Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 06:50 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 06:50
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
User avatar
sayantanc2k
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Last visit: 09 Dec 2022
Posts: 2,393
Own Kudos:
15,523
 [4]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Expert
Expert reply
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Posts: 2,393
Kudos: 15,523
 [4]
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 30 Jan 2018, 05:49
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sdlife
Hi Experts,

I have a question on verb tense in choice C. In some of the posts here, it says that "writing to the historian Tacitus an account of the great " -- use of this participle phrase make it seem like the nephew is still writing. Could you tell me how we check tenses in the present participle phrases? My understanding is that if present participle comes with a helping verb then it means it's a present continuous tense, but if it doesn't (example in this question), how do we determine when its usage is correct and when it's not? Thank you!

GMATNinja, sayantanc2k

Thanks much!
Show more

The present participle generally takes up the tense of the main verb of the sentence:

Looking at the site, I could say that something was wrong... (looking occured in past)
Looking at the sun, I can determine direction... (looking occurs in present)
Looking at your peer review, I shall decide whether to promote you. (looking will happen in future).

There is a special type of participle called perfect participle - having + perfect. This form is used to depict that something occured in past AFTER completion of the event in perfect participle.

Having eaten the snacks, we left for the station... (leaving for station ocuured AFTER eating occured- compare with the use of past perfect)
User avatar
ArtVandaley
User avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Last visit: 05 Feb 2022
Posts: 286
Own Kudos:
423
Given Kudos: 120
Location: India
Schools: Darden '23 Sloan '22
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Schools: Darden '23 Sloan '22
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
Posts: 286
Kudos: 423
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 17 May 2019, 01:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry Is the usage of "only" correct here? Shouldnt it be "Only the eyewitness accounts" and not "the only eyewitness accounts"?
User avatar
MagooshExpert
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Last visit: 15 Jan 2020
Posts: 231
Own Kudos:
436
Given Kudos: 20
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 231
Kudos: 436
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 26 May 2019, 13:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
darshak1
mikemcgarry Is the usage of "only" correct here? Shouldnt it be "Only the eyewitness accounts" and not "the only eyewitness accounts"?
Show more
Hi darshak1,

I can respond for Mike here :)

Nope, "the only eyewitness account" is correct here :) The "only" should touch the word it is referring to. Here, we are saying that these eyewitness account is the ONLY one that exists. So "only" refers to "eyewitness account".

If instead we had:

Pliny's nephew wrote only the eyewitness accounts...

then we would be saying that the only things that Pliny's nephew wrote was the eyewitness account (so "only" refers here to "wrote"). That would mean that Pliny's nephew didn't write anything except for the eyewitness account, which is not what the sentence should be saying.

I hope that helps! :)
-Carolyn
User avatar
Brego
User avatar
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Last visit: 21 Aug 2019
Posts: 27
Own Kudos:
6
 [1]
Given Kudos: 203
Posts: 27
Kudos: 6
 [1]
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 01 Jul 2019, 05:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EducationAisle

Does moving a preposition to the beginning of the sentence closed off by commas make it adverbial preposition? Can adjective preposition be at the opening modifier closed off by commas?

For example - The book on the table is hidden. "on the table" is modifying book so it is adjective preposition

On the table, the book is hidden. "on the table" becomes adverbial preposition describing where the book is hidden. Am I correct in my thinking?

So, an adjective preposition cannot be moved at the beginning of the sentence closed off by commas but adverbial can? Are there any instances where preposition is closed off by commas at the beginning of the sentence but it is adverb?

Thank you

Is this why choice E is correct because it shows that the preposition is adverb rather than adjective?

Thank you
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [1]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [1]
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 01 Jul 2019, 09:22
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Your understanding seems to be broadly correct. Prepositional phrases at the beginning of a clause are adverbial modifiers.
User avatar
Brego
User avatar
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Last visit: 21 Aug 2019
Posts: 27
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 203
Posts: 27
Kudos: 6
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 01 Jul 2019, 09:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EducationAisle

Can you elaborate on what broadly correct means? Is there something in my explanation that is wrong? Because I will take my GMAT soon and want to be sure about the rules of adverb vs adjective prepositions.

I appreciate your answers. Thank you for your help
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 01 Jul 2019, 09:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi! your understanding about prepositional phrases at the beginning of the clause, acting as adverbial modifiers, is correct.

Just that "an adjective prepositional phrase" can be moved to the beginning of the clause; just that in that case, it becomes adverbial. I believe this is your understanding as well.
User avatar
CEdward
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 1,203
Own Kudos:
272
Given Kudos: 332
Posts: 1,203
Kudos: 272
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 14 Dec 2020, 11:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
Quote:
(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
I’ll be honest: I don’t immediately see any completely horrible problems with (A). So I wouldn’t eliminate it immediately... but I would immediately think of beer, because Pliny the Elder is pretty tasty. The beer, not the Roman philosopher. Maybe he was tasty too, but judging by the pictures, he wasn't really my type.

This explanation is already off the rails. Let's keep (A) for now, and we’ll line it up with the other tempting choice before we pick a final answer. :)

Quote:
(B) To the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters, being the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
(B) is basically a diaper fire. (Not that I’ve ever seen or smelled a diaper fire. But I’ve been around a lot of diapers lately, and a diaper fire can’t be good.)

For starters, I can’t figure out why the phrase “to the historian Tacitus” would appear before “the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters.” Why not just say that the nephew “wrote two letters to the historian Tacitus”…?

The bigger problem is the phrase beginning with “being.” It’s a hot mess: I guess “being” is trying to act as a modifier for “two letters.” But since it comes after a comma, “being” is acting as an “-ing” modifier for the previous clause, “the nephew… wrote two letters”, and that doesn’t make any sense, since the nephew is the subject of the clause, and the nephew can’t possibly be “the only eyewitness accounts.”

In other words: why not just say “two letters that were the only eyewitness accounts”, instead of messing with that ugly “being” modifier?

So (B) is out.

Quote:
(C) The only eyewitness account is in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the Elder writing to the historian Tacitus an account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
(C) is also pretty darned confusing. The biggest problem is that “the only eyewitness account” is the subject of the sentence, and it’s nowhere near the phrase “an account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.” So now the sentence arguably says that the only eyewitness account – like, of anything, EVER – was in the two letters. And that makes no sense.

A smaller issue is the phrase “… in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the Elder writing to the historian Tacitus…” For starters, you could argue that it sounds like the letters are doing the writing, and that doesn’t make sense. And even if you’re not sure about that part, there’s absolutely no reason to use the word “writing” there at all – of course the letters were written by somebody.

So we can ditch (C).

Quote:
(D) Writing the only eyewitness account, Pliny the Elder’s nephew accounted for the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
This isn’t completely horrible, but it’s not great, either. For starters, the “eyewitness account” is a long way from the phrase “eruption of Vesuvius”, and that makes the sentence much less clear: as you read the beginning of the sentence, it sounds like Pliny’s nephew might have written the only eyewitness account of anything, EVER. Or at the very least, it’s not clear what event the “eyewitness account” is describing until we’re much deeper into the sentence.

I’m also uncomfortable with the phrase “Pliny the Elder’s nephew accounted for the great eruption of Vesuvius…” That literally sounds like Pliny’s nephew might have somehow caused the eruption (consider the phrase “poor planning accounted for the firm’s failure to achieve profitability”, for example). You definitely wouldn’t use the phrase “accounted for” just to say that he wrote a description of the eruption.

So it’s safe to eliminate (D), especially since (A) and (E) are better options.

Speaking of (A) and (E)…

Quote:
(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
(E) In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.

Both of these do a nice thing: they make it clear that the eyewitness account is of the great eruption of Vesuvius, and that makes them better options than the other three answer choices.

The only difference between (A) and (E) is the placement of the phrase “in two letters to the historian Tacitus” – and that phrase should logically describe “the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote…” And the sentence is just a little bit clearer if the modifier “in two letters to the historian Tacitus” appears right at the beginning of the sentence. In (A), the modifier is just too far away from phrase “the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote…”

So (E) is our winner.
Show more

GMATNinja I am inclined to think that A is the best answer here.
If we were to take away the two intervening prepositional modifiers in A, then the sentence would effectively read as follows:

The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account in two letters to the historian Tacitus.

Which still makes sense.

I think E is a bit non-sensical, one reading of it suggests that the nephew is physically in the two letters...that makes no sense.

Your thoughts?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,783
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,783
 [2]
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 25 Jan 2021, 15:48
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
CEdward

GMATNinja I am inclined to think that A is the best answer here.
If we were to take away the two intervening prepositional modifiers in A, then the sentence would effectively read as follows:

The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account in two letters to the historian Tacitus.

Which still makes sense.

I think E is a bit non-sensical, one reading of it suggests that the nephew is physically in the two letters...that makes no sense.

Your thoughts?
Show more
(A) vs (E) really comes down to the placement of a prepositional phrase. To see how moving this type of modifier around can impact a sentence, consider a couple of examples:

    1) Tim gestured frantically at the woman with a flag.

At first glance, this doesn't seem terrible. Tim is gesturing at a woman. And the woman has a flag. But if you read it again, another interpretation comes to mind: Tim is using the flag to gesture at the woman. The ambiguity comes from the fact that the prepositional phrase "with a flag" could either be describing a noun, "the woman," or an action, "gestured."

This isn't WRONG, necessarily. But it's less than ideal.

Now consider:

    2) With a flag, Tim gestured frantically at the woman.

Now there's only one interpretation: Tim was using the flag to gesture at this poor woman, who is likely wondering why Tim doesn't just say, "excuse me." The difference is that when a prepositional phrase begins a sentence, it nearly always modifies the action of the ensuing clause.

So while sentence 1 doesn't contain a concrete error, sentence 2 is clearer, and therefore, better.

Same issue when comparing (A) to (E). In (A), we have the following:

Quote:
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters
Show more
If you read this a little too quickly, you might get confused about that phrase "in two letters." It would be very hard to fit an entire volcano named Vesuvius into two letters, so you need to reread the sentence to figure out that the phrase must be describing the action "wrote." Like our first example above, this isn't wrong, but it's not ideal either.

Contrast that with (E):

Quote:
In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
Show more
Now, because the prepositional phrase occurs at the very beginning of the sentence, we know it's going to modify the verb, "wrote." There's no other possible interpretation for what the modifier could be doing.

So while (A) doesn't contain a concrete error, (E) is a superior option.

It's a good reminder that SC isn't always about right vs wrong, but is more about identifying the best of the bunch.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
Scuven
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jun 2018
Last visit: 06 Mar 2023
Posts: 60
Own Kudos:
29
Given Kudos: 143
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V35
GMAT 2: 490 Q25 V32
GMAT 2: 490 Q25 V32
Posts: 60
Kudos: 29
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 09 Apr 2021, 14:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
Quote:
(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
I’ll be honest: I don’t immediately see any completely horrible problems with (A). So I wouldn’t eliminate it immediately... but I would immediately think of beer, because Pliny the Elder is pretty tasty. The beer, not the Roman philosopher. Maybe he was tasty too, but judging by the pictures, he wasn't really my type.

This explanation is already off the rails. Let's keep (A) for now, and we’ll line it up with the other tempting choice before we pick a final answer. :)

Quote:
(B) To the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters, being the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
(B) is basically a diaper fire. (Not that I’ve ever seen or smelled a diaper fire. But I’ve been around a lot of diapers lately, and a diaper fire can’t be good.)

For starters, I can’t figure out why the phrase “to the historian Tacitus” would appear before “the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters.” Why not just say that the nephew “wrote two letters to the historian Tacitus”…?

The bigger problem is the phrase beginning with “being.” It’s a hot mess: I guess “being” is trying to act as a modifier for “two letters.” But since it comes after a comma, “being” is acting as an “-ing” modifier for the previous clause, “the nephew… wrote two letters”, and that doesn’t make any sense, since the nephew is the subject of the clause, and the nephew can’t possibly be “the only eyewitness accounts.”

In other words: why not just say “two letters that were the only eyewitness accounts”, instead of messing with that ugly “being” modifier?

So (B) is out.

Quote:
(C) The only eyewitness account is in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the Elder writing to the historian Tacitus an account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
(C) is also pretty darned confusing. The biggest problem is that “the only eyewitness account” is the subject of the sentence, and it’s nowhere near the phrase “an account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.” So now the sentence arguably says that the only eyewitness account – like, of anything, EVER – was in the two letters. And that makes no sense.

A smaller issue is the phrase “… in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the Elder writing to the historian Tacitus…” For starters, you could argue that it sounds like the letters are doing the writing, and that doesn’t make sense. And even if you’re not sure about that part, there’s absolutely no reason to use the word “writing” there at all – of course the letters were written by somebody.

So we can ditch (C).

Quote:
(D) Writing the only eyewitness account, Pliny the Elder’s nephew accounted for the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
This isn’t completely horrible, but it’s not great, either. For starters, the “eyewitness account” is a long way from the phrase “eruption of Vesuvius”, and that makes the sentence much less clear: as you read the beginning of the sentence, it sounds like Pliny’s nephew might have written the only eyewitness account of anything, EVER. Or at the very least, it’s not clear what event the “eyewitness account” is describing until we’re much deeper into the sentence.

I’m also uncomfortable with the phrase “Pliny the Elder’s nephew accounted for the great eruption of Vesuvius…” That literally sounds like Pliny’s nephew might have somehow caused the eruption (consider the phrase “poor planning accounted for the firm’s failure to achieve profitability”, for example). You definitely wouldn’t use the phrase “accounted for” just to say that he wrote a description of the eruption.

So it’s safe to eliminate (D), especially since (A) and (E) are better options.

Speaking of (A) and (E)…

Quote:
(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
(E) In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.

Both of these do a nice thing: they make it clear that the eyewitness account is of the great eruption of Vesuvius, and that makes them better options than the other three answer choices.

The only difference between (A) and (E) is the placement of the phrase “in two letters to the historian Tacitus” – and that phrase should logically describe “the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote…” And the sentence is just a little bit clearer if the modifier “in two letters to the historian Tacitus” appears right at the beginning of the sentence. In (A), the modifier is just too far away from phrase “the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote…”

So (E) is our winner.
Show more

Just a question, why "in two letters to the historian Tacitus" in E is not considered a fragment? I excluded it because I thought it was a fragment since there was no verb
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,783
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,783
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 21 Apr 2021, 20:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Just a question, why "in two letters to the historian Tacitus" in E is not considered a fragment? I excluded it because I thought it was a fragment since there was no verb
Show more
The phrase you're referring to is a fragment, but it's fine if a modifying phrase doesn't have a verb, so long as there's a main clause somewhere.

If I write, "On Wednesdays," clearly, I have a fragment that can't stand on its own. But check out this one:

    "On Wednesdays, Tim takes his kids to the circus where they tremble in fear as the clowns stare them down and cackle with glee."

Now we have a complete sentence. "On Wednesdays," is giving us information about the main clause, and tells us when Tim takes his kids to the circus.

Same deal in (E). "In two letters to the historian Tacitus" can't stand on its own, but it doesn't have to. It's a modifier giving us information about the main clause, telling us where the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote his eyewitness account. This is fine. Not everything in a sentence has to contain a verb, so long as the main clause does.

I hope that clears things up!
User avatar
Namangupta1997
User avatar
Joined: 23 Oct 2020
Last visit: 05 Apr 2025
Posts: 145
Own Kudos:
8
Given Kudos: 63
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Posts: 145
Kudos: 8
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 31 Mar 2022, 11:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In the last option, modifier " In the letters.." is placed right next to the subject nephew. Isn't this construction falsely conveying that the nephew was present physically in the letters ?

What am I missing ?
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 31 Mar 2022, 22:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Namangupta1997

Like many prepositions, "in" can create two kinds of modifiers: noun modifier or adverbial modifiers. In this case, we have an adverbial modifier, so it modifies the action or clause. As long as it fits with the statement that follows, it doesn't need to be physically adjacent to the verb; in fact, usually it won't be. Where did the nephew write? In two letters.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 21 Nov 2022, 06:04
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Verbal review 2018 - Official question
Attachments

screenshot 5.jpg
screenshot 5.jpg [ 80.06 KiB | Viewed 3408 times ]

User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,833
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,833
Kudos: 986
The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the 27 Nov 2023, 22:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
188 posts