Anonglish (was: Re: Authenticating Meat)

[Thomas Shaddack]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> But seriously, you've just mentioned what's called "textual analysis".
> Spelling errors and other idiosyncratic choices can be used
> to "pierce the veil" of anonymity.  That's what did in Dr. Kaczynski,
> who pissed on the FBI for over a decade, until his brother recognized
> his text.

Couldn't there be a standard English-based language, "Anonglish", with a
subset of English grammatical rules, human-readable (though maybe with its
own idiosyncrazies) and machine-parseable, which appearance would not give
many more clues than that Anonglish was used? Something where grammar
rules would be few, strict, and easy to machine-check, spelling as well,
and still be readable to anyone who knows "standard" English? Possibly
with a "translator" from "normal" English (of course with the necessity to
read the translation, correct eventual semantical mistakes introduced by
rearranging the words, and "anonspell-check" the result)?

That would put textual analysis from comparing the errors characteristic
for a given person to comparing of trains of thoughts, which is much more
difficult, much less being a "reliable proof", and practically impossible
for very short messages.