On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 11:12:17AM +0100, Richard wrote:
> > The "Subject:" field is the most common and contains a short string
> > identifying the topic of the message. When used in a reply, the
> > field body MAY start with the string "Re: " (from the Latin "res",
> > in the matter of) followed by the contents of the "Subject:" field
>
> that is nice and clever but I think it would be much better to regard
> "re" as abbreviation of "responsum" - answer. As an abbreviation of "res"
> it would be highly redundant to the "subject" keyword and not explain why
> it is used in answers/followups only.
Bear in mind it's not really a new usage. The OED has several
examples of "re" in English text going back to at least 1707, with
Latin "res" as their etymology for it. They also mention a newer form
(starting in the early 1900s) "re.", which they say "probably results
from reanalysis as showing an abbreviation for 'regarding'".
-Dave Dodge
