Is there a nicer/politer/more positive alternative for “negates”?Positive alternative to “ominous”A positive alternative to 'harp'What's the word for “too many but not good enough”?More fitting alternative for 'air-raid'What is the meaning of: “If we offend, it is with our good will”Is there a more positive alternative to the word “inevitability”?“within the context” of a workshop - synonymsNicer word for inquisitorA more positive word for “co-conspirator”?Isn't there a simple adverb for the opposite of 'loudly'?

Can you use Vicious Mockery to win an argument or gain favours?

Giving feedback to someone without sounding prejudiced

What does "Scientists rise up against statistical significance" mean? (Comment in Nature)

Taxes on Dividends in a Roth IRA

Does the reader need to like the PoV character?

The Digit Triangles

Did the UK lift the requirement for registering SIM cards?

Is it allowed to activate the ability of multiple planeswalkers in a single turn?

Temporarily disable WLAN internet access for children, but allow it for adults

How can ping know if my host is down

What does Apple's new App Store requirement mean

How to draw a matrix with arrows in limited space

Merge org tables

Shouldn’t conservatives embrace universal basic income?

The IT department bottlenecks progress, how should I handle this?

A Trivial Diagnosis

Find the next value of this number series

Confused about Cramer-Rao lower bound and CLT

What is the English pronunciation of "pain au chocolat"?

Will number of steps recorded on FitBit/any fitness tracker add up distance in PokemonGo?

Make a Bowl of Alphabet Soup

What to do when eye contact makes your coworker uncomfortable?

What is going on with gets(stdin) on the site coderbyte?

Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?



Is there a nicer/politer/more positive alternative for “negates”?


Positive alternative to “ominous”A positive alternative to 'harp'What's the word for “too many but not good enough”?More fitting alternative for 'air-raid'What is the meaning of: “If we offend, it is with our good will”Is there a more positive alternative to the word “inevitability”?“within the context” of a workshop - synonymsNicer word for inquisitorA more positive word for “co-conspirator”?Isn't there a simple adverb for the opposite of 'loudly'?













2















I have somewhere the following sentence:




our platform negates the need for a middleman ...




but I do not want to offend or upset the middlemen whomever it is ... there are many middlemen in the context I'm reffering to there.



The question is how can I replace "negate" that is too abrupt, radical and may upset people with something more reasonable?



Would "diminishes" be a good alternative? other suggestions?










share|improve this question







New contributor




SkyWalker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • How about "offsets"?

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago






  • 3





    “Eliminates the middleman” is a common phrase, but i don’t see how that would make the middleman any happier.

    – Damila
    4 hours ago











  • If you're trying not to offend the middlemen that you're trying to eliminate, I suspect that it's not a matter of word choice (put away the thesaurus) but of phrasing. As Paul S. Lee notes below, you may need to avoid explicitly saying that you're getting rid of them, and instead put some positive spin on how you're saying it. That said, as @Damila said, "cutting out the middleman" is a very common expression, and you might get away with using it if your audience doesn't realize that you're using it completely literally.

    – A C
    54 mins ago















2















I have somewhere the following sentence:




our platform negates the need for a middleman ...




but I do not want to offend or upset the middlemen whomever it is ... there are many middlemen in the context I'm reffering to there.



The question is how can I replace "negate" that is too abrupt, radical and may upset people with something more reasonable?



Would "diminishes" be a good alternative? other suggestions?










share|improve this question







New contributor




SkyWalker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • How about "offsets"?

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago






  • 3





    “Eliminates the middleman” is a common phrase, but i don’t see how that would make the middleman any happier.

    – Damila
    4 hours ago











  • If you're trying not to offend the middlemen that you're trying to eliminate, I suspect that it's not a matter of word choice (put away the thesaurus) but of phrasing. As Paul S. Lee notes below, you may need to avoid explicitly saying that you're getting rid of them, and instead put some positive spin on how you're saying it. That said, as @Damila said, "cutting out the middleman" is a very common expression, and you might get away with using it if your audience doesn't realize that you're using it completely literally.

    – A C
    54 mins ago













2












2








2








I have somewhere the following sentence:




our platform negates the need for a middleman ...




but I do not want to offend or upset the middlemen whomever it is ... there are many middlemen in the context I'm reffering to there.



The question is how can I replace "negate" that is too abrupt, radical and may upset people with something more reasonable?



Would "diminishes" be a good alternative? other suggestions?










share|improve this question







New contributor




SkyWalker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I have somewhere the following sentence:




our platform negates the need for a middleman ...




but I do not want to offend or upset the middlemen whomever it is ... there are many middlemen in the context I'm reffering to there.



The question is how can I replace "negate" that is too abrupt, radical and may upset people with something more reasonable?



Would "diminishes" be a good alternative? other suggestions?







single-word-requests meaning synonyms






share|improve this question







New contributor




SkyWalker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




SkyWalker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




SkyWalker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









SkyWalkerSkyWalker

1112




1112




New contributor




SkyWalker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





SkyWalker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






SkyWalker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • How about "offsets"?

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago






  • 3





    “Eliminates the middleman” is a common phrase, but i don’t see how that would make the middleman any happier.

    – Damila
    4 hours ago











  • If you're trying not to offend the middlemen that you're trying to eliminate, I suspect that it's not a matter of word choice (put away the thesaurus) but of phrasing. As Paul S. Lee notes below, you may need to avoid explicitly saying that you're getting rid of them, and instead put some positive spin on how you're saying it. That said, as @Damila said, "cutting out the middleman" is a very common expression, and you might get away with using it if your audience doesn't realize that you're using it completely literally.

    – A C
    54 mins ago

















  • How about "offsets"?

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago






  • 3





    “Eliminates the middleman” is a common phrase, but i don’t see how that would make the middleman any happier.

    – Damila
    4 hours ago











  • If you're trying not to offend the middlemen that you're trying to eliminate, I suspect that it's not a matter of word choice (put away the thesaurus) but of phrasing. As Paul S. Lee notes below, you may need to avoid explicitly saying that you're getting rid of them, and instead put some positive spin on how you're saying it. That said, as @Damila said, "cutting out the middleman" is a very common expression, and you might get away with using it if your audience doesn't realize that you're using it completely literally.

    – A C
    54 mins ago
















How about "offsets"?

– Hot Licks
4 hours ago





How about "offsets"?

– Hot Licks
4 hours ago




3




3





“Eliminates the middleman” is a common phrase, but i don’t see how that would make the middleman any happier.

– Damila
4 hours ago





“Eliminates the middleman” is a common phrase, but i don’t see how that would make the middleman any happier.

– Damila
4 hours ago













If you're trying not to offend the middlemen that you're trying to eliminate, I suspect that it's not a matter of word choice (put away the thesaurus) but of phrasing. As Paul S. Lee notes below, you may need to avoid explicitly saying that you're getting rid of them, and instead put some positive spin on how you're saying it. That said, as @Damila said, "cutting out the middleman" is a very common expression, and you might get away with using it if your audience doesn't realize that you're using it completely literally.

– A C
54 mins ago





If you're trying not to offend the middlemen that you're trying to eliminate, I suspect that it's not a matter of word choice (put away the thesaurus) but of phrasing. As Paul S. Lee notes below, you may need to avoid explicitly saying that you're getting rid of them, and instead put some positive spin on how you're saying it. That said, as @Damila said, "cutting out the middleman" is a very common expression, and you might get away with using it if your audience doesn't realize that you're using it completely literally.

– A C
54 mins ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















4














A (somewhat formal/technical) term used in such situations is obviate.




our platform obviates the need for a middleman ...




ODO:




obviate
VERB [WITH OBJECT]
1 Remove (a need or difficulty)



‘the presence of roller blinds obviated the need for curtains’







share|improve this answer























  • 'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

    – Hugh
    2 hours ago


















1














I'd say:
Our platform allows you to forgo the middleman.
(Positive language, as opposed to negative.)






share|improve this answer








New contributor




ElG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

    – Jim
    1 hour ago











  • I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

    – Paul S. Lee
    1 hour ago


















1














I'm in IT development, where our raison d'etre is to automate business processes which often put some people out of job. The standard approach we use to sell IT projects when we cannot outright eliminate the jobs is to empower them to do more value-added service to the business because with automation they have more time to do so.



I don't know your situation. If the middleman can be re-purposed you can say "our platform frees the middleman from administrative duties to empower them for ..."



EDIT: I didn't notice that Elliot already suggested the same thing.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



























    0














    For one, I'd say if the need is only diminished then the platform has does not do the whole job. You are only ending the Need for the middleman. You are not taking them away and chopping them up. There are surely better things for them to go and do.



    For alternatives you could use "Removes" or "Eliminates" the need. If you hope to be very gentle you could "relieve" the need for the middleman but that would be an odd choice.



    Or get around it by "replacing" the middleman or 'Doing the job of the middleman'. In any case you are selling a function or product. It's impact on individuals is not part of the design or construction of the item.






    share|improve this answer






















      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
      );



      );






      SkyWalker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f490767%2fis-there-a-nicer-politer-more-positive-alternative-for-negates%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      4














      A (somewhat formal/technical) term used in such situations is obviate.




      our platform obviates the need for a middleman ...




      ODO:




      obviate
      VERB [WITH OBJECT]
      1 Remove (a need or difficulty)



      ‘the presence of roller blinds obviated the need for curtains’







      share|improve this answer























      • 'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

        – Hugh
        2 hours ago















      4














      A (somewhat formal/technical) term used in such situations is obviate.




      our platform obviates the need for a middleman ...




      ODO:




      obviate
      VERB [WITH OBJECT]
      1 Remove (a need or difficulty)



      ‘the presence of roller blinds obviated the need for curtains’







      share|improve this answer























      • 'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

        – Hugh
        2 hours ago













      4












      4








      4







      A (somewhat formal/technical) term used in such situations is obviate.




      our platform obviates the need for a middleman ...




      ODO:




      obviate
      VERB [WITH OBJECT]
      1 Remove (a need or difficulty)



      ‘the presence of roller blinds obviated the need for curtains’







      share|improve this answer













      A (somewhat formal/technical) term used in such situations is obviate.




      our platform obviates the need for a middleman ...




      ODO:




      obviate
      VERB [WITH OBJECT]
      1 Remove (a need or difficulty)



      ‘the presence of roller blinds obviated the need for curtains’








      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 4 hours ago









      alwayslearningalwayslearning

      26.4k63894




      26.4k63894












      • 'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

        – Hugh
        2 hours ago

















      • 'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

        – Hugh
        2 hours ago
















      'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

      – Hugh
      2 hours ago





      'Obviates' is another way of saying 'by-passes,' using Latin roots.

      – Hugh
      2 hours ago













      1














      I'd say:
      Our platform allows you to forgo the middleman.
      (Positive language, as opposed to negative.)






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      ElG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















      • Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

        – Jim
        1 hour ago











      • I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

        – Paul S. Lee
        1 hour ago















      1














      I'd say:
      Our platform allows you to forgo the middleman.
      (Positive language, as opposed to negative.)






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      ElG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















      • Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

        – Jim
        1 hour ago











      • I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

        – Paul S. Lee
        1 hour ago













      1












      1








      1







      I'd say:
      Our platform allows you to forgo the middleman.
      (Positive language, as opposed to negative.)






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      ElG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.










      I'd say:
      Our platform allows you to forgo the middleman.
      (Positive language, as opposed to negative.)







      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      ElG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer






      New contributor




      ElG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered 4 hours ago









      ElGElG

      111




      111




      New contributor




      ElG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      ElG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      ElG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      • Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

        – Jim
        1 hour ago











      • I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

        – Paul S. Lee
        1 hour ago

















      • Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

        – Jim
        1 hour ago











      • I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

        – Paul S. Lee
        1 hour ago
















      Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

      – Jim
      1 hour ago





      Or even: Our platform allows you to go straight to the <source, end customer, whatever> or gives you direct access to, allows direct interaction with... don’t mention middlemen at all.

      – Jim
      1 hour ago













      I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

      – Paul S. Lee
      1 hour ago





      I like this answer since "allows you" shifts the attention to the purchaser of the platform / end user.

      – Paul S. Lee
      1 hour ago











      1














      I'm in IT development, where our raison d'etre is to automate business processes which often put some people out of job. The standard approach we use to sell IT projects when we cannot outright eliminate the jobs is to empower them to do more value-added service to the business because with automation they have more time to do so.



      I don't know your situation. If the middleman can be re-purposed you can say "our platform frees the middleman from administrative duties to empower them for ..."



      EDIT: I didn't notice that Elliot already suggested the same thing.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.
























        1














        I'm in IT development, where our raison d'etre is to automate business processes which often put some people out of job. The standard approach we use to sell IT projects when we cannot outright eliminate the jobs is to empower them to do more value-added service to the business because with automation they have more time to do so.



        I don't know your situation. If the middleman can be re-purposed you can say "our platform frees the middleman from administrative duties to empower them for ..."



        EDIT: I didn't notice that Elliot already suggested the same thing.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          1












          1








          1







          I'm in IT development, where our raison d'etre is to automate business processes which often put some people out of job. The standard approach we use to sell IT projects when we cannot outright eliminate the jobs is to empower them to do more value-added service to the business because with automation they have more time to do so.



          I don't know your situation. If the middleman can be re-purposed you can say "our platform frees the middleman from administrative duties to empower them for ..."



          EDIT: I didn't notice that Elliot already suggested the same thing.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.










          I'm in IT development, where our raison d'etre is to automate business processes which often put some people out of job. The standard approach we use to sell IT projects when we cannot outright eliminate the jobs is to empower them to do more value-added service to the business because with automation they have more time to do so.



          I don't know your situation. If the middleman can be re-purposed you can say "our platform frees the middleman from administrative duties to empower them for ..."



          EDIT: I didn't notice that Elliot already suggested the same thing.







          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer






          New contributor




          Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered 2 hours ago









          Paul S. LeePaul S. Lee

          1244




          1244




          New contributor




          Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





















              0














              For one, I'd say if the need is only diminished then the platform has does not do the whole job. You are only ending the Need for the middleman. You are not taking them away and chopping them up. There are surely better things for them to go and do.



              For alternatives you could use "Removes" or "Eliminates" the need. If you hope to be very gentle you could "relieve" the need for the middleman but that would be an odd choice.



              Or get around it by "replacing" the middleman or 'Doing the job of the middleman'. In any case you are selling a function or product. It's impact on individuals is not part of the design or construction of the item.






              share|improve this answer



























                0














                For one, I'd say if the need is only diminished then the platform has does not do the whole job. You are only ending the Need for the middleman. You are not taking them away and chopping them up. There are surely better things for them to go and do.



                For alternatives you could use "Removes" or "Eliminates" the need. If you hope to be very gentle you could "relieve" the need for the middleman but that would be an odd choice.



                Or get around it by "replacing" the middleman or 'Doing the job of the middleman'. In any case you are selling a function or product. It's impact on individuals is not part of the design or construction of the item.






                share|improve this answer

























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  For one, I'd say if the need is only diminished then the platform has does not do the whole job. You are only ending the Need for the middleman. You are not taking them away and chopping them up. There are surely better things for them to go and do.



                  For alternatives you could use "Removes" or "Eliminates" the need. If you hope to be very gentle you could "relieve" the need for the middleman but that would be an odd choice.



                  Or get around it by "replacing" the middleman or 'Doing the job of the middleman'. In any case you are selling a function or product. It's impact on individuals is not part of the design or construction of the item.






                  share|improve this answer













                  For one, I'd say if the need is only diminished then the platform has does not do the whole job. You are only ending the Need for the middleman. You are not taking them away and chopping them up. There are surely better things for them to go and do.



                  For alternatives you could use "Removes" or "Eliminates" the need. If you hope to be very gentle you could "relieve" the need for the middleman but that would be an odd choice.



                  Or get around it by "replacing" the middleman or 'Doing the job of the middleman'. In any case you are selling a function or product. It's impact on individuals is not part of the design or construction of the item.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 4 hours ago









                  ElliotElliot

                  742




                  742




















                      SkyWalker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      SkyWalker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      SkyWalker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                      SkyWalker is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                      Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f490767%2fis-there-a-nicer-politer-more-positive-alternative-for-negates%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Станькаў Зьмест Назва | Гісторыя | Насельніцтва | Турыстычная інфармацыя | Галерэя | Асобы | Заўвагі | Крыніцы | Літаратура | Вонкавыя спасылкі | Навігацыйнае мэню53°37′48″ пн. ш. 27°13′40″ у. д. / 53.63° пн. ш. 27.22778° у. д. / 53.63; 27.2277853°37′48″ пн. ш. 27°13′40″ у. д. / 53.63° пн. ш. 27.22778° у. д. / 53.63; 27.22778djvu"Бабёнка – это я понимаю!". Як русіфікавалі тапонімы.Святыя руіны ажываюць210Станькаўв. СтанькаваСтаньково: история и новости - сайт деревниСтанькава: сядзіба Гутэн-Чапскіхррр

                      J. J. Abrams Índice Traxectoria | Filmografía | Premios | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióne"J.J. Abrams: Biography"Arquivado"'Star Trek' sequel on track"Arquivado"J.J. Abrams Producing Samurai Jack Movie"Arquivado"EXCLUSIVE: J.J. Abrams Goes Into Warp Speed with Star Trek and Beyond"Arquivado"David Semel To Direct Jonah Nolan/J.J. Abrams' CBS Pilot 'Person Of Interest'"Arquivado"Fox orders J.J. Abrams pilot 'Alcatraz'"ArquivadoJ. J. AbramsJ. J. AbramsWorldCat81800131p24091041000XX116709414031616ma11226833654496ID052246713376222X511412nm00091900000 0001 1772 5428no98124254ID0000002883100650044xx0054597000141374297344064w64f2mjx14255303415344

                      Першая сусьветная вайна Зьмест Чыньнікі | Асноўныя падзеі | Беларусь у гады вайны | Балянс вайны | Глядзіце таксама | Крыніцы | Вонкавыя спасылкі | Навігацыйнае мэнюПершая сусьветная вайна: памяць павінна жыць124 (27489)41990-763xЗападный мир отмечает 90 лет со дня окончания Первой мировой войныПершая сусьветная вайнаСпадчына Першай сусьветнай вайныГісторыя вайныАрхіў дакумэнтаў вайныМапы Эўропы ў ходзе вайныГісторыя пад знакам Пагоні/Першая сусветная вайна і Беларусь