# No nos olvidemos de../Que no se nos olvide..



## NewdestinyX

Is there a difference in meaning between these two?

No nos olvidemos de la reunión.
Que no se nos olvide la reunión.

I'm pretty sure the first is appealing to a group of 'us' and says.. "Let's not forget the meeting".

But in the second one does it change to a more imperative voice saying more like:
Don't let us forget the meeting.

Or are they essentially interchangeable sentences in Spanish simply where one is using:
Olvidarse de algo
and the other:
Olvidársele algo?

Thanks in advance for any insight into this imperative usage with the 1st person plural,
Grant


----------



## coquita

Both are interchangeable sentences for me. 
Maybe the first one is more common in oral language...

Saludos


----------



## roanheads

I see the first one as a self command > Don't let us forget the meeting.

The conjunction " que " as antecedent in the second, " softens " ( or makes less abrupt ) the self command to a self exhortation.> May we not forget the meeting.

As in the difference between,

Tengan un buen día> Have a nice day.
and,
Que tengan un buen día > May you have a nice day


----------



## NewdestinyX

coquita said:


> Both are interchangeable sentences for me.
> Maybe the first one is more common in oral language...
> 
> Saludos


Thanks, Coquita! That's what I thought.



roanheads said:


> I see the first one as a self command > Don't let us forget the meeting.
> 
> The conjunction " que " as antecedent in the second, " softens " ( or makes less abrupt ) the self command to a self exhortation.> May we not forget the meeting.
> 
> As in the difference between,
> 
> Tengan un buen día> Have a nice day.
> and,
> Que tengan un buen día > May you have a nice day


I think I understand - but the 'que' is there in the example with 'no ovlide' for grammatical reasons. You can't really use a 'third person singular' imperative mood without the 'que' starting the sentence. You can with a a 1st person plural command which is 'let's...' in English.. But with the 3rd person singular it's '(don't) let him/her....' and Spanish uses a 'que' to start those. I thought there might be a difference too.. because in English we have a couple ways we can translate them. I'll be interested to see if other natives sense the 'nuance' you're referring to. I thought of it too..

Thanks!
Grant


----------



## obz

NewdestinyX said:


> I think I understand - but the 'que' is there in the example with 'no ovlide' for grammatical reasons. You can't really use a 'third person singular' imperative mood without the 'que' starting the sentence.



Hmm, Grant, entonces ¿qué de "_¡No se te ocurra!_"? 
Es "_imperativo_" de la persona tercera, y se oye mucho sin el "_que_".
La oración es casi idéntica a "_¡no se te olvide!_".

Creo que en casos así se pueden omitir los "_que_"... ¿Me equivoco?


----------



## roanheads

A little bit of history. I was taught in class by hispanohablantes that the use of " que " with subjunctive to soften a direct command is particularly useful when tuteando with close friends, using the second person conjugation of the verb.

Que tengas una buena noche 
Que no dejéis de escribirnos.

Another real life example, on a Spanish bus, a driver going home off duty, as he stepped off, called to the driver, "Si me necesitan, que me llamen >if they need me let them call me. ( recently in Canarias ) 
With 3rd person it is either a direct imperative > "compre, usted, un coche nuevo" or a " que + subjunctive " ( or an indirect imperative as I like to see it ) >
" que compre ( él or ella ) un coche nuevo. " let him or her buy a new car, or, may he or she buy a new car "
I also would be interested to know the extent of agreement in whether the " que + subjunctive " structure tones down a direct command.

Saludos.


----------



## NewdestinyX

obz said:


> Hmm, Grant, entonces ¿qué de "_¡No se te ocurra!_"?
> Es "_imperativo_" de la persona tercera, y se oye mucho sin el "_que_".
> La oración es casi idéntica a "_¡no se te olvide!_".
> 
> Creo que en casos así se pueden omitir los "_que_"... ¿Me equivoco?


No. No te equivocas. Creo que tienes la razón. Creía que 'te' funcionaría diferente que 'nos'... pero es lo mismo. Si el verbo es en 3ra persona -- tiene el 'let him/her/them....' O con 'no' - "Don't let them...." Y entonces con las construcciones como 'olvidársele/ocurrírsele/, etc... Extiende a incluir "(Don't) them, us, me.....", etc..

Ahora entiendo.



roanheads said:


> A little bit of history. I was taught in class by hispanohablantes that the use of " que " with subjunctive to soften a direct command is particularly useful when tuteando with close friends, using the second person conjugation of the verb.
> 
> Que tengas una buena noche
> Que no dejéis de escribirnos.
> 
> Another real life example, on a Spanish bus, a driver going home off duty, as he stepped off, called to the driver, "Si me necesitan, que me llamen >if they need me let them call me. ( recently in Canarias )
> With 3rd person it is either a direct imperative > "compre, usted, un coche nuevo" or a " que + subjunctive " ( or an indirect imperative as I like to see it ) >
> " que compre ( él or ella ) un coche nuevo. " let him or her buy a new car, or, may he or she buy a new car "
> I also would be interested to know the extent of agreement in whether the " que + subjunctive " structure tones down a direct command.
> 
> Saludos.


It would be interesting to hear if the natives think there's a subtle shading there. I know I 'use' the 'que' to do as you describe. I thought it was a necessary part of the 3rd person imperatives. It seems I was wrong on that account.

Thanks all!
Grant


----------



## obz

Also remember, as archaic as it may sound, or as much of a stretch as it may be, commands (negative and positive alike) in the 3rd person without "may, let, or don't" are not _impossible.

"Be it not said that...."
"Be it known that...."

_While clearly not the norm, and largely confined to literature or theatrical reenactments, such phrases are correct. So, perhaps a correlation for you to make to English if that is what you are after.


----------



## NewdestinyX

obz said:


> Also remember, as archaic as it may sound, or as much of a stretch as it may be, commands (negative and positive alike) in the 3rd person without "may, let, or don't" are not _impossible.
> 
> "Be it not said that...."
> "Be it known that...."
> 
> _While clearly not the norm, and largely confined to literature or theatrical reenactments, such phrases are correct. So, perhaps a correlation for you to make to English if that is what you are after.


Great stuff, as always, Obz! Thanks!! Those would both be impersonal statements (with SE) in Spanish - it gets a little trickier Spanish to English when it's a simple 3rd person command.

{Que} No vaya (él) en este viaje.
{Que} Esté (él) aquí cuando llegue yo esta tarde.
{Que} Coma (ella) lo que quiera en la fiesta esta noche.

I think they all most naturally go to English as 'Let her/him/them' and "Don't let....."

And I wonder -- especially in the case of my 2nd example there if the 3rd person imperative is the most correct translation of our unique English: Have him do x...... ¿?

I've seen a thread or two here about how to translate 'have him meet me at 4 today'. And several full bilinguals (from childhood) in English and Spanish have said there's no real direct syntax in Spanish to do 'have him/her.. do x...'

But I think the most natural translation of my #2 there would be:
Have him {be} here this afternoon when I arrive.


----------



## obz

NewdestinyX said:


> bout how to translate 'have him meet me at 4 today'. And several full bilinguals (from childhood) in English and Spanish have said there's no real direct syntax in Spanish to do 'have him/her.. do x...'



Indeed, that is one of the real challenging ones. It just changes (for English speakers) based on possible synonyms in given context.

Can't have it all


----------



## NewdestinyX

obz said:


> Indeed, that is one of the real challenging ones. It just changes (for English speakers) based on possible synonyms in given context.
> 
> Can't have it all


But I think 'have "x person"' is only an ever used as an indirect command.. It's always 'have him/her.. DO.. something..'. So naturally that could get captured with a subordinate clause structure where subjunctive is in clause 2 -- or I think it might more 'elegantly' be captured by the 3rd person positive imperative. In your last post there you didn't support or deny the idea. What do you think?

Have her call me after work today.
Que me llame después de trabajo hoy.
(of course -- in Latin America countries where 'usted' is very common -- that sentence could just as easily be understood as 'you (formal)' call me after work.. In Spain, where usted is not common at all I think it could stand in for English's - "Have her call me" a lot more naturally and with less ambiguity.)

Grant


----------



## obz

> But I think 'have "x person"' is only an ever used as an indirect command.. It's always 'have him/her.. DO.. something..'.


It works in first to second person too, _I'll have you know _

If you're saying "have someone do something", as you say it's clearly a subject change and a subordinate clause. The idea is that you want actions of a third person "assured" by this second person.

"Have him / I want you to have him do it / see to it that he does it"
"Quiero que asegures que / asegura que lo haga (él)"

Other times you are giving an indirect order, because this second person will come in contact with your third person before you. Either way this second person is a vehicle. I think your _"que me llame"_, removes the sense of responsibility you want to give the second person... or at least the sense that is implied by "(you) have him do it". 

With "Que me llame" You're more or less just expressing desire "May he call me, I hope he calls me" etc. The second person is out of the loop.

"Have him call me"
"Dile que me llame"

You just have to use the most logical solution in the context based on what it is you want, as our "have him.." is simply nonexistent.
We know by context and being natives, but there could be translational variance in "have him...". Are you entrusting this person with the responsibility of assuring that the deed be done? Or are you simply using them to relay your indirect order? 
That borne in mind, you may find translations, or at least substitutions, come easier.



> In your last post there you didn't support or deny the idea. What do you think?


Noncommittal evasion is sweet comforting refuge to the unsure or unwilling to commit


----------



## Lurrezko

A mí me da la impresión de que en todos estos casos las oraciones están en modos diferentes, de ahí el matiz que apunta roanheads. Que + subjuntivo no es imperativo, sino subjuntivo: no expresa orden, sino deseo:

_No nos olvidemos de la reunión._ Imperativo
_Que no nos olvidemos de la reunión._ Subjuntivo, expresa deseo (aunque parezca imperativo, ya que el subjuntivo es el modo en que expresamos el imperativo en frases negativas)

Los modos se confunden también en este ejemplo:

_Tengan (uds.) un buen día._ Imperativo, aunque funcione como un simple saludo
_Que tengan un buen día._ Subjuntivo, expresa deseo.

Pero si usamos una persona en la que los modos subjuntivo e imperativo no coincidan:

_*Ten *(tú) un buen día._ Imperativo
_Que *tengas* un buen día._ Subjuntivo (deseo)

_No tengas un buen día._ Imperativo (orden)
_Que no tengas un buen día._ Subjuntivo (expresa deseo)


----------



## cbrena

No existe el imperativo para la primera persona del singular ni para la tercera persona del singular o del plural en español. No puedes ordenarte con un imperativo directo a ti mismo ni a quien no está oyendo tu orden (tercera persona del singular o del plural)

Come (tú)
Coma (usted)
Comamos (nosotros)
Comed (vosotros)
Coman (ustedes)

Creo que en inglés es similar. Cuando dices "don't let him eat that" no estás ordenando a una tercera persona que no coma algo, estás ordenando al que te oye (2ª persona) que no le deje hacer algo a la tercera persona (= que no coma eso) no es un imperativo directo, es un subjuntivo ¿Se entiende esta explicación? Puedes usarlo con la 1ª del plural igual que en español "don't let us eat that" (= no comamos eso)


Para 1ª del singular y 3ª persona necesitamos el subjuntivo.

Para las formas que sí tienen imperativo, si usas el "que" con el verbo en subjuntivo para ordenar, en mi opinión no siempre suavizan la orden, por el contrario puede llegar a ser más ruda. De hecho, es la forma que usamos con enfado y entre admiraciones.

Cómete ese pescado antes de empezar con el postre
¡Que te comas ese pescado antes de empezar con el postre!



> No nos olvidemos de la reunión.
> Que no se nos olvide la reunión.



En mi opinión la segunda tiene más énfasis, pero ambas significan lo mismo.



> Or are they essentially interchangeable sentences in Spanish simply where one is using:
> Olvidarse de algo
> and the other:
> Olvidársele algo?



Sí hay diferencia entre ambas, pero no son oraciones imperativas ni subjuntivas. La primera se usa para " you don't remember something" la segunda para " you leave something in a place"


----------



## NewdestinyX

Good input everyone! Thanks!!!. The grammar books do refer to having 'imperatives' in the third person singular and plural. But never in 1st person singular. But I understand what you mean, Cbrena. 

It seems different natives sense different 'matices' in these.

Grant


----------



## cbrena

NewdestinyX said:


> The grammar books do refer to having 'imperatives' in the third person singular and plural. But never in 1st person singular.



Yes, they do. But if you look at  the imperative tense carefully you will see that they are using subjunctive tenses in the 3rd persons and you can read those tenses using "que"

(yo) ----
(tú) come
(*que* él) coma
(nosotros) comamos *(this one is the same in subjunctive, but it's imperative)
(vosotros) comed
(*que* ellos) coman

Can you notice that the underline tenses are subjunctive tenses?

You can say "come" as a direct order without any other word and the meaning is "come tú", or you can also say "comamos" and the meaning is "comamos nosotros" but you can't say "coma" nor "coman" to the third person, without using "que coma" or "que coman", if you do, what you are really saying is:  " coma usted"  or " coman ustedes", because "usted" always uses the third person.

I promise I also studied the imperative with the third person but I was always told it was not a real imperative, and the explanation for that is quite logical, in fact, you told me that you did understand the explanation.

Anyway, don't worry so much about it, it's just grammar.

Your two sentences were all right, with such a subtle nuance that some Spaniards said they were the same and other Spaniards said they were different. I said I notice the difference with exclamations marks, and in that case I prefer the second one, otherwise, you can swap one for the other.


----------



## roanheads

> I promise I also studied the imperative with the third person but I was always told it was not a real imperative,


 
obrena,
Just as I was taught by hispanohablantes, as a result of which, as I said above I consider a " 3rd person imperative " as a " que + subjunctive " > or as a personal view " an indirect imperative "

Saludos.


----------



## roanheads

obz,



> Noncommittal evasion is sweet comforting refuge to the unsure or unwilling to commit


 
Thats real sweet talkin',   I love it !


----------



## cbrena

obz said:


> Hmm, Grant, entonces ¿qué de "_¡No se te ocurra!_"?
> Es "_imperativo_" de la persona tercera, y se oye mucho sin el "_que_".
> La oración es casi idéntica a "_¡no se te olvide!_".
> 
> Creo que en casos así se pueden omitir los "_que_"... ¿Me equivoco?



No son tercera persona, son segunda persona. Te estás dirigiendo a un oyente, no estás hablando de una tercera persona. Puedes omitir el "que" sin ningún problema. Si cambiaras el "te" por "le" intentando que fuera tercera persona, lo que realmente estarías haciendo sería tratar de usted al oyente. El trato de usted consiste en hablar con tu oyente usando la tercera persona.

Es una estructura en la que la forma del verbo no varía y además seguiría con un verbo en infinitivo.

No se te olvide  o no se le olvide
No se nos olvide
Que no se te ocurra
Que no se nos ocurra

No son formas de imperativo. Es la solución perfecta para evitar conjugar otro verbo en subjuntivo:

No vayas ---- No se te ocurra ir
No vayais ---  No se os ocurra ir
No vayan ---  No se les ocurra ir

¿No es increible lo fácil que es evitar lo que parece difícil?




> Cita:Noncommittal evasion is sweet comforting refuge to the unsure or unwilling to commit
> 
> Thats real sweet talkin', I love it !



So do I!


----------



## NewdestinyX

cbrena said:


> Yes, they do. But if you look at  the imperative tense carefully you will see that they are using subjunctive tenses in the 3rd persons and you can read those tenses using "que"
> 
> (yo) ----
> (tú) come
> (*que* él) coma
> (nosotros) comamos *(this one is the same in subjunctive, but it's imperative)
> (vosotros) comed
> (*que* ellos) coman
> 
> Can you notice that the underline tenses are subjunctive tenses?
> 
> You can say "come" as a direct order without any other word and the meaning is "come tú", or you can also say "comamos" and the meaning is "comamos nosotros" but you can't say "coma" nor "coman" to the third person, without using "que coma" or "que coman", if you do, what you are really saying is:  " coma usted"  or " coman ustedes", because "usted" always uses the third person.
> 
> I promise I also studied the imperative with the third person but I was always told it was not a real imperative, and the explanation for that is quite logical, in fact, you told me that you did understand the explanation.
> 
> Anyway, don't worry so much about it, it's just grammar.
> 
> Your two sentences were all right, with such a subtle nuance that some Spaniards said they were the same and other Spaniards said they were different. I said I notice the difference with exclamations marks, and in that case I prefer the second one, otherwise, you can swap one for the other.


Thanks Cbrena. You're newer here so you may not know that I've been studying and writing a course on Spanish grammar for many years now. I'm functionally fluent but I love the 'grammar' side of things. So of course yes I can see that the third person versions are in subjunctive. But so is the 1st person plural. So 'just because they're in subjunctive' can't be the 'reason' that they're not real 'imperatives'. That's my point. 

The explanation that works best for me -- is that the third person 'imperatives' are really 'indirect commands' -- which are of course dealt with in Spanish with the subjunctive in a sentence like: 'Quiero que vengas'. That's an 'indirect command' too. I know how the third person 'imperatives' are used in Spanish -- what I was foggy on was if there was any nuance difference by using the '-ársele, érsele, írsele' versions of the verb as opposed to the normal version of the verb as in my original example.

Thanks for the input!
Grant


----------



## cbrena

Sorry, 
I didn't know you were an expert on Spanish grammar. I was trying to explain how to use the imperative tense from a native point of view. I'm not an expert, but now I'm ashamed because you already knew more about it than myself; besides, I did it in English and I realize what an awful English level I have.

What I don't understand now is your doubt about:
Olvidarse de algo
and the other:
Olvidársele algo?
Related to "no nos olvidemos de.../"que no se nos olvide.

Perhaps what you wanted to know was how to use "olvidar" and "olvidarse".

You taught me a lot, but I can't help you as a mere Spanish native. I don't really know what nuance difference you are looking for.

Best wishes


----------



## obz

NewdestinyX said:


> 'Quiero que vengas'. That's an 'indirect command' too.



Mmm Grant, I can't get with you on that. That's a desire not a command, direct or indirect.

_"I hope it rains today"_ is equally not a command, just a desire or wish. It expresses zero authority or responsibility as a command does.
Looking up at the sky and yelling "RAIN DAMN IT!!" Now that is a command.

_"Tell god to make it rain tomorrow"/"Dile a dios que haga que llueva mañana."_ well it's an indirect command... good luck with something like that working .. but I hope you see the point.

_"Quiero que vengas" _is no more imperative than _"Quiero una galleta"_. It's simple, humble or not, desire. We need to remember that "indicative", "imperative", and "subjunctive" are clinical confines of language, and any idea can be expressed in any way, but rationally speaking, how can _"Quiero que.."/ " I want.."_ be considered an indirect order without creatively appending to it? _"Quiero que le digas a dios que haga que llueva"_ (I guess...)


----------



## roanheads

> Originally posted by NewdestinyX
> 
> The explanation that works best for me -- is that the third person 'imperatives' are really 'indirect commands' -- which are of course dealt with in Spanish with the subjunctive in a sentence like: 'Quiero que vengas'. That's an 'indirect command' too. I know how the third person 'imperatives' are used in Spanish -- what I was foggy on was if there was any nuance difference by using the '-ársele, érsele, írsele' versions of the verb as opposed to the normal version of the verb as in my original example.


 
Hi obz,
Sorry, don't agree.
" quiero que vengas "
Cut off the quiero.
" que vengas ( tú )" May you come "
This is exactly what was printed in my brain ( ?) by hispanohablantes , that is, the use of " que + subjunctive " can be used with direct exhortative sense for the 2nd. person familiar.
Whether "quiero" is stuck on as antecedent does not alter this structure.
As I said previously, this is a direct imperative " softened " to an exhortation by " que +subjunctive" ( I now quote my teachers )
Grant calls it an "indirect command", but dealing with the 2nd person familiar this is a direct exhortation.
Dealing with 3rd person formal, I agree it becomes " indirect command " or as I prefer, " indirect imperative.

Saludos.


----------



## obz

roanheads said:


> Hi obz,
> Sorry, don't agree.



Hi roanheads.
I think you've quoted the wrong bloke. 

I agree about the 3rd person indirect commands, but to be exhortative, only means to encourage or be persuasive, it doesn't not mean to be imperative. Exhortative statements are not imperative ones.

Exhortation:
_a communication intended to urge or persuade the recipients to take some action._

Speaking within defined confines of our available "moods" it can be a strong desire or a fleeting whim, but nothing more than desire as strong as it may be, and certainly not an order. By deduction, an exhortative statement is an indicative one, the subordinate clause is the subjunction. An imperative command is only that, it is not persuasive, yet domineering and dictating. 

Cheers!


----------



## roanheads

hi obz, 
Don't think so. you quote " quiero que vengas " as a desire. As explained I see it as a direct exhortation.


----------



## obz

I meant you had included Grant's text bubble, whilst responding to me.

Exhortation is desire... just a stronger more thought out way of saying it. I can exhort you all I want, but at no point is an order being given.


----------



## roanheads

obz,


> Exhortation:
> _a communication intended to urge or persuade the recipients to take some action._


Exactly, an exhortation is an imperative " softened " .in this case, by the use of " que +subjunctive "


----------



## obz

No, it's persuasion. Not imperative. Only orders are imperative, everything else is indicative or subjunctive. The moods are quite clinical and well defined.

You can use exhortation to AVOID giving an order, but it's still only indicative desire, regardless of what follows.

_Urjo que, te persuado que, sugiero que, suplico que, ruego que, quiero que, espero que, te convenzo que, aliento que, apoyo que...... lo hagas.
_
Not one is an order, not one is imperative. Every single one is an indicative statement of what one is doing. Moods are blind to motives. And order is only an order when it assumes the mood. The anatomy of a sentence is quite easily dissected, motives and meanings behind the words are another story. And that is not in question. Clearly all these are designed to convey to another person what it is that you want them to do... but that is not what I am saying.

Even _"Ordeno que..."_ is not "_an imperative"_ declaration, but an indicative. Obfuscate it as it may, you are _stating your action indicatively_, not _"ordering imperatively" _even though your action is indeed "ordering".


----------



## caniho

NewdestinyX said:


> Is there a difference in meaning between these two?
> 
> No nos olvidemos de la reunión.
> Que no se nos olvide la reunión.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the first is appealing to a group of 'us' and says.. "Let's not forget the meeting".
> 
> But in the second one does it change to a more imperative voice saying more like:
> Don't let us forget the meeting.
> 
> Or are they essentially interchangeable sentences in Spanish simply where one is using:
> Olvidarse de algo
> and the other:
> Olvidársele algo?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any insight into this imperative usage with the 1st person plural,
> Grant



They can be different in some contexts: the latter says that it's necessary to set a reminder; the former can be just a way of bringing up a subject.


----------



## NewdestinyX

roanheads said:


> obz,
> 
> Exactly, an exhortation is an imperative " softened " .in this case, by the use of " que +subjunctive "





obz said:


> No, it's persuasion. Not imperative. Only orders are imperative, everything else is indicative or subjunctive. The moods are quite clinical and well defined.


Obz and Roanheads. We've now moved into a 'semantics' discussion that should probably be reserved for the English Grammar forum. But thanks for all the good insight into how there could be 'some level' of nuance between the two sentences I posted. It seems, for all practical purposes, they're interchangeable.

Thanks all!


----------



## obz

NewdestinyX said:


> It seems, for all practical purposes, they're interchangeable.



No doubt about that. The idea is conveyed equally. No discussion there .


----------



## NewdestinyX

One last question - and Cbrena really brought attention to it in one response to me.

Though the text books don't really highlight this some natives say that there's actually a difference between 'olvidar' (and its counterpart olvidársele) and 'olvidarse de'. I'm told that 'olvidarse de' is more like 'to forget about something'. And olvidársele is more about forgetting some object like 'leaving it somewhere'. And I guess some have told me 'olvidar' is like an 'intentional forgetting' of something.

Do those distinctions resonate with any of you natives or bilingual students?

Here's the DRAE definition:


> *olvidar**.* (Del lat. _*oblitare_, formado sobre el part. pas. _oblītus_, de _oblivisci_).
> * 1.     * tr. Dejar de tener en la memoria lo que se tenía o debía tener. U. t. c. prnl.
> * 2.* tr. Dejar de tener en el afecto o afición a alguien o algo. U. t. c. prnl.
> * 3.     * tr. No tener en cuenta algo. _Olvida los agravios que te hicieron._ U. t. c. prnl.
> * 4.* tr. p. us. Hacer perder la memoria de algo.
> *
> estar olvidado *algo.
> * 1.     * loc. verb. Hacer mucho tiempo que se hizo o sucedió.
> 
> _Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados_​



From that definition - with all those U.t.c.prnl {usado también como pronominal} notations for each standard expected definition of 'olvidar
 it would seem there's no 'definitional' difference between olvidar/olvidarse de/olvidársele.

¿Qué os parece?​


----------

