankly I was doing it before it became a mainstream thing to do. Perhaps I'll go with:

I was liking things before they became cool before liking things before they became cool became cool. I really don't need a comma there?! 207.172.71.243 ( talk) 04:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

OK. That's fine. You use your version, and I'll lay claim to mine. -- JackofOz ( talk) 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Is Jesus the only person to be referenced in every Shakespeare play? -- Ye Olde Luke ( talk) 05:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

What makes you think that Jesus is mentioned in all his plays? A quick search through Julius Caesar didn't turn up any references (and any references that did exist would be very out of place). Or do you mean indirect references? Even if that's what you're saying in every play I'd guess you're reading too deep into them. (By the way, this should have been posted on the Humanities desk.) - Elmer Clark ( talk) 06:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Coriolanus, Troilus and Cressida, Timon of Athens, and probably others are set centuries before Jesus' birth. Whoever told you this factoid should go into the " trust but verify" category. -- Sean 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Shakespeare wasn't averse to having a few anachronisms, so it's not impossible that Jesus could have been referenced in plays set before his birth. But afaik there are no such references in those 3 plays. -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I haven't looked through the plays, but I'm sure "oblique" references are being counted (things like "Marry" meaning "indeed", stemming from "By the Virgin Mary", or "Zounds" as an abbreviation of "By God's wounds" - God in this case being Jesus). I'm still not sure we'd find even these in every play. (There's a "Marry" in Timon). - Nunh-huh 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think there is much more Shakespeare in Jesus, judging by the way the New Testament is written.-- ChokinBako ( talk) 07:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Is the first form better style? How do you call this structure, when you say something that is anyway unnecessary? Other examples: "Wall Street could self regulate itself" vs. "Wall Street could self regulate" or "needless to say, ...." vs. simply not saying it. Mr.K. (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

"first and only" is a tautology; in this case it seems like a rhetorical flourish intended to big up what has traditionally been a non-event event. Whether unnecessary repetition of the same fact is "good" or "bad" style depends on context; it's logical junk, but such is much of politicos' sayings. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

"First and only" provides important information:

1. McCain and Obama traded barbs in their only debate.
2. Palin and Biden traded barbs in their only debate.

While both sentences are correct, "first and only" in #2 would indicate that no further debates will occur. -- Sean 16:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

"Only debate" could imply (or could lead someone to think that it implies) so far. Little Red Riding Hood talk 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

"first and only" might mean that several debates were scheduled but, for whatever reason, only the first occurred. — Tamfang ( talk) 08:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Recently a friend of mine (really) had points taken off a paper for using "a lot" instead of "alot." Her instructor alleged that the space between "a" and "lot" is a quirk of Northeast Pennsylvania English. I think he's incorrect on both counts, but I thought I'd solicit some expert advice. What is the proper way to spell "a lot"? Tomdobb ( talk) 12:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

"A lot" can be an adverb: "I feel a lot better" or article + substantive: "a whole lot".

"alot" is a common mistake. I wouldn't call it a typo, because people think that it is right. Proper spelling is "a lot", unless your friend meant "allot" like in "allot shares". Mr.K. (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

"alot" does not appear in the American Heritage Dictionary(4th ed) (link), the Cambridge Learners Dictionary (link), the Cambridge Dictionary of American English (link) or the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (link). Asked to find "alot" Merriam-Webster finds "lot" but not "alot" (link) (so I think that's another rejection of "alot", just their search engine is more helpful than the others). EnglishPlus says "Alot does not exist as a word" (their emphasis) (link). So says GrammarMudge (link). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

(An alot is a breed of small hampster that is naitive to North Africa. A lot means a large quantity of something. This is what my teacher taught me at primary school to stop us using alot. 88.211.96.3 ( talk) 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)) reply

Alot also seems to be a town in India. Wiktionary has some further info, including some fairly acerbic refutations of its existence by reliable grammar sources. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

"Alot" meaning "a lot" has been creeping its sleazy way into the language for a while, and there will probably come a time when it's more or less accepted. But for a teacher to mark "a lot" as wrong, on the entirely fictional basis of being "a quirk of Northeast Pennsylvania English", is as wrong-headed as it is possible to be. That teacher needs to go back to school. -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Alot? What next? Anumber, afew, awholelot, areasonableamount? Afew of us weep at the thought that while alot of people can't spell, anumber of people are just plain stupid. Gwinva ( talk) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't forget that debased illiterate coinage "another"! While we're at it let's expunge "never" and "neither"! Adam Bishop ( talk) 04:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, there are words which have developed in that way. "Alot" is not one of them yet, though if there are enough instructors who are as poorly educated as the one mentioned it may eventually force its way into the language, sadly. It is really depressing to think that there are instructors out there attempting to teach when they themselves do not have the knowledge necessary to do so. Grutness... wha? 04:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid "alot" is already here, folks. Google gives over 100 million hits for it. The Jade Knight ( talk) 08:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Still doesn't make "a lot" unacceptable. It sort of depends on what circles one moves in, what things one reads, etc. But without wanting to be classist or ageist about it, even though there are now multi-millions of people to whom "alot" is completely normal and natural and it would never occur to them to write it as two words, there'd be even more people who will never in their wildest dreams write "alot". JackofOz ( talk) 21:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Teh fact taht a spelling eror gets alot of G-hits does'nt make it correct, or even accepted. The four typos in that last sentence each pull more than a million Google hits; 'teh' alone draws forty million. If you look more closely at your putative hundred million Google hits, you'll find that many of them are for private companies (ALOT.com), acronyms (Agricultural Leadership Of Tomorrow), trade and other proper names (bid-alot, save-a-lot, Mixalot), portions of URLs (www.drinkalot.com), mentions of the town in India, and thousands of pages describing to children whose minds have been crippled by texting and IMing how 'alot' isn't a word, and should be replaced with either 'a lot' or 'allot' depending on context. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Not that I disagree with your point here, but note that teh is now very much a word in its own right. Algebraist 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

'A lot' is no more 'proper' English usage than 'a many' would be. It has simply become accepted through heavy use over the past 200 years or so. It, along with the synonymous 'lots', evolved from phrases like 'a lot at auction' or 'a lot payed out by a game of chance'... intended to signify a single sub-portion, as the term 'lot' had meant in uncommon usage for centuries, but in some instances like those mistaken for an indication of abundance and thus giving rise to a new meaning. That people actually throw tizzies over 'improper' usage of 'alot' is one of the infinite absurdities of 'static grammar'. Since 'a lot' is itself an illogical construction of singular 'a' with plural 'lot', arising out of the fact that 'lot' was in origin a misunderstood singular term, people hearing it often think it a mistake for 'a whole lot' OR a single non-compound word. Thus, it is indeed the very idea of 'proper grammar' which drives people to assume 'alot' correct. In reality both forms are bastardizations... but then, that's the natural and 'proper' way that language always has and always will evolve. -- CBD 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply

That's all very well, but the "tizzie" in this case was thrown by an instructor who falsely claimed that that "a lot" was characteristic only of a small part of the USA, and is non-standard English. That's the load of rubbish that's being demolished here. Nobody's denying that "alot" is also widely used, or that it may one day even become the preferred form. -- JackofOz ( talk) 02:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply

'A lot' is non-standard English. Part of my point. A years ago people wouldn't have a plurals written as a singulars. In fact, they still don't... except for this one term. Which is therefor decidedly not 'standard'. Yes, the person described in the original message was wrong about the origin and which form is currently preferred by the majority of people silly enough to believe that language is defined by a textbook rather than actual usage. However, there is no indication in the posting that they went into any sort of histrionic 'tizzie' about it. -- CBD 11:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, come on. "Lot" in this usage is a mass noun. A number of items, an amount of food, a majority of people, a lot of wasted time etc. Perfectly standard expressions. There are lots of them. Re: "..the majority of people silly enough to believe that language is defined by a textbook rather than actual usage", I agree that ultimately, usage determines these things rather than textbooks, which I acknowledged up above. But it certainly has not got to the stage yet where "alot" is generally considered the preferred spelling. -- JackofOz ( talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Alot the brave vandal fighter

I decided see how many "alot" Wikipedia itself has; in addition to finding lots placenames in Israel that have alot as part of their name, it also transpires that "alot" is a fave word of Wikipedia's vandals. I've cleaned up a bunch of unnoticed vandalism by searching Google for "alot", including some nasty stuff on Floyd Mayweather, Jr. I've got to go to bed now, but if anyone is feeling like some grammar fixing and vandal zapping, I got up to page 8 of this query. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm just waiting for the first novel to be published by a reputable house, aimed not solely or not at all at the youth market, with a lot of "alot"s in it. And not just in quotes. I've never even seen it in a decent newspaper (I have seen it in those that pay no attention to these things.) -- JackofOz ( talk) 23:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Some, presumably, indecent newspapers: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], et cetera. Not exactly the unheard of hypothetical future occurrence you suggest. -- CBD 11:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Excellent. They're all great examples of the arcane world of sub-editors' headlines, where for centuries anything has gone. They have never been limited by anything so irrelevant and trivial as the rules of English. Their purpose is to make the reader notice them, and a lot of readers skimming those pages would be stopped in their visual tracks by "alot", so they've succeeded in their purpose. But look within the text of the last two examples, and you'll see "a lot", not "alot". -- JackofOz ( talk) 20:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Help me out here; i need someone's opinion. In the following sentence, is the nonessential clause (italics) actually parallel?

After many sleepless nights, she decided to research companies that specialize in high-tech surveillance techniques, which would allow her to get incriminating evidence by bugging his phone, and to make friends with his secretary so that she could get access to this office without arousing suspicion.

What is the word "and" (bold italics) connecting here? The gerund phrase by bugging his phone and the infinitive phrase to make friends... or is it joining the infinitive phrases to get incriminating evidence... and to make friends....

I believe it is the latter option, but I am uncertain about this choice. Can someone give me a second opinion? Thanks. 31306D696E6E69636B6D ( talk) 13:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry about the momentary double post. 31306D696E6E69636B6D ( talk) 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

If the sentence is to make sense, one has to read and as joining "to research companies … phone" and " to make friends …" (that is, "she" decided to research and decided to make friends). Which presumably refers to "high-tech surveillance techniques", which might allow her to get incriminating evidence but which would, I think, be of little use in making friends with a secretary. Deor ( talk) 13:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Not that you asked, but the sample demonstrates a good rule of thumb -- the more words in a sentence, the less clarity. At 46 words, there's enough for two over-long sentences.

After many sleepless nights, she decided to research high-tech surveillance techniques. She wanted to bug his phone (to collect evidence) and to make friends with his secretary (to gain access to his office without arousing suspicion).

Two sentences, ten fewer words. Hackneyed phrases remain ('sleepless nights,' 'arousing suspicion'). --- OtherDave ( talk) 16:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Ten fewer words, two big errors. First, this version says that she's going to research the surveillance techniques rather than the surveillance companies. And second, it assumes that the "and" connected "to bug his phone" and "to make friends with his secretary", but as Deor said, that's the wrong parse -- the sentence only makes sense if it connected "to research..." and "to make friends...". A rewrite that reflects the correct parse is: After many sleepless nights, she decided to research high-tech surveillance companies, to bug his phone and collect evidence. She also decided to make friends with his secretary, to gain access to his office without arousing suspicion.

But that version contains an awkward repetition. It could be further cleaned up this way, for example: After many sleepless nights, she decided both to research high-tech surveillance companies and to make friends with his secretary. The company could bug his phone and collect evidence, and she could gain access to his office without arousing suspicion.

I actually think the original version is legible enough as it stands, because only one reading makes sense. Without improving the wording at all, it could also be made easier to parse by changing the punctuation: After many sleepless nights, she decided to research companies that specialize in high-tech surveillance techniques — which would allow her to get incriminating evidence by bugging his phone — and to make friends with his secretary so that she could get access to this office without arousing suspicion. Parentheses would also work, instead of paired dashes.

--Anonymous, 18:38 UTC, October 3, 2008.

Hey, that's not really the question. He was asking about the parallel structure of the sentence. 76.188.37.208 ( talk) 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I have a general notion of the meaning of iconic but not enough to answer these questions.

Does it make sense to say: " Juliette Binoche is an iconic French actress"?

Is the word iconic generally enough understood as to be helpful to encyclopedia readers?

Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

P.S. Is it stretching the meaning of popular to write that The Unbearable Lightness of Being, The English Patient, and Chocolat are popular films?

Iconic generally means "famous enough to be representative of"... From the idea of an "icon" as a representation of... If someone says "think of a french actress" and most people first imagine Juliette Binoche, then she's iconic, because most think of her as representative of the entire cadre of French actressess. FWIW, I think Brigitte Bardot may be more iconic, but that's largely subjective... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Do people think of Bardot that way these days, though? She hasn't made a movie since 1973 and many younger people would never have heard of her at all. She's better known as an animal rights campaigner these days, and it's usually only when she makes the front pages in that context that reference is made to her former movie career. But she's been pretty quiet on that front for a while, ISTR. She's probably a lot better known in France than in the West generally, these days. My definition of popularity is "a movie that I really enjoyed and the people I was with at the time did as well". On that basis, Chocolat is very popular, The English Patient is popularish, and Unbearable was unbearably long and tedious. -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

A more useful definition of popularity is that a lot of people saw it and liked it. That might be true of The English Patient, but I doubt it applies to either Chocolat or Unbearable..., both of which I personally liked a lot, but which were definitely "art house films". (I was going to link to that phrase, but it redirects to art film, which is not really quite the same thing.) If you're looking for something verifiable to determine popularity, I'd say that box office receipts would be the best criterion. --Anonymous, 04:27 UTC, October 4, 2008.

Bardot? Definitely. Catherine Deneuve? Possibly. Binoche? Not a chance. The bar is set quite a bit higher than being a reasonably famous actress, just as not every third athlete is a "superstar". I also don't buy Jack's argument that Bardot isn't thought of as an actress first and an animal rights activist second because she hasn't made a movie lately. Neither have Humphrey Bogart or Katherine Hepburn - hasn't hurt their iconic status a bit. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

While we're up, did I misuse the word when I wrote in Heraldry, "The 20th century's taste for stark iconic emblems made the simple styles of early heraldry fashionable again" ? — Tamfang ( talk) 08:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The original poster of this question is recommended to read Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, where "iconic" is one of the words advised to be avoided.-- K.C. Tang ( talk) 12:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you all. To try to protect the remaining shreds of my reputation, I note that I asked the question because the use of "iconic" in the article seemed unnecessary to me. Wanderer57 ( talk) 01:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply

IMO this bit from the article Striptease has language problems:

"In terms of myth the first recorded striptease is related in the ancient Sumerian story of the descent of the goddess Inanna into the Underworld (or Kur). At each of the seven gates, she removed an article of clothing or a piece of jewelry."

• "In terms of myth" - vague.

• It seems to me if something is a myth, it cannot hold a record such as the "first recorded"?

• A lot of duplication between the words recorded, related, and story.

I know I'm being picky. Am I being too picky? Thanks. Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think the language could be considerably tightened up. Many inexperienced writers seem to think that more words, and excessive language is a sign of better writing. The opposite is true; consise clear writing is always better. have fun!!! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree, and no, you're not being too picky, Wanderer57. You can't improve a text without being constructively critical, and if WP isn't about continuous improvement, what is it about? Had I been editing the article, I would have changed it to:

• There is a Sumerian story of the descent of the goddess Inanna into the Underworld (or Kur). At each of the seven gates, she removed an article of clothing or a piece of jewelry. This story is mythical, but it is the first recorded description of a striptease. -- JackofOz ( talk) 20:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Or: The earliest known description of a striptease is the myth of... (isn't "recorded description" redundant?) — I agree that "in terms of" is flabby unless it's about a conversion of measurements. — Tamfang ( talk) 08:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Somewhat nitpicky, but: There is difference between striptease and undressing. Nobody - in my simple and chaste world - performs a striptease before hopping to bed.

I am not familiar with the Sumerian myth, but the article implies that her removing various items of dress had nothing to do with an attempt at sexually arousing any spectators. It appears to have been a symbolic process of discarding protective charms and idols. I fail to see what this has to do with stripping as an "entertaining" performance, the topic of the article referred to by the querant. -- Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM ( talk) 20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

This is getting into the issue of whether the reference to this story properly belongs in the Striptease article or not. The question was not about that issue, but simply about the language used in the sentence as it currently stands. -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Quoting an article: "The Cannes Film Festival saw the premiere of ...(name of film)... The film was well received by international critics and went on to debut around the world in early 2008.""

Once a film has premiered at the Cannes Film Festival (or, for that matter, the East Oswego Film Festival, the Huttersfield Film Festival, the Alice Springs International Film Festival), can it properly be said to "debut" anywhere else? Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes. A debut is different from a world premiere. A film can have many premieres/debuts (its Cannes debut, its American debut, its Uruguayan premiere, etc). The same is true for singers, conductors etc: opera singers make their NY Met debut, their Covent Garden debut, their La Scala debut, etc. And they can have many farewells, as the case of Dame Nellie Melba shows. -- JackofOz ( talk) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I recognize that a film (or play or symphony) may be given multiple premieres in different geographic locations. However my Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries both consider a debut to be a "first appearance", regardless of geographic location, implying that only one debut is possible per film or per debutant.  ??? Wanderer57 ( talk) 00:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Debutant(e)s do indeed normally make only one debut, their debut into "society". After that, they could no longer be called a "debutant(e)". But films, plays, symphonies, singers etc can have many debuts. It's simply a synonym for premiere, and there can be various premieres of a film, but only one world premiere. Do your dictionaries actually say "first appearance, regardless of geographic location", or simply "first appearance"? Dictionaries tell you what the basic meaning of a word is, but they don't always tell you the different valid ways in which the word can be used. Take "unique" - it means the only one of its kind, which taken to its logical extreme means the only one of its kind in the entire universe (or, if there are multiple universes, then the only one in all of them). But it's perfectly ok to say "The Long-footed Goose is found in many Asian countries, but in South America it is unique to Chile". -- JackofOz ( talk) 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd say Jack has it wrong. It is perfectly all right to refer to an animal that "in South America is unique to Chile" or a movie that makes "its Toronto debut" when it had already opened elsewhere -- but we cannot conclude from this that the animal is unique to Chile or that it had a debut in Toronto. In other words, when one of these words is used with a qualification, that doesn't justify referring to the same event or fact by using the word without the qualification. As far as I'm concerned the sentence we were asked about is wrong; it should say "open" rather than "debut". --Anonymous, 04:36 UTC, October 4, 2008.

Me wrong??. Unthinkable!  :) -- JackofOz ( talk) 04:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply