Ken Hornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Marc Horowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Translation Problems
> In-reply-to: Your message of "03 Jan 2002 17:31:19 EST."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 22:56:40 -0500
> From: Ken Hornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >The way "principal" is used by Kerberos is, as far as I know, specific
> >to Kerberos. The definition always needs to be explained to English
> >speakers, too. I'd never heard ken's etymology before, but it also
> >seems pretty circular.
>
> I seem to recall it from the mountains of documentation I read over the
> course of a couple of years (I'm reasonably confident I didn't invent
> it, but anything is possible, I suppose). If you think of "principal"
> as "primary", then "primary identifier" might make more sense. Or
> maybe not.
>
> --Ken
A version of webster I used found over a page of definitions. The
following looked the most relevant to me:
>From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
2. Hence: (Law)
(a) The chief actor in a crime, or an abettor who is
present at it, -- as distinguished from an accessory.
>From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:
3: an actor who plays a principal role [syn: {star}, {lead}]
5: the major party to a financial transaction; buys and sells
for his own account [syn: {dealer}]
Perhaps the MIT originators of the term were amateur thespians taking a
microeconomics course or were considering a career in criminal law.
-Marcus Watts
UM ITCS Umich Systems Group
