Ruud Harmsen wrote:

> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive users. Or
> so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written RE: by MS) is
> NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word (although it can be that,
> too), but an RFC prescribed CODE (which includes the colon), so it is
> untranslatable, and must always remain what it is, verbatim.

Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 06/04/24 19:19, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 08:15:15 +0000, Paul Carmichael escribió:
>
>> https://wibble.paulc.es/aue/sig.png
>>
>> (it's a picture of what I see).
>
> This is weird: https://wibble.paulc.es/aue/sig2.png
>
> It seems Pan strips the text leaving only the url.

Interesting. This is a major distortion of what my signature says. It
sounds as if Pan is seriously buggy.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 2024-04-06 08:37:34 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:

> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive users. Or
>> so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written RE: by MS) is
>> NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word (although it can be that,
>> too), but an RFC prescribed CODE (which includes the colon), so it is
>> untranslatable, and must always remain what it is, verbatim.
>
> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?

Yes of course: ablative singular. I see that Ruud is back to telling
people how they _must_ behave.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 06/04/24 19:37, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive users.
>> Or so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written RE: by MS)
>> is NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word (although it can be
>> that, too), but an RFC prescribed CODE (which includes the colon),
>> so it is untranslatable, and must always remain what it is,
>> verbatim.
>
> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?

Etymonline agrees with you:
"with reference to," used from c. 1700 in legalese, from Latin (in) re
"in the matter of," from ablative of res "property, goods; matter,
thing, affair,"

[plus some stuff tracing it further back].

Oh, I now see that etymonline also says "Its non-legalese use is
execrated by Fowler in three different sections of "Modern English
Usage." But Fowler was writing before the e-mail standards were formulated.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Athel Cornish-Bowden was thinking very hard :
> On 2024-04-06 08:37:34 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:
>
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive users. Or
>>> so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written RE: by MS) is
>>> NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word (although it can be that,
>>> too), but an RFC prescribed CODE (which includes the colon), so it is
>>> untranslatable, and must always remain what it is, verbatim.
>>
>> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?
>
> Yes of course: ablative singular. I see that Ruud is back to telling people
> how they _must_ behave.

I think here he is trying to MS how to behave.

-d

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

Peter Moylan used thar keyboard to writen:
> On 06/04/24 19:37, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive users.
>>> Or so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written RE: by MS)
>>> is NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word (although it can be
>>> that, too), but an RFC prescribed CODE (which includes the colon),
>>> so it is untranslatable, and must always remain what it is,
>>> verbatim.
>>
>> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?
>
> Etymonline agrees with you:
> "with reference to," used from c. 1700 in legalese, from Latin (in) re
> "in the matter of," from ablative of res "property, goods; matter,
> thing, affair,"
>
> [plus some stuff tracing it further back].
>
> Oh, I now see that etymonline also says "Its non-legalese use is
> execrated by Fowler in three different sections of "Modern English
> Usage." But Fowler was writing before the e-mail standards were formulated.

For me, its non-legalese showed up in memos, and AFAICT that also
predated email standards.

/dps "And RFP predates the internet, no?"

--
"First thing in the morning, before I have coffee, I read the obits, If
I'm not in it, I'll have breakfast." -- Carl Reiner, to CBS News in
2015.

On 2024-04-06 09:00:54 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 06/04/24 19:37, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive users.
>>> Or so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written RE: by MS)
>>> is NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word (although it can be
>>> that, too), but an RFC prescribed CODE (which includes the colon),
>>> so it is untranslatable, and must always remain what it is,
>>> verbatim.
>>
>> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?
>
> Etymonline agrees with you:
> "with reference to," used from c. 1700 in legalese, from Latin (in) re
> "in the matter of," from ablative of res "property, goods; matter,
> thing, affair,"

I also thought it was "in re" followed by a genitive noun, but I didn't
find a justification for the "in" in the Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary so I didn't mention it. Of course, English nouns don't have
genitive case, so we need an "of".
>
> [plus some stuff tracing it further back].
>
> Oh, I now see that etymonline also says "Its non-legalese use is
> execrated by Fowler in three different sections of "Modern English
> Usage." But Fowler was writing before the e-mail standards were formulated.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:45:46 +1100, Peter Moylan escribió:

> On 06/04/24 19:19, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 08:15:15 +0000, Paul Carmichael escribió:
>>
>>> https://wibble.paulc.es/aue/sig.png
>>>
>>> (it's a picture of what I see).
>>
>> This is weird: https://wibble.paulc.es/aue/sig2.png
>>
>> It seems Pan strips the text leaving only the url.
>
> Interesting. This is a major distortion of what my signature says. It
> sounds as if Pan is seriously buggy.

I suppose I could download the source code and modify/rebuild. But I have
a life, so shan't bother.

I just thought, my sig is also a url with text (my name, signing off). I
expect that gets stripped as well.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

On 06/04/24 20:54, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-04-06 09:00:54 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
>> On 06/04/24 19:37, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive
>>>> users. Or so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written
>>>> RE: by MS) is NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word
>>>> (although it can be that, too), but an RFC prescribed CODE
>>>> (which includes the colon), so it is untranslatable, and must
>>>> always remain what it is, verbatim.
>>>
>>> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?
>>
>> Etymonline agrees with you: "with reference to," used from c. 1700
>> in legalese, from Latin (in) re "in the matter of," from ablative
>> of res "property, goods; matter, thing, affair,"
>
> I also thought it was "in re" followed by a genitive noun, but I
> didn't find a justification for the "in" in the Shorter Oxford
> English Dictionary so I didn't mention it. Of course, English nouns
> don't have genitive case, so we need an "of".

Sometimes we need "of". But I would argue that in "the dog's bollocks",
"dog's" is the genitive case of "dog".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 06/04/24 20:39, Snidely wrote:
> Peter Moylan used thar keyboard to writen:
>> On 06/04/24 19:37, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive
>>>> users. Or so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written
>>>> RE: by MS) is NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word
>>>> (although it can be that, too), but an RFC prescribed CODE
>>>> (which includes the colon), so it is untranslatable, and must
>>>> always remain what it is, verbatim.
>>>
>>> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?
>>
>> Etymonline agrees with you: "with reference to," used from c. 1700
>> in legalese, from Latin (in) re "in the matter of," from ablative
>> of res "property, goods; matter, thing, affair,"
>>
>> [plus some stuff tracing it further back].
>>
>> Oh, I now see that etymonline also says "Its non-legalese use is
>> execrated by Fowler in three different sections of "Modern English
>> Usage." But Fowler was writing before the e-mail standards were
>> formulated.
>
> For me, its non-legalese showed up in memos, and AFAICT that also
> predated email standards.

Not just in memos. It was also used in formal letters (where I always
thought that the "RE:" was an abbreviation of "In re:"). But perhaps
Fowler thought of this as an example of legalese.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 06/04/24 22:51, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 06/04/24 20:54, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

>> I also thought it was "in re" followed by a genitive noun, but I
>> didn't find a justification for the "in" in the Shorter Oxford
>> English Dictionary so I didn't mention it. Of course, English
>> nouns don't have genitive case, so we need an "of".
>
> Sometimes we need "of". But I would argue that in "the dog's
> bollocks", "dog's" is the genitive case of "dog".

I forgot to add this: in Old English, -es was probably the most common
genitive ending. In my mind, the apostrophe is an indication that the
'e' has been dropped.

(But this does not work for genitive plural, where the common ending was
-a.)

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 06/04/24 21:24, Paul Carmichael wrote:

> I just thought, my sig is also a url with text (my name, signing
> off). I expect that gets stripped as well.
>
> -- Paul. https://paulc.es

Your link to La Alhambra does not work for me. A pity; I was hoping to
hear one of my favourite guitar pieces.

I am also unable to select the English-language version of your site,
but that's probably because I don't have the bleeding-edge version of
Firefox installed.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 22:59:08 +1100, Peter Moylan escribió:

> On 06/04/24 22:51, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 06/04/24 20:54, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>>> I also thought it was "in re" followed by a genitive noun, but I
>>> didn't find a justification for the "in" in the Shorter Oxford English
>>> Dictionary so I didn't mention it. Of course, English nouns don't have
>>> genitive case, so we need an "of".
>>
>> Sometimes we need "of". But I would argue that in "the dog's bollocks",
>> "dog's" is the genitive case of "dog".
>
> I forgot to add this: in Old English, -es was probably the most common
> genitive ending. In my mind, the apostrophe is an indication that the
> 'e' has been dropped.
>
> (But this does not work for genitive plural, where the common ending was
> -a.)

I assumed it came from the Germanic background. But the German equivalent
is not known as genitive, just possessive, I think.

"Freds Auto" = "Fred's car".

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 23:07:33 +1100, Peter Moylan escribió:

> On 06/04/24 21:24, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>
>> I just thought, my sig is also a url with text (my name, signing off).
>> I expect that gets stripped as well.
>>
>> -- Paul. https://paulc.es
>
> Your link to La Alhambra does not work for me.

Strange - I test those links regularly.

I just tried it in Firefox - it doesn't work. Version 123.0.1 (64-bit)
(linux).

Just noticed - it's the only link that isn't secure (according to Firefox
- it's secure in other browsers).

> A pity; I was hoping to
> hear one of my favourite guitar pieces.

I don't think there's any music at the palace.
> I am also unable to select the English-language version of your site,
> but that's probably because I don't have the bleeding-edge version of
> Firefox installed.

Also odd - does this work?:

https://paulc.es/en/

The button is just a link.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

On 06/04/2024 15:14, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 23:07:33 +1100, Peter Moylan escribió:
>
>> On 06/04/24 21:24, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>
>>> I just thought, my sig is also a url with text (my name, signing off).
>>> I expect that gets stripped as well.
>>>
>>> -- Paul. https://paulc.es
>>
>> Your link to La Alhambra does not work for me.
>
> Strange - I test those links regularly.
>
> I just tried it in Firefox - it doesn't work. Version 123.0.1 (64-bit)
> (linux).
>
> Just noticed - it's the only link that isn't secure (according to Firefox
> - it's secure in other browsers).
>
>
>> A pity; I was hoping to
>> hear one of my favourite guitar pieces.
>
> I don't think there's any music at the palace.
>
>> I am also unable to select the English-language version of your site,
>> but that's probably because I don't have the bleeding-edge version of
>> Firefox installed.
>
>
> Also odd - does this work?:
>
> https://paulc.es/en/
>
> The button is just a link.
>
It worked before but you have to click on the text specifically.
I did the same as Peter first time and just clicked in the box.

--
Ray
UK

El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:55:04 +0100, musika escribió:

> On 06/04/2024 15:14, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 23:07:33 +1100, Peter Moylan escribió:
>>

>>> Your link to La Alhambra does not work for me.
>>
>> Strange - I test those links regularly.
>>
>> I just tried it in Firefox - it doesn't work. Version 123.0.1 (64-bit)
>> (linux).
>>
>> Just noticed - it's the only link that isn't secure (according to
>> Firefox - it's secure in other browsers).
>>

Fixed! Thanks for letting me know. I've twiddled the url to include the
's' and now it works in FF. Shouldn't need to do that. But hey ho.

>>> I am also unable to select the English-language version of your site,
>>> but that's probably because I don't have the bleeding-edge version of
>>> Firefox installed.

> It worked before but you have to click on the text specifically.
> I did the same as Peter first time and just clicked in the box.

Oh, the text within the dropdown? I see. It's a plugin so I can't change
that.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

* Peter Moylan <uuq4u5$1m8bt$3@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:27:48 +1100:
> There was one Windows mail/news client (I forget which) that screwed up
> signatures by deleting trailing spaces before posting an article. To
> compensate, it had to treat "--" (no space) as a signature separator.
> That confused a lot of people.

I try to delete trailing spaces when posting, taking care to remove them
when they are are in the quoted replies, thinking this is good etiquette
and I'm doing a the right thing for the readers. Apparently trailing
whitespace was an acceptable part of the earliest email culture, or the
designers of the dash dash space convention never have specified it like
that. Did early term software have any way of highlighting trailing
spaces?

Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

> * Peter Moylan <uuq4u5$1m8bt$3@dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:27:48 +1100:
> > There was one Windows mail/news client (I forget which) that screwed up
> > signatures by deleting trailing spaces before posting an article. To
> > compensate, it had to treat "--" (no space) as a signature separator.
> > That confused a lot of people.
> >
>
> I try to delete trailing spaces when posting, taking care to remove them
> when they are are in the quoted replies, thinking this is good etiquette
> and I'm doing a the right thing for the readers. Apparently trailing
> whitespace was an acceptable part of the earliest email culture, or the
> designers of the dash dash space convention never have specified it like
> that. Did early term software have any way of highlighting trailing
> spaces?
>

I think trailing spaces in body text are important to 'format=flowed'.
Personally, I dislike 'format=flowed'; I prefer fixed length lines.

<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3676>

" This specification establishes two parameters (Format and DelSP) to
be used with the Text/Plain media type. In the presence of these
parameters, trailing whitespace is used to indicate flowed lines"
[...]

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.

Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > > Customarily, the signature block was four lines of information
> > > > > > like phone number, address, and so on, but that custom died
> > > > > > after identity theft became a problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The point of the "-- " separator is that news software will
> > > > > > strip off everything from there on when quoting you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
> > > > > > Newcastle, NSW
> > > > >
> > > > > Mine doesn't!
> > > >
> > > > Your fault. Or rather, Sylpheed's.
> > > > Or rather, your's,
> > > > for choosing to use a braindead newsclient,
> > > > (and not correcting for it)
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > I spy apostrophe abuse!
> > >
> > > [crosspost added: apihna]
> > [crosspost refused]
> >
> > Has it occured to you that the 'abuse' could have been deliberate?
> >
> > Jan
>
> But, but, that would be perverse!

Yes?

Jan

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024, at 11:54:18, Athel Cornish-Bowden posted:
>On 2024-04-06 09:00:54 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
>> On 06/04/24 19:37, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive users.
>>>> Or so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written RE: by MS)
>>>> is NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word (although it can be
>>>> that, too), but an RFC prescribed CODE (which includes the colon),
>>>> so it is untranslatable, and must always remain what it is,
>>>> verbatim.
>>> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?
>> Etymonline agrees with you:
>> "with reference to," used from c. 1700 in legalese, from Latin (in) re
>> "in the matter of," from ablative of res "property, goods; matter,
>> thing, affair,"
>
>I also thought it was "in re" followed by a genitive noun, but I didn't
>find a justification for the "in" in the Shorter Oxford English
>Dictionary so I didn't mention it. Of course, English nouns don't have
>genitive case, so we need an "of".

Not if you're a lawyer!
--
Paul W

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024, at 22:54:24, Peter Moylan posted:
>On 06/04/24 20:39, Snidely wrote:
>> Peter Moylan used thar keyboard to writen:
>>> On 06/04/24 19:37, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive
>>>>> users. Or so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written
>>>>> RE: by MS) is NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word
>>>>> (although it can be that, too), but an RFC prescribed CODE
>>>>> (which includes the colon), so it is untranslatable, and must
>>>>> always remain what it is, verbatim.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?
>>>
>>> Etymonline agrees with you: "with reference to," used from c. 1700
>>> in legalese, from Latin (in) re "in the matter of," from ablative
>>> of res "property, goods; matter, thing, affair,"
>>>
>>> [plus some stuff tracing it further back].
>>>
>>> Oh, I now see that etymonline also says "Its non-legalese use is
>>> execrated by Fowler in three different sections of "Modern English
>>> Usage." But Fowler was writing before the e-mail standards were
>>> formulated.
>>
>> For me, its non-legalese showed up in memos, and AFAICT that also
>> predated email standards.
>
>Not just in memos. It was also used in formal letters (where I always
>thought that the "RE:" was an abbreviation of "In re:"). But perhaps
>Fowler thought of this as an example of legalese.
>
I think the Latin demands "in" before "re" if you're going to press for
Latinate legalese. If I were going to use "In re" in a formal legal way
I would follow it directly with a colon and the title of the matter in
question, as "In re: Jarndyce & Jarndyce".

In the modern everyday world, hardly anyone really treats it as Latin,
and it has become a simple abbreviation of "Regarding". Certainly that's
how I treat it - and I did have a pretty good grounding in Latin all
those years ago. I still attempt the Latin crossword "O Tempora" in The
Times on Saturdays, and can be amused by it - one clue recently required
a Mesopotamian river creature, which turned out to be tigris, or Tigris.
--
Paul W

* Paul Wolff <SPrxqbO3oZEmFAh3@wolff.co.uk> :
Wrote on Sat, 6 Apr 2024 19:53:43 +0100:
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024, at 22:54:24, Peter Moylan posted:
>>On 06/04/24 20:39, Snidely wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan used thar keyboard to writen:
>>>> On 06/04/24 19:37, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive
>>>>>> users. Or so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written
>>>>>> RE: by MS) is NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word
>>>>>> (although it can be that, too), but an RFC prescribed CODE
>>>>>> (which includes the colon), so it is untranslatable, and must
>>>>>> always remain what it is, verbatim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?
>>>>
>>>> Etymonline agrees with you: "with reference to," used from c. 1700
>>>> in legalese, from Latin (in) re "in the matter of," from ablative
>>>> of res "property, goods; matter, thing, affair,"
>>>>
>>>> [plus some stuff tracing it further back].
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I now see that etymonline also says "Its non-legalese use is
>>>> execrated by Fowler in three different sections of "Modern English
>>>> Usage." But Fowler was writing before the e-mail standards were
>>>> formulated.
>>>
>>> For me, its non-legalese showed up in memos, and AFAICT that also
>>> predated email standards.
>>
>>Not just in memos. It was also used in formal letters (where I always
>>thought that the "RE:" was an abbreviation of "In re:"). But perhaps
>>Fowler thought of this as an example of legalese.

> I think the Latin demands "in" before "re" if you're going to press
> for Latinate legalese. If I were going to use "In re" in a formal
> legal way I would follow it directly with a colon and the title of the
> matter in question, as "In re: Jarndyce & Jarndyce".

Was it ever the style in formal business letters to use "Sub:" in a
similar way?

My latex letter templates for (business) letters have "Ref:" instead of
"Re:", is this standard or non-standard?

[I think I've seen "Your Ref:" in printed documents in youth]

> In the modern everyday world, hardly anyone really treats it as Latin,
> and it has become a simple abbreviation of "Regarding". Certainly
> that's how I treat it - and I did have a pretty good grounding in
> Latin all those years ago. I still attempt the Latin crossword "O
> Tempora" in The Times on Saturdays, and can be amused by it - one clue
> recently required a Mesopotamian river creature, which turned out to
> be tigris, or Tigris.

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024, at 07:12:58, Madhu posted:
>* Paul Wolff <SPrxqbO3oZEmFAh3@wolff.co.uk> :
>Wrote on Sat, 6 Apr 2024 19:53:43 +0100:
>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024, at 22:54:24, Peter Moylan posted:
>>>On 06/04/24 20:39, Snidely wrote:
>>>> Peter Moylan used thar keyboard to writen:
>>>>> On 06/04/24 19:37, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive
>>>>>>> users. Or so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written
>>>>>>> RE: by MS) is NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word
>>>>>>> (although it can be that, too), but an RFC prescribed CODE
>>>>>>> (which includes the colon), so it is untranslatable, and must
>>>>>>> always remain what it is, verbatim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Etymonline agrees with you: "with reference to," used from c. 1700
>>>>> in legalese, from Latin (in) re "in the matter of," from ablative
>>>>> of res "property, goods; matter, thing, affair,"
>>>>>
>>>>> [plus some stuff tracing it further back].
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I now see that etymonline also says "Its non-legalese use is
>>>>> execrated by Fowler in three different sections of "Modern English
>>>>> Usage." But Fowler was writing before the e-mail standards were
>>>>> formulated.
>>>>
>>>> For me, its non-legalese showed up in memos, and AFAICT that also
>>>> predated email standards.
>>>
>>>Not just in memos. It was also used in formal letters (where I always
>>>thought that the "RE:" was an abbreviation of "In re:"). But perhaps
>>>Fowler thought of this as an example of legalese.
>
>
>> I think the Latin demands "in" before "re" if you're going to press
>> for Latinate legalese. If I were going to use "In re" in a formal
>> legal way I would follow it directly with a colon and the title of the
>> matter in question, as "In re: Jarndyce & Jarndyce".
>
>Was it ever the style in formal business letters to use "Sub:" in a
>similar way?

I don't recall anything like "Sub:" as a heading in a letter. What is it
and what does it mean?
>
>My latex letter templates for (business) letters have "Ref:" instead of
>"Re:", is this standard or non-standard?
>
>[I think I've seen "Your Ref:" in printed documents in youth]

^Your ref" denotes a repeat of the other party's reference, which is
normally "Our ref". These are typically internal office filing codes, or
the initials of the author, or of the typist, for tracing the history of
the matter. I think "Ref:" on its own often points to a file or an entry
in a database. As an example, an insurance company might want any
relevant policy number to appear in all correspondence about that
policy.
>
>> In the modern everyday world, hardly anyone really treats it as Latin,
>> and it has become a simple abbreviation of "Regarding". Certainly
>> that's how I treat it - and I did have a pretty good grounding in
>> Latin all those years ago.

--
Paul W

El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:45:46 +1100, Peter Moylan escribió:

> On 06/04/24 19:19, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 08:15:15 +0000, Paul Carmichael escribió:
>>
>>> https://wibble.paulc.es/aue/sig.png
>>>
>>> (it's a picture of what I see).
>>
>> This is weird: https://wibble.paulc.es/aue/sig2.png
>>
>> It seems Pan strips the text leaving only the url.
>
> Interesting. This is a major distortion of what my signature says. It
> sounds as if Pan is seriously buggy.

I've registered the bug in Git.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

El Sun, 07 Apr 2024 14:57:57 +0000, Paul Carmichael escribió:

> El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:45:46 +1100, Peter Moylan escribió:
>
>> On 06/04/24 19:19, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>> El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 08:15:15 +0000, Paul Carmichael escribió:
>>>
>>>> https://wibble.paulc.es/aue/sig.png
>>>>
>>>> (it's a picture of what I see).
>>>
>>> This is weird: https://wibble.paulc.es/aue/sig2.png
>>>
>>> It seems Pan strips the text leaving only the url.
>>
>> Interesting. This is a major distortion of what my signature says. It
>> sounds as if Pan is seriously buggy.
>
> I've registered the bug in Git.

One more thing - I'm going to remove the link from this sig

--
Paul.