-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 'Lo DG,
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:06:08 -0500 your time, you said: DRS> I was always of the belief that RE: in correspondence indicated DRS> reference. I am probably wrong but when I send a memo or business DRS> correspondence utilizing RE: it indicates that I am referencing a topic DRS> or past incident Yes, I think you are correct, and 're' used to mean 'in reference to' is obviously correct when used formally to reference a matter/topic "or past incident". When used informally though I think it represents 'regarding', or 'in the matter of' - from res -, or even of course signifying 'concerning', etc. Nonetheless, they still all carry the same sense of 'concerning/regarding/with regard to a previous matter/subject/event', so interpreting Re: as 'reply' does not seem to be accurate, even if it is now widely recognised as such. - -- Sl�n, Simon @ theycallmesimon.co.uk ****************************************** PGP Key: http://pgp.theycallmesimon.co.uk/ Faffing about with TB! v1.61 on W2K SP3 #12. A Qed I Loss Rum Wry � -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Privacy is freedom. Protect your privacy with PGP! Comment: KeyID: 0x5C7E8966 Comment: Fingerprint: 851C F927 0296 FF1C 70A2 474F CB6E 6FFE 5C7E 8966 iQA/AwUBPd5E+8tub/5cfolmEQLuZQCfdso1yNLt+F3Xg7YEX+AYMOcrzXIAoKdu MAv/hbWAJrIAVLsvF3aF4Sul =vq2O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
