User talk:Kolmiel

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi! Thanks for your work on our German entries.
I noticed this diff changing /ɔɪ̯/ to /ɔʏ̯/. I have no strong preference which one is used, but many of our entries use /ɔɪ̯/, and I have seen entries that used /ɔʏ̯/ changed to /ɔɪ̯/, so it seems like a good idea to decide on one symbol and use it consistently. I have started a discussion of the matter on Wiktionary talk:About German; please join in. :) - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

mit Kind und Kegel[edit]

(cc: User:CodeCat) Can you take a look at this entry? I think something should be done to it, but I am not sure what. Keφr 10:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I gave it a try, although I'm not familiar with editing more-than-one-word entries :) Kolmiel (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Dutch "doch"[edit]

Based on my personal experience, I would say that Dutch "doch" is indeed obsolete. One may come across it in literary and / or old-fashioned language. You might wish to have a look at, at, and at (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Your personal introduction[edit]

Your personal introduction is interesting to me, because it reminds me of the eleven years when I lived in Dutch Limburg as a child. (I was born in North-Brabant from dito parents.) Your description of your idiolect reminds me of several traits of the Limburgian langugae / dialect I was immersed in, among them voiced final consonants, word-final-/t/ dropping, as well as the am-progressive, which is similar to the Dutch aan het-progressive. I remember a small discussion with my late Dutch aunt and her husband, my late German uncle, some 35 years ago when I was learning German at school. They lived in the Ruhrgebiet. I noticed my aunt using (either) /ʃ/ (or /ɕ/) instead of /ç/, which was different from what I was taught. My uncle confirmed there was this difference between the / a standard and a more colloquial usage.Redav (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah you're absolutely right about that. The Cologne/Bonn/Aachen-dialect, called Ripuarian, is very close to Limburgish. When you look at the original form of this dialect (not the kind of language mix that people tend to speak today), then there are also very many grammatical similarities, for example a large amount of irregular present forms in verbs and so on.
Regarding the fronted pronunciation of /ç/ you're also right. However, I would wonder where exactly your aunt came from because this is more typical of regions to the south of the Ruhrgebiet proper, roughly going from Düsseldorf southward to Luxembourg. (Cf. the Luxembourgish ech here on wiktionary.)Kolmiel (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi! Regarding your recent edit, German Lippe is already listed on the page, as a descendant of Middle Low German. Since the expected Old High German form would be *lipfa, *lipha, *liffa, might it be better to move Central Middle High German lippe and German Lippe up instead? Leasnam (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The expected Old High German would be *lipfa (alternative spelling *lipha). But the shift -pp--pf- is specifically Upper German. It is actually the feature by which Central and Upper German are distinguished. It is just that written Old High German is usually Upper German, which should not mislead us to think that Central German forms didn't exist at the time. The form Lippe is most probably a native Central German form derived from an unattested form of northern Old High German (non-existant in southern High German). — The Central German form could of course be an early borrowing from Old Saxon. But there's no particular reason to think that, as far as I know. That's why I said "probably existed in northern Old High German".
The modern German word derives from Central German as much as Low German. Or more precisely: it has prevailed in modern German due to its being common in both of these dialect groups (the less widespread a word, the less likely it prevails, of course). Therefore I think it's fine to have German Lippe as the continuation of both High German and Low German. But if such thing is frowned upon in our presentations, then put it under Low German and add (also Central German) behind it. Or something like that :-) Kolmiel (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The latter thing I said refers to the modern German Lippe. If necessary, put that under Low German. Don't put the Middle High German under Low German, because -- as I said -- it's not likely that it actually derives from Low German (though possible). The form lippe is actually attested in Central German before it is attested in Low German (!). So it's probably old, not borrowed.Kolmiel (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I managed to salvage both, and added a comment suggesting the modern word derives from the merger of both :) Leasnam (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

German Noun "Schleim"[edit]

I gave the entry for the term Schleim a template update. What ever you do with the request for the Middle High German term is up to you. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


'n doesn't have a genitive (at least in general *'nes doesn't exist, e.g. "Das Auto 'nes Mannes" sounds to harsh), but so'nes does exists. From google books search (in German, 21th century):

  1. 's war eher der der Niedergang so 'nes urwüchsigen Inselweibes,
  2. Und so'nes rechten, ehrlichen Zornes war er garnicht mächtig

- 05:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well. That's more or less what I wrote. I haven't heard it, or don't remember hearing it, but yeah, I consider it possible that someone might use it... However, your attestations might be that kind of fake-vernacular that you sometimes read in bad writers. They want to make some character sound colloquial, so they give him a lot of apostrophes and all of that, but they don't realize that getting rid of the genitives would be more important. Same thing applies to dubbing. ((Don't know if you happen to know that series "The Big Bang Theory". There's this girl who's supposed to be the ignorant blond farmer's girl. But her German version uses those over-correct genitives all the time.)) Kolmiel (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Remember the human.[edit]

I'd greatly appreciate if you would not phrase your edit annotations as personal accusations. The edits on schon were based on this map from a project associated with the Universities of Augsburg, Salzburg and Lüttich. It was not based on random assumptions, like all of my edits. The note was supposed to say 'rarer' and I overlooked a typo. Sue me. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for this particular annotation, which seems to have been mistaken... although the map shows that the short variant is indeed the commoner one in many parts of Central Germany (and at least from my personal experience this would also include the Rhineland). But apart form that: It's my honest impression that you edit a lot of nonsense. Call that an accusation or not. Kolmiel (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Es steht Dir frei, ich bitte sogar darum, Inhalte zu ändern, die Dir zweifelhaft erscheinen, meine eingeschlossen. Strenge gegenseitige Kontrolle ist die Methode, mit der Wiki-Projekte sich reinigen und mit der wir gegenseitig unsere Ausrutscher, Denk- und Lesefehler beheben. Für ein angenehmes Arbeitsklima ist aber ein Mindestmaß an professioneller Zurückhaltung erforderlich. Wenn jeder jedem den ganzen Tag schriebe, was er von ihm hielte, würde dieses Projekt in wachsendem Maße aus Vorwürfen und Beleidigungen bestehen. Unnötig zu erwähnen, dass die Verbreitung persönlicher Animositäten die notwendige Bereitschaft konstruktiver Zusammenarbeit nicht gerade erhöht. Zur Verbesserung des Projektes braucht es nur fachliche Kritik. Ich würde darum bitten, dass Du Dich zusammenreißt, ein Mindestmaß an Höflichkeit an den Tag legst und Deine restlichen Gefühlsäußerungen auf Dein privates Umfeld beschränkst, womit ich diesen Gefühlen nicht die Berechtigung apsrechen will. Vielleicht bin ich ja ein Idiot, aber der konstruktive Weg ist, mir das durch Quellen und Argumentation zu zeigen, nicht, es mir an den Kopf zu werfen. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Ich finde nicht, dass ich irgendwelche Gefühlsaufwallungen an den Tag gelegt hätte. (Aber ich bin kein Hanseat, vielleicht liegt es daran.) Wenn ich ausgerechnet von dir etwas über "konstruktive Zusammenarbeit" höre, ruft das ehrlich gesagt Kopfschütteln hervor. Aber bitte! Geh einfach weiter deiner Arbeit nach. Gelegentlich wird es dazu kommen, dass wir uns gegenseitig editieren. Aber ich bin keineswegs gewillt, mich mit irgendwelchen Edit-Wars abzugeben. Insofern brauchst du da nichts zu fürchten. Im Übrigen sei versichert, dass ich keine "persönliche Animositäten" gegen dich habe. Mir gefallen deine Edits nicht. Aber da ich (leider) nicht der Herr über Wiktionary bin, müssen sie das auch nicht. Kolmiel (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Hello. I left you a few messages on my Talk page. If we can't work it out, I think it best to move everything to *bōkō, with *bōkijǭ derivatives as parenthetical. Leasnam (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Could you give some examples of cognates in Bavarian dialects, so that we can link to them (and create entries if they do not exist)? --WikiTiki89 01:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I just knew it from this book: Werner König (ed.): “DTV-Atlas Deutsche Sprache”, ed. 15, Munich, 2005. There's a map for “today” on page 182, which gives heint (meaning this form and cognates) for a large south-eastern territory comprising all of Austria, most of Bavaria, and some adjacent areas. The Deutsches Wörterbuch ([1]), lemmas →heint and →heinacht, also mentions Bavarian. I also checked Bavarian Wikipedia ([2]). It has 33 hits for heint, most or all of which do indeed mean “today”... So, it should be safe to create heint for Bavarian (= bar), if that's what you want to do. Kolmiel (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
So would you say this change is appropriate? I don't feel comfortable creating the actual entries myself, so maybe you could do that if you feel comfortable. --WikiTiki89 01:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Heinacht is an early modern German form (which usually meant "tonight" not "today"). Bavarian seems to have only the contraction. I'll create the entries. Kolmiel (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 02:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

schlehe, schleh[edit]


since you seem to know a fair amount about rare and dialectal words, could you provide a gloss of the German words that we find here: *slaiwaz?

Thanks! --Fsojic (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence :) I didn't know these words, though... But the Deutsches Wörterbuch glosses them matt, stumpf, thus “dull, blunt”. ([3])
Sweet! What would be the difference between these two forms though? Are they both lemmas, or is schleh simply the predicative form while schlehe is the weak declension form? (I've forgotten almost everything I knew about German...) --Fsojic (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
They would both be bare forms, whose inflected forms are the same, because the final -e in the bare form is automatically dropped before the inflectional ending. The -e might be a rest of the OHG -o in slēo, inflected slēw-, which was usually dropped, but seems to have survived in some dialects. Generally, German has quite a few doublets of adjectives with and without -e in the bare form (cf. trüb, trübe; mild, milde). Kolmiel (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
A last question: what is the reason for your not knowing it (this is not an accusation of course!)? Is it an obsolete word? --Fsojic (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
In the standard language it's definitely obsolete. It only occurs in dialects, so any German who doesn't know it from their own dialect, won't know it. -- Now actually, I've found in a dictionary that in the dialect of my own region the form schlieh ("blunt") does indeed exist. It rings a bell somewhere in the very far back of my mind, but it's not really a common word. This apart from the fact that people now often speak a mix of standard German and dialect rather than the actual dialect, so there are many less common dialectal words that I don't know anyway. Kolmiel (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Central Franconian in Page of Swadesh Lists[edit]

You seem capable of updating the Central Franconian part of Appendix:Germanic Swadesh lists. (As a side note, I wish it includes Vilamovian words, preferably in the most recent 2004 orthography.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've updated it so as to include the most important dialect groups, which often means 3 or occasionally 4 variants. I hope that's okay. It used be just Kölsch, but some forms were also wrong. (Or not really wrong, but too strongly influenced by standard German; I've chosen a conservative, but never archaic, register.) -- I don't know what you mean with Vilamovian. I don't know anything about this lect. I don't think it's Central Franconian either. It seems to be East Central German. Kolmiel (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Are the lemma forms kämpfe and saan (which I think is supposed to be san) really in a conservative register? I added schwär for you. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, there's no standardized orthography, just tendencies. I think you're right that "san" would be more appropriate than "saan". As to "kämpfe", yes, that's a verb that the dialects don't have (we're too pacifist, you know :)), so it's adopted from standard German. Kolmiel (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I edited the Swadesh list by fixing the listing for san. I'm not sure about jaan/jan, though. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you might make it "jan" as well if you prefer that. In this case it's a bit less obvious because "jan" looks the rather common name "Jan" (with a short [a]), and that's why people might prefer "jaan". Unfortunately we sometimes have to choose a bit arbitrarily: a good written corpus exists only for Colognian, also with much variation, but at least. For other dialects it's usually just a handful of writers, whose works aren't easily accessable either. Kolmiel (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence[edit]

Your userpage says "I distinguish /ɛː/ from /eː/, but their distribution is occasionally unlike in the standard. For example, I say [majoneːzə] (Majonäse) and [ɪtaljɛːnɪʃ] (italienisch)." I find this interesting, because I've noticed something very similar in my English with the "long a" and "short e" followed by /ɹ/. For example, I say [ˈveə̯ɹɪˌfaɪ] (verify) and [ˌnɛsəˈsɛɹɪli] (necessarily), while for most words I say [ˈmeə̯ɹi] (Mary) and [ˈmɛɹi] (merry). I wonder if this comes from being partially surrounded by people who don't make this distinction, forcing us to choose a phoneme at random (or based on some circumstantial criteria). Or maybe it comes from shifting stress onto an unstressed syllable, since I'm always tempted to pronounce consonantal as [ˈkɒnsəˈnɛntəl] because the -ant in consonant is indistinguishable from the -ent in instrument and I pronounce instrumental as expected as [ˈɪnstɹəˈmɛntəl]. Sorry for the ramble if you don't find this interesting. --WikiTiki89 15:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha, no, please don't apologize. It's indeed similar and worth asking. And besides, there's relatively little I don't find interesting about one of the languages I'm familiar with. -- I think both of your explanations make a lot of sense. I'm just not sure how much of them applies to my case. Actually, I should probably have said "in a handful of words" rather than "occasionally". I generally use /eː/ instead of /ɛː/ in words ending in -äse (< French -aise), which I think is due to conflation with -ese (as in Chinese). Then I use (or used to use?) /eː/ in the somewhat strange phrase gang und gäbe, in which no normal German knows what "gäbe" is supposed to be anyway. Yeah, and maybe a handful of other words, I don't know right now... And for the opposite /eː/ -> /ɛː/ I'm only aware of italienisch and Italiener, which is dialectal, most everybody around here says it like that, for what ever reason. -- I chiefly mentioned these differences to show that the distinction as such is part of my most natural way of speaking and that I don't distinguish them only according to spelling, because some people claim that the distinction is per se a "spelling pronunciation". (This is also etymologically wrong, by the way. Standard German /ɛː/ corresponds to Ripuarian /œː/ or /ɛː/, while /eː/ corresponds to /iː/ or /ɛ/ (short) [except before /r/, /g/, and /x/, where they do merge]). Kolmiel (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bible in Arabic[edit]

When you quote the Bible, as you did at الله, please give the version. The Qur'an is an exception in Arabic because Arabic is its original language so the version is assumed to be the original. --WikiTiki89 19:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure. It's the Smith-Van Dyke version, the modern Arabic standard Bible. I took it from this website: [4]. I don't know if that technically meets our citation criteria. Essentially, I just thought a Bible quote would be good in that lemma, so I added one... Kolmiel (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
You're right that it's useful, but all quotations should be sourced. Also, quotations don't have to meet our attestation criteria if their purpose is to serve as examples; they simply wouldn't count in an RFV. --WikiTiki89 19:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I know they must be sourced. I just didn't know how to source that correctly, so I didn't... The only other Arabic Bible quote on wiktionary that I'm aware of isn't sourced either --> مار. How would we fix this? Kolmiel (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I just created {{RQ:SVD}}. Do you know what version the quote at مار is from? --WikiTiki89 20:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! No, I don't know. It's not the same one, though. It uses رب instead. It was added by a user "Superherosaves", who apparently made only two contributions, both concerning Arabic and Christianity. (The other one is the proper-noun sense in جمجمة, which I find strange because the normal word for Golgatha is definitely جلجثة.) Kolmiel (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Yiddish entries needing etymology[edit]

Given your interest in West Germanic philology, I thought you might be a good person to give a look over some of the etymologies in here and Category:Yiddish entries with incomplete etymology and give them a try. No obligation, just a reminder if you're interested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem :) Glad I can help. I've done those which I knew in the smaller category. I may at some time get to the other one. Kolmiel (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate it, and I learned some new etymological details by reading your additions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the "common High German development -rs--rš-". Why does Standard German have things like erst instead of **erscht (whereas Yiddish, and I presume many dialects, have /ʃ/ there)? --WikiTiki89 17:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe I just misunderstood your use of "common", which I took to mean "shared by all varieties of High German", when maybe you meant "found in multiple varieties of High German". --WikiTiki89 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "common" in the latter sense. But actually, before the introduction of a standardized pronunciation, it was generally pronounced "erscht" in central and southern Germany. The standard pronuniation is based to a large degree on the northern German standard (which is High German with a Low German accent). But there are a couple of standard German words that show the development, like Arsch (English arse), and some others. Kolmiel (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I have rephrased it using prepositions to make it unambiguous ("common to" vs. "common in"): diff. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's good :) Kolmiel (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to say that I appreciate the work; it's great to have someone to do the philological side of things. Also, you say on your userpage not to interpret it as Hebrew, but now I wonder: is it כל or קול that is from God? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Well, words are always interpreted, you can't forbid that :) And while I am "entirely from God", originally at least, I don't consider myself a "voice from God"... Now, actually, it was just a random pun between "Call me Al" and "iel"-names. But then one day I looked up the Biblical Hebrew root k-l-m, which does exist, and while there's no actual word *kolem or *kolm-, the root allows for an interpretation "God is my shame" or "the shame of God"... That's why I said, just leave it :D But your interpretations are fine, I guess. Kolmiel (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
כֹּלְמִיאֵל ‎(kōləmīʾēl), basically meaning “to whom does G-d act this way?”: וַתַּהַר עוֹד וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ כֹּלְמִיאֵל כִּי אָמְרָה כִּי־כֹה פָּעַל ׀ לִי אֵל וּלְמִי יִפְעַל־כֹּה׃‎ ― And she conceived again, and bore a son, and she called his name Kolmiel; for she said: ‘For G-d hath done for me thus; and for whom shall he do thus?’. --WikiTiki89 16:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Oh yes :) Fine as well. (You did make up that "verse", right?) Kolmiel (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
It's a lost verse found in a 2000-year-old manuscript that I excavated from my backyard just this morning. --WikiTiki89 17:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Great. Since it's fortold my coming, I assume you'll be a devout follower of my etymologies from now on. Kolmiel (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh no, wait, it can't be me. I'm a first son. Oh well. Kolmiel (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, past tense. --WikiTiki89 18:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I figured it was part of a prophecy. May have been wishful thinking, or wishful exegesis rather. I didn't have the context, of course. Kolmiel (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

lounen and léinen[edit]

Hi Kolmiel, can you shed any light on the etymologies of these two? To me it seems like they came from the same source, but I was wondering where the divergence in vowels happened? Thanks for your help, BigDom 05:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@BigDom: I wrote the etymologies. I think you were very justified to assume this, but in fact they are completely unrelated. (I personally knew from which OHG words they came, but I also thought they had a common source; turned out they haven't.) They may have influenced each other, however. The two must have seemed to be umlaut variants since the unrounding (ö, ü > e, i), which is not a very recent development. Kolmiel (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
That's fantastic and very interesting, thank you! Do you mind me asking where you get all the information for your etymologies from? Would be nice to be able to add some info without having to pester you all the time. Cheers, BigDom 21:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@BigDom: I'm not aware of any etymological dictionary of Luxembourgish. Therefore much of it is original research. All of my sources are in German or Dutch. I don't know if you can read these. — Anyway: I've read two books about the phonetic developments of Luxembourgish, which are pretty complicated when it comes to vowels. Made a list of these developments, which I use. (I forgot the names of those books, but I could find them back probably. Could also post you the list.) Then I use the online "Luxemburger Wörterbuch" and the online "Rheinisches Wörterbuch" covering the dialects just to the east of Luxembourgish with a lot of detail (which is very helpful). And then for the greater context and the older stages I use the German and Dutch standard literature, which is Kluge's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch", the "Deutsches Wörterbuch" and Pfeifer's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch" (the latter two online at and the Dutch ones at Kolmiel (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I can read German OK and already use the Luxemburger Wörterbuch and, I didn't know about the Dutch-language sources though so will check those out and will see if I can find a copy of Kluge online. If you don't mind sharing your work and letting me have a copy of your work that would be fantastic. I find these things so interesting. You can email me through Wiktionary. Cheers, BigDom 05:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd also love to see such a list of phonological developments! —JohnC5 06:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@BigDom:, @JohnC5: Okay. I'll have to rewrite it a bit though, to make it understandable to people other than myself. Might take a while. (But if I've forgotten it, say a month from now, do remind me.) Kolmiel (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Kar and Kär[edit]

Hi Kolmiel, sorry to trouble you again. Can you shed any light on these two? Kar seems to be what you would expect from OGH korn (cf. Dar < dorn, Har < horn), so where/when did the other version come into play? Cheers, BigDom 14:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@BigDom: Yes, correct: OHG -orn becomes -ar in Luxembourgish. Kär is from another word: OHG kerno whence modern German Kern. The two are related through Indo-European (ablaut). Kolmiel (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I added the basic etymology to Kär, just in case anyone's busy. (I'm on vacation at Idaho; and I will be at Redfish Lake for a few days.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lo Ximiendo: Haha, thanks. Have fun then! Kolmiel (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks both. BigDom 08:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)