I've been following this thread with interest. It seems a couple of common problems are illustrated here. One problem is unique to plain-text -- as this mailing list is -- which does not allow special characters. In the list messages, the word is rendered "for?t". It makes quite a difference as to whether the e in "foret" has a carat, ^, over it. If so, it's a French equivalent of the English es and the translation of the word is apparent. Another problem is that the phrase presented for translation may not have been an accurate transcription of the original handwriting. Did the writer write "feret", "foret" or something else? (The letters o & e are often confused.) What was the source of the phrase for which a translation was requested? Was it the original document? A transcription of the document? An online database? A solution to the character-rendering problem is, perhaps, to alert readers that accents & diacritical marks matter. If they cannot be rendered exactly in the medium, they should be described. Or, perhaps, we might develop conventions for such letters, as in "fore^t". The source also matters. We've seen how a question about transcription of one letter has led to wildly-divergent translations. -rt_/)