Re: POLITICS <G>: Trolls!

Christian Thalmann writes:
 > --- In conlang@y..., Tim May <butsuri@B...> wrote:
 > > Incidentally, regardless of the treatment of the Navajo, I don't see
 > > that it's particularly relevant to citizen Gunn's criticisms of
 > > conlanging.  Navajo isn't a conlang*.
 >
 > The following webpage indicates that they didn't just speak Navajo
 > over the field phones, they seem to have used a letter-by-letter
 > code plus a number of fixed code words, which could in the widest
 > sense pass as a conlang...
 >
 > http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/dcr/Special%20Emphasis/Indian/CodeTalkers_bio.htm
 >
Well, in that widest sense any code would count as a conlang, which
would make the statement that conlangs "have been used for ciphering"
a little obvious. :)  (Really I think it's an imprecise use of the word
cipher anyway, as generally a cipher is an encryption process which
alters the plaintext on a character-by-character basis, as opposed to
a code which works word-by-word or above.)

Sadly I've lent out my book* with information on the code-talkers,
ciphers and various other things, so I can't quote from it.

*_The Code Book_, by Simon Singh.  It's quite a readable introduction
 to the history of cryptography and cryptanalysis, if anyone's
 interested.