How Basque Has Survived.

I don’t listen to podcasts, and I don’t link to a lot of audio stuff here, because I’m basically a [written-]word guy. But I do listen to the radio, and PRI’s show The World in Words is so exactly up my alley I’ve posted about it more than once (e.g., here). A recent episode (apparently first aired in May, though I heard it yesterday) is described thus:

This week on the podcast we talk about Basque. With more than six dialects, how did Basque develop a language standard? How did this language survive the military dictatorship of Francisco Franco when speaking, writing and reading it were illegal? How has this minority language thrived and even grown in the years since Franco’s dictatorship ended? And what does the future hold?

The main focus, thankfully, is not on the “what does the future hold” stuff but on the fascinating story of how it developed a language standard and the dramatic tale of the guy who translated Shakespeare into Basque and saved his work when a ship was attacked by Germans during WWII. It’s a little over a half-hour long, and at the bottom of the linked page is the “Podcast Contents,” which will tell you what bits occur when. (I haven’t listened to “How soccer became multilingual” yet, but I’ll bet it’s a lot of fun as well.)

Comments

  1. This is something of a tangent, but I wonder if what discussion there has been on the role that AI will have on the future of minority languages (and on the role of English as a lingua franca). When machine translation becomes good enough, many of the practical problems with speaking a minority language will disappear. It will become possible to translate any smartphone app or any biochemistry textbook into Basque very quickly. It would even become possible to travel the world without knowing any English or foreign languages since one will probably be able to communicate through a smartphone translation app. Also much of the need for anyone to learn a foreign language, even English, unless he or she wants to will diminish.

    I certainly don’t think this is an exaggeration of the potential of artificial intelligence in the near future.

  2. I’m confused, do podcasts not consist of words?

  3. I’m basically a word guy

    Podcasts are of course made of words, so you are basically a text guy. (So am I.) I think podcasts basically have two audiences: pre-Clarkeans who can’t read while they travel (Arthur C. Clarke said that it would be impossible for him to own a car in its currrent state of evolution: the car would own him), and subvocalizers who can’t read any faster than they could read aloud.

    I certainly don’t think this is an exaggeration of the potential of artificial intelligence in the near future.

    I do. General artificial intelligence, like sustained nuclear fusion, has been ten years away since 1950.

  4. I think it’s clear he means the written word. Which then begs the question (yes, I know, I know…) why does radio work for him? I think we can not read into it so much and move on.

  5. I’m confused, do podcasts not consist of words?

    Sorry for the inexactitude; I’ve emended the sentence to clarify.

    I certainly don’t think this is an exaggeration of the potential of artificial intelligence in the near future.

    Good lord, of course it is. There’s not going to be that kind of AI in my lifetime, and maybe never.

  6. It will become possible to translate any smartphone app or any biochemistry textbook into Basque very quickly.

    I don’t know Basque, so I can’t judge quality of machine translation from English into Basque, but it is easy to check how well Google Translate copes with translation from Basque into English.

    Here is the result of Google-translating Basque Wikipedia article on biochemistry:

    “Biochemistry is a science that investigates the chemical suppositories of living organisms. These chemical supplements are called biomolecules: glucose, lipids, proteins, nucleic acids, vitamins, etc. In all these biomolecules there is carbon, which is the basic element of organic chemistry. But besides carbon, the molecules of living beings are mainly composed of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur.
    Biokimics also investigates all the chemical reactions that are taking place in the biomolecular structure. The set of these chemical reactions is called metabolism.
    Biochemistry explores the chemical bases of life. All living organisms exchange materials and energy with the environment, and they focus on this exchange through some chemical reactions of the metabolism. Biochemistry investigates the internal reactions that occur within the cell and the internal cellulose organisms.”

    Surprisingly well, it turns out. Back in college, we had translated textbooks of much worse quality.

  7. “There’s not going to be that kind of AI in my lifetime, and maybe never.”

    Do you really think so? A lot of people would disagree with you. Of course it is difficult to separate the hype from what is real. The technology companies have an interest in making claims even when they aren’t fulfilled (they can always say they’re on the verge of success).

    I’m a radiologist, every radiology congress nowadays has numerous lectures about how soon and in what way computers are going to surpass radiologists. It might be exaggerated, but they take it very seriously. Although it’s very different, I doubt that what radiologists do is easier from an AI perspective than translation. After all, Google translate is already pretty good (even though of course it’s easy to find examples of ridiculous mistakes it makes).

  8. Lars (not the original one) says:

    Hat, in the olden days there were courses like “Russian for scientists”. The fact is, there is a big difference between literary translation and working with restricted domains such as scientific texts or weather forecasts (to pick a very small one).
    Where I live, the names of bus stops are now spoken by speech synthesizers. With few exceptions, it works well.

  9. A lot of people would disagree with you.

    A lot of people believe all sorts of nonsense. If you really doubt that what radiologists do is easier from an AI perspective than translation, you should try your hand at translation. And not of biochemistry articles or radiology textbooks, which are after all written in languages only because it can’t all be expressed in symbols, but of literature or conversations. Language is immensely complicated, and for AI to handle it properly would require actual human intelligence, which (as I say) is not going to happen in the foreseeable future.

  10. marie-lucie says:

    Biochemistry is a science that investigates the chemical suppositories of living organisms.

    Most of the paragraph quoted looks fine to this non-chemist, but is suppositories correct in this context?

  11. I wonder how much of the semantics, and maybe even some of the syntax, of that Basque text is Spanish under the covers. I suspect quite a bit.

    See also Lameen’s post on why having “no word for X” can matter.

  12. Lars (the original one) says:

    On the other hand, neural networks (which are only intelligent in the sense that a slime mold is) have been very successful in domains where most people fifty — or ten — years ago assumed that general artificial intelligence would be needed.

    So if all you need to travel the world as a monoglot Dane is a glorified slime mold in your smartphone, the game has indeed changed.

    (I still don’t like the new Google Translate, but that’s mainly because the user interface has been designed by a human to suppress all alternatives).

  13. Not much.

    Here is first sentence in the original. Try to find “Spanish under the covers”:

    Biokimika izaki bizidunen osagarri kimikoak ikertzen dituen zientzia da. Osagarri kimiko hauek biomolekula izenekoak dira: gluzidoak, lipidoak, proteinak , azido nukleikoak, bitaminak, etab. Biomolekula horietan guztietan karbonoa dago, hau baita kimika organikoaren oinarrizko elementua. Baina karbonoz gain, izaki bizidunen molekulak hidrogenoz, oxigenoz, nitrogenoz, fosforoz eta sufrez daude batez ere osatuta.

  14. Considering that I know neither Spanish nor Basque, here’s what I see there (not looking at the English):

    Biochemistry izaki bizidunen osagarri chemistry ikertzen dituen science da. Osagarri chemistry hauek biomolecular izenekoak dira: sugars, lipids, proteins, nucleic acids, vitamins, etab. Biomolecular horietan guztietan carbon dago, hau baita organic chemistry oinarrizko elements. Baina carbon gain, izaki bizidunen hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus molecules eta sufrez daude batez ere osatuta.

  15. marie-lucie says:

    JC: If you translated the paragraph into most European languages, you would find very similar technical words, so it is not just Spanish under Basque, it is Greco-Latinish under Spanish, English, French, Italian, etc.

  16. I agree that AI is often wildly overhyped. Try asking any of the neural net fans exactly what their black boxes are doing– they have no idea.

    Back when I was an undergraduate, I attended a lecture by a famous AI specialist. He strode to the blackboard, drew a big ‘N’ on the board, and then drew a big box around the ‘N’. He said: ‘We start with– Nature’.

  17. I wasn’t talking about literary translation here — I don’t mean that the next English translation of The Brothers Karamazov will be done by machine.

    Already today it’s possible to successfully chat on the internet with someone via translation software rather than use a common language that neither knows well, as long as both parties are aware that idiomatic expressions might be misunderstood. It depends to some degree on what languages are in question.

    I have done some informal translation work in my life, not literature, but maybe I can say I “tried my hand at it”. Or at any rate I can say that the concept of translation is familiar to me. I’m bilingual, the task of translating conversations does not exactly faze me.

    Do you know anything about radiology? Have you tried your hand at it? Do you expect it’s easy? Maybe one might think that radiology is likely to be a easier task for AI because it isn’t as natural to the human brain as a linguistic task like translation. I doubt either of us has the expertise required to evaluate how the validity of that statement. But a free online tool like Google Translate is better at translation than any existing AI that I am aware of is at radiology.

    Translation does not require “actual human intelligence,” anyway.

    Look at
    https://blogs.microsoft.com/ai/machine-translation-news-test-set-human-parity/

    and

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/microsoft-researchers-achieve-new-conversational-speech-recognition-milestone/

    Okay, it’s Microsoft’s own website, so maybe it’s somewhat exaggerated. I don’t know, but I don’t they actually lying.

  18. I wasn’t talking about literary translation here

    No, of course not; once we start talking about literary translation, the whole idea falls apart. You can only imagine such a thing if you’re focusing on things that barely need translation, like scientific articles; in that case, sure, Google can do it, but to call that “AI” is to set the bar so low as to be meaningless.

    Do you know anything about radiology? Have you tried your hand at it? Do you expect it’s easy?

    Of course not; I simply expect that machines will be able to do it long before they can do literary translation. I could be wrong now, but I don’t think so (to quote Randy Newman).

    But a free online tool like Google Translate is better at translation than any existing AI that I am aware of is at radiology.

    Doubtless, but that’s completely irrelevant.

    Translation does not require “actual human intelligence,” anyway.

    Well, that’s what you have to believe in order to believe that AI can do it. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

  19. Why does Lameen’s post link here?

  20. Well, that’s what you have to believe in order to believe that AI can do it. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Oh, I don’t believe that machines will never be able to do literary translation. Humans are machines, and some of us can do it, after all. I just don’t believe that we can make such a machine (except by biological reproduction) in the foreseeable future.

  21. The idea of my original comment was to speculate that machine translation will perhaps improve the chances that languages like Basque have of surviving. I was wondering whether anyone else has any ideas about this. In the podcast, one of the problems with Basque was said to be that by the time smartphone apps and Playstation games are translated into Basque, the versions have become outdated. Computers obviously have the potential to speed up that kind of translation work considerably and one day even to do it more or less autonomously.

    “No, of course not; once we start talking about literary translation, the whole idea falls apart. You can only imagine such a thing if you’re focusing on things that barely need translation, like scientific articles; in that case, sure, Google can do it, but to call that “AI” is to set the bar so low as to be meaningless.”

    Another thing that people worry about is that even national languages like Swedish suffer domain loss because all technical and scientific writing is done in English. Here also machine translation could potentially counter this trend. If scientific articles “barely need translation,” then it makes sense, doesn’t it?

  22. Even compared with other technical texts, Wikipedia articles are not a good idea for testing translation quality, because there are often many parallel texts in multiple languages. You are basically running the algorithm on training data.

    Yet, even so, the Basque to English translation contains several errors that are trivial for a human to correct. Neither “suppositories” nor “supplements” are right, and the translation produces these two words (cognates, but not that close in meaning) where the structure of the text most naturally calls for the same word to be repeated twice. Even more glaring, the algorithm fails to translate one instance of “biokimics,” even though the very subject of the article is biochemistry.

    Of course, natural language processing is one of those areas where the human brain is exceedingly well tuned. So, by the way, is radiology. While we did not evolve directly to read x-ray films, image processing and three dimensional visualization are areas where human skill is so far beyond that of machines that it is difficult to give a useful comparison of the two.

    Doing integrals, on the other hand, is something computers have mastered. Moreover, it is not just a brute force challenge, but requires some guess and check. By twenty years ago, Mathematica could evaluate definite integrals that no human ever could. And the integration algorithm is itself written by another computer program, just like the androids in Westworld. The current integators are still improving at a rapid rate. Expressions that were in intractable a few years ago can now be simplified, and within the foreseeable future, boundary value problems for partial differential equations (which, like integrals, benefit from massive computational capacity, yet also require some art in selecting the right technique to use) may become a similarly solved domain.

  23. David Marjanović says:

    On the difficulties of machine translation, some of these items apply.

    I think podcasts basically have two audiences: pre-Clarkeans who can’t read while they travel (Arthur C. Clarke said that it would be impossible for him to own a car in its currrent state of evolution: the car would own him), and subvocalizers who can’t read any faster than they could read aloud.

    There’s a third: multitaskers who can listen to something and focus on it well enough while doing household chores. So, not me. I practically never listen to podcasts because I can’t do anything else at the same time – and yet they don’t occupy me enough that my mind wouldn’t wander.

    Why does Lameen’s post link here?

    Probably the <a> tag was empty.

  24. Supposing we stay away from buzzwords—what’s “AI” as opposed to any other software?—still, can computers help in language maintenance, of Basque or any other beleaguered languages?

    I imagine two scenarios, both unconvincing. One is that knowledge of majority languages (say Spanish) would be less essential, because adequate translation from the minority language (say Basque) would be instantly available, and Basque speakers would be less pressured to shift. The other is that second-language (Basque) learners could get instant translation of difficult phrases from Basque to (Spanish), something like a more efficient pocket dictionary).

    Either case seems like something potentially useful, but not a game changer.

  25. Speaking of radiology, a real life familiar example of computer-assisted radiology is that of luggage radiology in airports, where software assists in coloring areas of interest in the radiogram.
    Medical radiology is different, in that the stakes are higher, and a radiologist is directly liable for anything they might miss, which is a matter of life and death far more often than in luggage radiography. The assistance is welcome, but it can’t be the last word.

  26. Yes, as long as we stick to “helpful when supervised by humans” we can go a long way with AI (if we must call it that). It’s when we start talking about equivalence with humans (or superiority) that I jib.

  27. Kristian, as a doctor (training to be a GP with a lot of emergency medicine work and exams on the side; five years post graduation) with a background in software development (first degree was very heavy on computational linguistics, which was a big AI area of interest before the AI winter of the late 80s and 90s) and multilingualism (a certain amount of actual professional translation work for money), I have a few comments on what you said:

    — The Basques are not going to stop learning Spanish, Spanish is a major world language that is a practical necessity in life in the Kingdom of Spain. Smartphone apps and biochemistry textbooks in Basque would be a nice-to-have, but they cope fine with Spanish, and better than their monolingual compatriots with English. The people who would benefit most from immediate machine translation are monoglots who speak a language that no-one wealthy speaks; and of course, monoglot Bengali peasants have a) poor software support for their languages and b) not many smartphones

    — It’s already possible to travel the world without knowing any English or foreign languages, you just need a lot of money and to be prepared to be pay someone to interpret for you and/or be ripped off. The Japanese saw a lot of the world in the 1980s and 1990s!

    — It would be much more realistic to outsource radiology work to countries with a low cost of living, than for AI to take it over. It would be perfectly practical for most diagnostic reads of CTs and MRIs in my part of the world (and probably yours) to be done in Pakistan. But it hasn’t happened, and isn’t happening. Which leads to the next point:

    — Your value to the hospital (or to your health service) is in large part that you are a credentialed professional who can take legal responsibility for his interpretation of the images. No AI company is going to do that in the next three decades. Look at the computer ECG interpretations; if they say ‘Normal Sinus Rhythm’ these days it is always a reassuring finding, but they’re not standing behind it from a legal perspective. And the machines have been interpreting ECGs for decades.

    — So, yes, to be honest, saying AI is going to replace radiologists is hubris. It may increase throughput; the limited question of ‘is there a new intracranial bleed on this CT?’ would likely lend itself well to analysis by AI, for sign-off by a radiologist. But hospitals and health systems will still want a radiologist’s sign-off, certainly for the next three decades or so. And there are any number of more complicated clinical questions that won’t lend themselves to automation.

    — The paid translation I have done has been of patents, from German to English. I found corpus tools an excellent support for this, but machine translation was of limited benefit. Someone I am closely acquainted with did more general paid translation between other more minority languages, usually with involvement of English, and she tended to start from the Google Translate version and edit until she was happy with it. I get the impression a lot of paid online translation is done in this way, given the agreements she had to sign that she would not use online machine translation in her work.

    — I do the usual superficial radiology work expected of a generalist, I read my own chest X-rays and extremity X-rays, I look through the CTs to make sure there is nothing gross that I can pick up in case (God forbid) the radiologist is in the middle of a difficult divorce or something and reports a definite bleed as normal. I also do a reasonable amount of low-risk obstetric ultrasound and will pick up gall bladder stones or free abdominal fluid in the right clinical context.

    — From my perspective the work involved in the two (radiology vs. translation) is comparable, but the legal and social context is not. A little bit like when I’m home on the farm and read the vet column in the Farmers Journal, where the pathology is in large part identical and the decisions made are completely different!

    The AI people were promising something like today’s Google Translate thirty years ago, and it wasn’t their techniques that were used for it in the end. If someone is using ‘artificial intelligence’ to sell their product in all seriousness, invest in the other guy.

  28. Athel Cornish-Bowden says:

    Biochemistry is a science that investigates the chemical suppositories of living organisms.

    Most of the paragraph quoted looks fine to this non-chemist, but is suppositories correct in this context?

    As a biochemist I agree that the translation is surprisingly good. Suppositories is indeed wrong, and, more obviously Biokimics is also wrong. I thought that the Basque word Biokimikak might be a calque of Spanish Bioquímicos (Biochemists). Apparently it’s not, but the meaning is clear. The Basque seems to be translated from the English rather than the Spanish.

    There doesn’t seem to be much correlation between the closeness of the language to English and the quality of the translation that Google Translate produces. A few years ago someone commented (here, I think) that it does a remarkably good job with Hausa, and on checking this myself I found it to be true — I don’t know any more Hausa than I do Basque (none at all), but translations from the BBC’s Hausa service are always intelligible. On the other hand Google Translate does a remarkably poor job with French and Spanish (at least, it did a few years ago when I was checking the Hausa) making elementary errors.

  29. Aidan: Very knowledgeable and convincing, thanks!

  30. The word Google translates as “suppository” and “supplement” is osagarri, “component”. The word is derived from oso “whole” and can mean “medication” or “medical treatment” as well as “element” or “component”. I’m guessing what happened here is that the algorithm has seen the word “suppository” used in human-translated sentences that have osagarri in the corresponding Basque version (because medications are sometimes delivered this way) and so it thinks “suppository” is a possible translation of osagarri.

    With “biokimics”, the problem seems to be that the Basque suffix -ak marks both absolutive plural and ergative singular, (It’s ergative in this case.) The algorithm correctly puts the translation of biokimikak at the beginning of the English sentence because it’s the subject, but it also wants the English translation to have an s on the end, so what it does here is invent a Basque-English hybrid word, “biokimics”, even though it correctly translates the absolutive form biokimika as “biochemistry” elsewhere.

    Google’s translations are getting better, and this translation is surprisingly coherent, but a fundamental problem is that, unlike a human translator, the algorithm doesn’t know what the words mean, so problems like this are inevitable even when it gets better and better at parsing syntax.

    Side note that has nothing to do with AI: The phrase izaki bizidunak “living things” used several times in the article (“beings that have life”) has the same structure as the word euskaldunak discussed in the World in Words episode, “(people who) have the Basque language”.

  31. . On the other hand Google Translate does a remarkably poor job with French and Spanish (at least, it did a few years ago when I was checking the Hausa) making elementary errors.

    It got much better recently with these languages. With Spanish, it’s now so good you can safely enjoy google-translated novels.

    Example:

    – Six shields. That should be enough.
    The friar shrugged, as if to say that no amount was too much when he was handed over to a servant of God. He returned to the orphanage, where he called two other younger friars, who came to take care of the boy.
    The commissioner reassembled, but when he was going to start the old man grabbed the animal’s mouthful.
    – Wait, your honor. Who should I tell him that he is his savior, so that he may take him into account in his prayers?
    The man was silent for a moment, his eyes lost in the tenebrous streets of Seville. He was about to refuse to answer, but had gone through too many bad drinks in life, too many trials and disappointments to waste a prayer in exchange for his six shields. He turned his sad eyes to the friar.
    – Tell him to pray for Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, the king’s supply commissar.

  32. Craig: Thanks very much for that informative comment — I love that someone who knows Basque can show up and help out!

  33. Lars (the original one) says:

    Another thing that GT cannot do yet is adjusting for variant / old fashioned spellings — as we have seen several times. I occasionally try to talk to a French person who insists on using GT and message in English, but whose spelling is such (lacking distinctions between homonyms) that the only way to make sense of the resulting hash is to guess at the pretranslated text and mentally adjust it to ‘proper’ French.

  34. marie-lucie says:

    A few years ago someone commented (here, I think) that [Google Translate] does a remarkably good job with Hausa, … On the other hand Google Translate does a remarkably poor job with French and Spanish (at least, it did a few years ago …making elementary errors).

    This could have been because of the human translators working for GT. Hausa is not commonly taught to non-Africans and as a result the translators must have been native Hausa speakers also highly educated in English. But for Spanish and (probably especially) French, the translators must have been native English speakers with a good but not native-like knowledge of those languages. If they have greatly improved the Spanish translations, they must be using better qualified translators. I can’t say anything for the French counterparts as I try not to read English-to-French translations.

  35. Craig, I wonder if you can explain the end of this paragraph from a piece about translations of Shakespeare into Basque dialects:
    It was in such a situation that Toribio Altzaga came to the fore. Like Soroa, he was born in Donostia-San Sebastian and was the founder of modern Basque theatre and managed to raise the level of the theatre in Gipuzkoa without taking away its folk character. He came up with numerous comedies in that respect and translated several more such as Pierre Loti’s Ramuntcho or [sic] Shakespeare’s Macbeth. That was undoubtedly the first version of the renowned English playwright’s work ever translated into Basque and was published under the title Irritza.

    Why Irritza? I get irritate for that, from Google Translate.

  36. According to my Basque dictionary, irrits is ‘ardent desire, passion, lust; ambition.’

  37. Passion would be a pretty good title for Macbeth.

    It’s important not to use machine translation on the outgoing side if you can help it. It’s no courtesy to someone who uses another language to try to send them a text machine-translated from your language, because you may not be saying what you mean to say. Better to write in your own language and let the recipient use human or machine translation or their own knowledge of your language.

  38. irrits is ‘ardent desire, passion, lust; ambition.’
    Aha. I knew there must be more to it. I suppose Mac- is problematic for anyone who’s having a go at translating the title.

    Passion would be a pretty good title.
    McLust

  39. There’s not going to be that kind of AI in my lifetime, and maybe never

    Given an invention that is “always 10 years away”, most experts are going to continue to say so even at the point when someone in fact already has a working prototype in their garage and is three days away from unveiling it (or, perhaps, has already unveiled it to a great reception in local papers); which is to say: “experts say is X years away” is not much more than a standardized phrase meaning “we have no idea”.

    (“I don’t think most of the discourse about AGI being far away (or that it’s near) is being generated by models of future progress in machine learning. I don’t think we’re looking at wrong models; I think we’re looking at no models. (…) In reality, the two-year problem is hard and the ten-year problem is laughably hard. The future is hard to predict in general, our predictive grasp on a rapidly changing and advancing field of science and engineering is very weak indeed, and it doesn’t permit narrow credible intervals on what can’t be done.”[1])

  40. Why did Shakespeare call it Macbeth?

    Edited on realizing that it’s very loosely based on a historical figure.

  41. Well, the title in the First Folio was “The Tragedie of Macbeth”; who knows what Shakespeare called it?

  42. Stu Clayton says:

    The name of the song is called “Haddocks’ Eyes.”‘

    `Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?’ Alice said, trying to feel interested.

    `No, you don’t understand,’ the Knight said, looking a little vexed. `That’s what the name is called. The name really is “The Aged Aged Man.”‘

    `Then I ought to have said “That’s what the song is called”?’ Alice corrected herself.

    `No, you oughtn’t: that’s quite another thing! The song is called “Ways and Means”: but that’s only what it’s called, you know!’

    `Well, what is the song, then?’ said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

    `I was coming to that,’ the Knight said. `The song really is “A-sitting On A Gate”: and the tune’s my own invention.’

  43. But of course the penultimate statement is wrong, as Martin Gardner points out: “the song really is” should be followed immediately by the Knight singing it, not by specifying yet another name.

  44. Stu Clayton says:

    “Should” shoots off on a captious tangent. Carroll is dicking around with idioms. The mutually interfering semantics can be mulled over by a prying mind, if there is such a mind on the premises.

  45. January First-of-May says:

    IMHO, there is a song reference that would fit in after “the song really is…” – the default title in the absence of others, which for a song (or poem) is well-established as the first line; in this case, “I’ll tell thee everything I can…”
    (Sure enough, the song that Alice recognizes it being the tune for is referred to by its first line.)

    Apparently some collections do refer to it as such. Wikipedia, of course, has it under “Haddocks’ Eyes”, which, I believe, is the more common option.

Speak Your Mind

*