Dtjytyk

An isoperimetric-type inequality inside a cube

Besides transaction validation, are there any other uses of the Script language in Bitcoin

How can I prevent/balance waiting and turtling as a response to cooldown mechanics

How does the body cool itself in a stillsuit?

Why complex landing gears are used instead of simple, reliable and light weight muscle wire or shape memory alloys?

Does a random sequence of vectors span a Hilbert space?

Does the universe have a fixed centre of mass?

The test team as an enemy of development? And how can this be avoided?

What does Sonny Burch mean by, "S.H.I.E.L.D. and HYDRA don't even exist anymore"?

What should one know about term logic before studying propositional and predicate logic?

Keep at all times, the minus sign above aligned with minus sign below

How do you cope with tons of web fonts when copying and pasting from web pages?

IC on Digikey is 5x more expensive than board containing same IC on Alibaba: How?

Where and when has Thucydides been studied?

Fit odd number of triplets in a measure?

calculator's angle answer for trig ratios that can work in more than 1 quadrant on the unit circle

Is there a spell that can create a permanent fire?

Is there a verb for listening stealthily?

Improvising over quartal voicings

How to name indistinguishable henchmen in a screenplay?

French equivalents of おしゃれは足元から (Every good outfit starts with the shoes)

Getting representations of the Lie group out of representations of its Lie algebra

What helicopter has the most rotor blades?

Noise in Eigenvalues plot

The plural of 'stomach"

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}

22

8

Words ending in ch usually take es in the plural form. However, the word stomach is an exception to this paradigm. Its plural form is stomachs. My question is, why does it take only s in the plural form?

irregular-plurals

share|improve this question

asked Mar 26 at 6:58

Mido MidoMido Mido

6511019

• 
  
  
  

  
  16
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
  
  – Bella Swan
  Mar 26 at 7:18
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
  
  – David Richerby
  Mar 26 at 11:09
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  14
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
  
  – Mitch
  Mar 26 at 12:58
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
  
  – Dan
  Mar 26 at 16:45
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Actually, the plural of "stomach" should have probably been "stomachia".
  
  – Mike Nakis
  Mar 27 at 10:17
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

22

8

Words ending in ch usually take es in the plural form. However, the word stomach is an exception to this paradigm. Its plural form is stomachs. My question is, why does it take only s in the plural form?

irregular-plurals

share|improve this question

asked Mar 26 at 6:58

Mido MidoMido Mido

6511019

• 
  
  
  

  
  16
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Because English is a very weird and funny language, and never tends to follow the rules most of the times? Yup. :)
  
  – Bella Swan
  Mar 26 at 7:18
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @BellaSwan Not really. Try to say "branchs" and you'll see why it's "branches"; try to pronounce "stomachs" and then wonder if "stomaches" would rhyme with "headaches".
  
  – David Richerby
  Mar 26 at 11:09
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  14
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  The rule is not abut spelling but about sound.
  
  – Mitch
  Mar 26 at 12:58
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Necessary [humorous] poem regarding sound in English The Chaos.
  
  – Dan
  Mar 26 at 16:45
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Actually, the plural of "stomach" should have probably been "stomachia".
  
  – Mike Nakis
  Mar 27 at 10:17
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

Words ending in ch usually take es in the plural form. However, the word stomach is an exception to this paradigm. Its plural form is stomachs. My question is, why does it take only s in the plural form?

irregular-plurals

share|improve this question

asked Mar 26 at 6:58

Mido MidoMido Mido

6511019

share|improve this question

asked Mar 26 at 6:58

Mido MidoMido Mido

6511019

share|improve this question

asked Mar 26 at 6:58

Mido MidoMido Mido

6511019

asked Mar 26 at 6:58

Mido MidoMido Mido

6511019

asked Mar 26 at 6:58

Mido MidoMido Mido

6511019

4 Answers
4

active

oldest

votes

42

The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of a vowel sound before the final /z/ sound. After the sound /t͡ʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/ in some accents).

But stomach does not end in the sound /t͡ʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no vowel sound sound before the final /s/. This is why it is not spelled with "-es".

Compare the two spellings of the plural of conch that correspond to the two pronunciation variants.

The regular plural suffix has the pronunciation /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/. Words ending in these sounds can be spelled in a variety of ways, so it's simpler to think of this rule as being based on pronunciation, not on spelling.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 27 at 19:36

answered Mar 26 at 7:45

sumelicsumelic

50.8k8121228

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
  
  – David Robinson
  Mar 26 at 11:24
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
  
  – David Robinson
  Mar 26 at 11:43
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

22

If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 26 at 20:40

answered Mar 26 at 7:50

Michael HarveyMichael Harvey

6,94011120

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
  
  – David Richerby
  Mar 26 at 11:08
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
  
  – Darrel Hoffman
  Mar 26 at 14:50
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
  
  – Michael Harvey
  Mar 26 at 15:28
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
  
  – Darrel Hoffman
  Mar 26 at 15:54
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  What about sassenach? I guess that reveals what TV show I've been watching....
  
  – Lambie
  Mar 26 at 20:54
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 9 more comments

-1

Stomach is English for "Stomachus" a Greek word.

As such, it can take any plural form you like as it was translated through the ages.

In Greek it has the plural: "Stomachoi"

In Latin it would be "Stomachi" and so on...

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 27 at 17:57

dimachaerusdimachaerus

1

add a comment | 

-1

There are at least two reasons, one is the end sound 'k' in English words, but the other one is the plural of foreign words like stomach or Bach. The meaning of the name of the composers Bach (a family) is German for creek and the pronunciation of 'ch' is not 'k' at all but IPA 'x'. The English and German plural for the name 'Bach' is 'Bachs' (the plural of the word bach [= creek] is in fact Bäche 'ch' is IPA ç).

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 27 at 20:31

fiveyearsfiveyears

11

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491372%2fthe-plural-of-stomach%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

42

The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of a vowel sound before the final /z/ sound. After the sound /t͡ʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/ in some accents).

But stomach does not end in the sound /t͡ʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no vowel sound sound before the final /s/. This is why it is not spelled with "-es".

Compare the two spellings of the plural of conch that correspond to the two pronunciation variants.

The regular plural suffix has the pronunciation /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/. Words ending in these sounds can be spelled in a variety of ways, so it's simpler to think of this rule as being based on pronunciation, not on spelling.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 27 at 19:36

answered Mar 26 at 7:45

sumelicsumelic

50.8k8121228

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
  
  – David Robinson
  Mar 26 at 11:24
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
  
  – David Robinson
  Mar 26 at 11:43
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

42

The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of a vowel sound before the final /z/ sound. After the sound /t͡ʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/ in some accents).

But stomach does not end in the sound /t͡ʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no vowel sound sound before the final /s/. This is why it is not spelled with "-es".

Compare the two spellings of the plural of conch that correspond to the two pronunciation variants.

The regular plural suffix has the pronunciation /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/. Words ending in these sounds can be spelled in a variety of ways, so it's simpler to think of this rule as being based on pronunciation, not on spelling.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 27 at 19:36

answered Mar 26 at 7:45

sumelicsumelic

50.8k8121228

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  It is usually obvious if a word ends in a sibilant. ch is unusual in the large number of options, resulting from this digraph being used for a range of different purposes in different languages that we have borrowed, and using it in English in different ways for words of different origins. E.g. sandwich is of Norse origin, but loch and quaich are of Scots Gaelic origin. I once looked this rule up in the OED and it said it depended on if the ch was "soft" or "hard". Given the range of possibilities, I looked up these words, but, ironically, it did not define them in this sense!
  
  – David Robinson
  Mar 26 at 11:24
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I had seen quaiches and suspected it was wrong. I have just looked it up here /ˈkweɪx/ and here /-eɪx/ and I was very surprised as I have only ever heard /ˈkweɪç/. The extra confusion with the IPA here is that both x and ç are usually used for sibilant sounds, but in IPA they represent non-sibilants. For anyone not familiar with these sounds, /x/ is the ch in Gaelic/Scots loch or German Bach, and /ç/ is what you end up with if you try to pronounce this next to an e or i (quaich, dreich or German ich).
  
  – David Robinson
  Mar 26 at 11:43
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

The use of the spelling "-ches" in plural forms of words that end in "-ch" is based on the presence of a vowel sound before the final /z/ sound. After the sound /t͡ʃ/, the plural suffix is pronounced as /ɪz/ (or /əz/ in some accents).

But stomach does not end in the sound /t͡ʃ/: it ends in the sound /k/, and the plural ends in /ks/, with no vowel sound sound before the final /s/. This is why it is not spelled with "-es".

Compare the two spellings of the plural of conch that correspond to the two pronunciation variants.

The regular plural suffix has the pronunciation /ɪz~əz/ and the spelling "-es" after any sibilant consonant sound: /s z ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/. Words ending in these sounds can be spelled in a variety of ways, so it's simpler to think of this rule as being based on pronunciation, not on spelling.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 27 at 19:36

answered Mar 26 at 7:45

sumelicsumelic

50.8k8121228

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 27 at 19:36

answered Mar 26 at 7:45

sumelicsumelic

50.8k8121228

answered Mar 26 at 7:45

sumelicsumelic

50.8k8121228

answered Mar 26 at 7:45

sumelicsumelic

50.8k8121228

22

If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 26 at 20:40

answered Mar 26 at 7:50

Michael HarveyMichael Harvey

6,94011120

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
  
  – David Richerby
  Mar 26 at 11:08
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
  
  – Darrel Hoffman
  Mar 26 at 14:50
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
  
  – Michael Harvey
  Mar 26 at 15:28
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
  
  – Darrel Hoffman
  Mar 26 at 15:54
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  What about sassenach? I guess that reveals what TV show I've been watching....
  
  – Lambie
  Mar 26 at 20:54
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 9 more comments

22

If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 26 at 20:40

answered Mar 26 at 7:50

Michael HarveyMichael Harvey

6,94011120

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  We Richerbys aren't convinced that proper nouns are good examples of how plurals work in English. On the other hand, I suspect there won't be any more Shostakoviches, either, so maybe they aren't bad examples in this case.
  
  – David Richerby
  Mar 26 at 11:08
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Not only are all these examples proper nouns, they're also none of them English. (Nor is Shostakovich for that matter).
  
  – Darrel Hoffman
  Mar 26 at 14:50
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Loch is not a proper noun, any more than 'lake', although individual lochs may use the word as part of their name, e.g Loch Ness, and the word is definitely English.
  
  – Michael Harvey
  Mar 26 at 15:28
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  It's a borrowed word in English, but it comes from the Irish/Gaelic/Scots word for "lake". Otherwise, what is the difference between a "loch" and a "lake"? The only possible answer is whether it's in Scotland or not.
  
  – Darrel Hoffman
  Mar 26 at 15:54
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  What about sassenach? I guess that reveals what TV show I've been watching....
  
  – Lambie
  Mar 26 at 20:54
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 9 more comments

If the -ch is pronounced like 'k', there is no 'e' before a plural final 's'. The lochs of Scotland are beautiful, also the mountains called the Trossachs. In music, there will be no more Bachs. Eunuchs cannot beget monarchs, and also cannot become patriarchs or, probably, the husbands of matriarchs.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 26 at 20:40

answered Mar 26 at 7:50

Michael HarveyMichael Harvey

6,94011120

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 26 at 20:40

answered Mar 26 at 7:50

Michael HarveyMichael Harvey

6,94011120

answered Mar 26 at 7:50

Michael HarveyMichael Harvey

6,94011120

answered Mar 26 at 7:50

Michael HarveyMichael Harvey

6,94011120

-1

Stomach is English for "Stomachus" a Greek word.

As such, it can take any plural form you like as it was translated through the ages.

In Greek it has the plural: "Stomachoi"

In Latin it would be "Stomachi" and so on...

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 27 at 17:57

dimachaerusdimachaerus

1

add a comment | 

-1

Stomach is English for "Stomachus" a Greek word.

As such, it can take any plural form you like as it was translated through the ages.

In Greek it has the plural: "Stomachoi"

In Latin it would be "Stomachi" and so on...

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 27 at 17:57

dimachaerusdimachaerus

1

add a comment | 

Stomach is English for "Stomachus" a Greek word.

As such, it can take any plural form you like as it was translated through the ages.

In Greek it has the plural: "Stomachoi"

In Latin it would be "Stomachi" and so on...

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 27 at 17:57

dimachaerusdimachaerus

1

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 27 at 17:57

dimachaerusdimachaerus

1

answered Mar 27 at 17:57

dimachaerusdimachaerus

1

answered Mar 27 at 17:57

dimachaerusdimachaerus

1

-1

There are at least two reasons, one is the end sound 'k' in English words, but the other one is the plural of foreign words like stomach or Bach. The meaning of the name of the composers Bach (a family) is German for creek and the pronunciation of 'ch' is not 'k' at all but IPA 'x'. The English and German plural for the name 'Bach' is 'Bachs' (the plural of the word bach [= creek] is in fact Bäche 'ch' is IPA ç).

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 27 at 20:31

fiveyearsfiveyears

11

add a comment | 

-1

There are at least two reasons, one is the end sound 'k' in English words, but the other one is the plural of foreign words like stomach or Bach. The meaning of the name of the composers Bach (a family) is German for creek and the pronunciation of 'ch' is not 'k' at all but IPA 'x'. The English and German plural for the name 'Bach' is 'Bachs' (the plural of the word bach [= creek] is in fact Bäche 'ch' is IPA ç).

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 27 at 20:31

fiveyearsfiveyears

11

add a comment | 

There are at least two reasons, one is the end sound 'k' in English words, but the other one is the plural of foreign words like stomach or Bach. The meaning of the name of the composers Bach (a family) is German for creek and the pronunciation of 'ch' is not 'k' at all but IPA 'x'. The English and German plural for the name 'Bach' is 'Bachs' (the plural of the word bach [= creek] is in fact Bäche 'ch' is IPA ç).

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 27 at 20:31

fiveyearsfiveyears

11

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 27 at 20:31

fiveyearsfiveyears

11

answered Mar 27 at 20:31

fiveyearsfiveyears

11

answered Mar 27 at 20:31

fiveyearsfiveyears

11