This year, I have posted several analyses of the mysterious text found in association with the Taman Shud case, concerning the body of the Somerton Man found on a beach near Adelaide, Australia in 1948. This post serves as an index and brief summary of those four posts.
Taman Shud 1: Ngram frequency indicates that the Taman Shud "cipher" (TSC) is almost certainly an initialism (initial letters from the words in a text, in the same order as the original words) drawn from one or more short English texts.
Taman Shud 2: A search of over 20,000 books in the Project Gutenberg collection finds no complete or nearly-complete passages of which the TSC is an initialism. In a comment, Barry Traish reports on a similar search, also finding no matches, that doubles the number of books considered. This includes a plurality of prominent literary works dated 1925 or earlier, but does not exclude the possibility of a match with some more obscure text.
Taman Shud 3: A simple existence proof and discussion showing that initialisms are not, in general, decodable. By extension, initialisms are not useful as a code for espionage or any interpersonal communication in general.
Taman Shud 4: A discussion of six possible reasons why someone would write down an initialism. While it is impossible to choose among these and other possible reasons why the TSC was written, two or three seem more plausible than others. Three possible follow-up investigations are described, although these do not seem especially likely to provide definitive answers.
Overall, I believe that the TSC was written by a person for the purpose of quickly jotting down some idea, using initials as a sort of shorthand readable only by the person while they had those words fresh in their memory. This may have been an original composition or something by another writer/speaker that they were trying to remember/memorize. An initialism is not useful for a person who is trying to send a message to another person, so the TSC is not a code sent by a professional spy and is unlikely to be any attempt to communicate. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone will ever decode the TSC and thereby learn more about the mysterious case of the Somerton Man's death.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Murder and NLP: The Taman Shud Case, Part 4
My three previous posts on the Tamam Shud Cipher (TSC) have
supported, to varying degrees of certitude, the following conclusions:
C2) The text which the TSC encodes is not present in a large collection of prominent literature.
C3) Initialisms in general, and the TSC in particular, cannot be decoded to find the text that created them.
Given these conclusions, what can we say about why the TSC
was written, and what paths remain to investigate further?
Possibilities
P1) It has been
supposed by some that the Somerton Man was a spy and the TSC was a message he intended to send to his superiors. This is certainly not possible, because
initialisms are not decodable and a professional spy would know this. There are many methods of encoding a message so
the intended audience can read it but someone who intercepts it cannot.
Initialisms aren't such a method.
P2) Was the TSC a
personal message shown, as it was written, to the intended reader?
In Tolstoy's Anna
Karenina there is a scene where two lovers communicate through initialisms. A central character, Levin, writes 14 initials on a table
using a piece of chalk, showing it to Kitty, the young woman who has earlier rejected his marriage proposal. After a few moments, she
interprets the message correctly, as the initialism (in Russian) of a question he would like to ask her about her rejection of his proposal. She responds to him by
writing a shorter initialism as her reply, and with snippets of conversation
between them, the two communicate briefly by showing initialisms to one another. A third character walks in and seemed to recognize what they are doing
as a game called "Secrétaire." In this scene, Levin and Kitty show
the ability to read initialisms, aided by the questions, hints, and glances they share in person. Is this possible? Was the TSC shown to a lover
by the person who was writing it, line by line, as it was written?
Of course, Anna
Karenina is fiction. Tolstoy could make anything he wanted happen in the
scene. The reader is meant to understand, in fact, that this feat of
understanding is incredible, and that it shows how wonderful a match Levin
and Kitty are, that they can understand each other in this seemingly impossible
situation. Moreover, there is extraordinary context at play: Kitty is easily
able to guess the general topic of Levin's question, which is about her
feelings, from the context of their previous conversations and the very fact
that Levin seems restrained from speaking freely. He made a direct reference
to an earlier conversation of obvious importance to their relationship, so she might more easily guess which
ideas, and therefore which words, were in his message. Of course, with enough verbal or nonverbal clues provided in person by the writer to the reader (even some or most of the exact words), an initialism could be read, but such an event is not recorded in any way and we cannot guess if this took place.
P3) Was the TSC
scratch work, using the book as blank paper, for someone's efforts to solve a
puzzle? It's common to find scratch work written in the margins where
someone has tried to solve newspaper puzzles. Is the TSC such a remnant,
for some puzzle that appeared in another book or newspaper?
This is possible in principle, but it's not clear what sort
of puzzle would lead someone to write so many initials of a long text. There is
a syndicated puzzle called Jumble where the solution of several word scrambles
provide a few letters to decode a message of several words. The TSC is much
longer and much more orderly than the scratch work for Jumble is likely to be,
but could a puzzle like Jumble, but longer, have been in
the hands of someone in Australia in 1948?
Many Australian newspapers have been stored in digital archives online. A search of Australian papers from November, 1948 reveals
primarily crossword puzzles, which were regular features in the Adelaide
Chronicle, Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney World News, Perth West Australian, and
Perth Western Mail. The Longreach Leader had riddles and word scrambles. The
Murray Pioneer had weekly word "diamond" and "square"
puzzles, similar to crossword puzzles with four or five clues and no unused
spaces. None of these would seem to lead a person to write initialisms of 9 or
more letters as their scratchwork.
We might extend the puzzle search arbitrarily far from
Australian newspapers, by searching newspapers from the United States (where
one of Somerton Man's garments seemed to originate) or other countries, going
backwards in time from 1948, and considering books as well as newspapers. The
possibility of TSC as puzzle scratchwork may have no definite resolution, as
some of these publications are unlikely to survive online or otherwise.
However, it would be interesting if any puzzle can be found that would require the
solver to write an initialism of nine or more letters as the answer or as
scratchwork.
P4) Is the TSC a
rough draft of original prose or poetry? Literary writing invites the
writer to create rough drafts. Conceivably, an initialism could be used as a
form of shorthand, which would bypass the problem of a reader decoding the
message, because the only intended reader would be the writer. If a writer had
in mind a tentative version of a passage, and was considering small revisions
of a word or two, they might be able to write initialisms as possible second,
third, etc., drafts, and have no confusion in their mind what the exact
intended reading was of each version.
At right, we see a handwritten draft of "Here Comes The
Sun" by the Beatles' George Harrison. We see that, like the TSC,
Harrison's work is written in a book rather than on blank paper. We also see
that six times, phrases which have occurred earlier are written out only as
initials, to spare Harrison the effort of longhard. Could the TSC be the sixth,
or tenth, or twentieth draft of a poem the author had begun and completed on
other sheets of paper?
I find this to be the single most compelling explanation for the TSC. It does not assume that the writer was attempting the impossible task
of communicating with another person using initialisms. It explains the
crossed-out line and the "X" written over another letter as the
continuing process of editing. A literary aspiration on the part of the writer
explains why the four-line format of the TSC is similar to that of quatrains in
the Rubaiyat's printed text, without
matching any of them exactly. Unless we find a match for the TSC in the belongings of a person close to the case, we can never verify if this is the correct answer. I find it the most likely explanation because it seems to stipulate the least unproven assumptions.
P5) Did the writer write the initialism to help
memorize or recall a piece of famous literature, to get it straight, or to drill
it into their memory? The apparent edits in the TSC could be corrections as someone was trying
to get their imperfect memory of a literary passage to align with the verbatim text. This, like (P4), is consistent with the fact
that the undecodable nature of initialisms is irrelevant if the writer is the
only intended reader. As the search for matches has come up dry in
prominent literature, this possibility is diminished, although not eliminated.
P6) Was the TSC a
futile, misguided attempt to communicate? Although initialisms are not decodable, it
is not clear that the writer of the TSC knew and appreciated that fact. The
book was very likely held by a dying man in his final hours. Could it be a
suicide note, or the last message from a man who knew that he'd been poisoned
by someone else? It's hard to call this impossible, particularly if he was not
in a clear state of mind, but it seems extremely odd that a person with that goal
would not at least start writing conventional prose rather than initials. Just as the reader of Anna Karenina is supposed to appreciate that initialisms are nearly impossible to read, a literate person might intuit this fact quickly as soon as they began to ask themselves the question.
Paths Ahead
As I see it, the analysis of the TSC is at something
approaching an endgame, or, one might say, a stalemate. There are a few
possible explanations for why it was written, and although I think (P4) is the most likely, a others cannot be ruled out. Moreover,
most of the possible explanations give us no reason to hope that the TSC's
underlying message can ever be known. A modest consolation is that the TSC's
underlying message may be utterly unrelated to the Somerton Man's death and of
no intrinsic interest to us, even if it were known.
I see at least three possible paths for follow-up:
F1) Further
Literature Search
While the Project Gutenberg corpus I searched, expanded to additional Gutenberg texts in an excellent effort by Barry Traish, is quite vast, it
is not infinite. In an effort to determine how comprehensive that collection
is, I examined how many of the Modern Library's editors' list of the 100 best English language novels of the 20th Century are present in the Project
Gutenberg corpus. Simply put, all of them published before 1923 were present,
and none after that year, a divide that is undoubtedly due to copyright
restrictions. It may be that the 25-year window from 1923-1948 is relatively
uncovered.
I extended the search to include a collection of poetry by
Rumi (which is similar in origin and nature to the Rubaiyat),
and also added the post-1923 novels Brave
New World, Darkness at Noon, The Great Gatsby, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and Ulysses. These additions to the search produced no interesting results.
It should be noted that a vast increase to the search is
"doomed to succeed"… given enough text searched, we will inevitably
find longer substring matches by random chance, so we might eventually, with a truly vast
collection of text, find coincidental matches to all of the TSC's individual
lines. However, no collection of text will produce by mere chance a match to all 44 letters.
F2) Statistical
triage
I made an effort to identify the person and tense of the TSC
text. There is potentially more work to do in exploring statistical methods to
determine general properties of the TSC, although no useful directions are immediately apparent to me. It is perhaps possible to use statistical methods to "spell check" the ambiguous handwriting, if one doesn't fall into the naive trap of assuming that the highest-probability letters and ngrams are most likely to be correct.
F3) Google search
A radical broadening of the search for an exact match could
exploit Google or another web search engine. A practical algorithm for this
could be as follows:
A1) Pick two or more substrings from the TSC of length 3 to
5.
A2) Using a large corpus, find the commonly recurring phrases
in English whose initials match those substrings.
A3) Query the search engine for combinations of those
phrases.
It is possible, in principle, that a tractable permutation
of phrases could cover most of the probable readings of those substrings. The
parameters of an efficient search of this kind will be left as an exercise for
the reader.
Acknowledgements
Monday, March 17, 2014
Murder and NLP: The Taman Shud Case, Part 3
In previous posts, I've shown that the Tamam Shud Cipher (TSC)
is almost certainly an initialism, a sequence of initials corresponding to
English text(s), and that a large corpus of prominent literature does not contain
the text from which the TSC was derived. This leads to the next question: Given
the strong possibility that the text was written by someone (presumably
non-famous) who handled the book in which it was found, is it possible for us
to decode it? Are initialisms based on English text in general decodable? In my
discussion here, I interpret the potentially ambiguous handwriting in a certain
common way. Other interpretations may be valid, and we can consider that
statistically, but I focus for now on this interpretation of the handwriting:
WRGOABABD
WTBIMPANETP
MLIABOAIAQC
ITTMTSAMSTGAB
Example
TSC Readings
Consider the following:
(1)
We rarely go onto Australia’s beaches and bed down.
Wade the beaches in majestic peace and nervously enter the
Pacific.
My love, I am blessedly opened, and I am quite certain
In the truth. Mercifully, the sleeper awakens me, stirs the
girl, and blossoms.
(2)
Western radar groups operate Australian bases and base
defenses.
Weapons testing base is militarily prepared. American nationals
electrified the perimeter. Military liaisons in Adelaide boarded on an international
aircraft. Queensland considering increases to territorial military trainees. South
American mercenaries sent to Guam and Borneo.
Both of these texts are lucid (if not sparkling) English
text that correspond to the TSC (give or take alternate interpretations of the
handwriting). They took me about 15 minutes each to write. One is a love poem
(somewhat like the text of the Rubaiyat
in which the TSC was found) and one looks like something a Soviet spy might
send to his superiors. A group of writers could surely come up with endless TSC
solutions on these or practically any other themes and probably never,
duplicate each other's work. The simple fact demonstrated here is: The TSC,
like most initialisms, is undecodable into the original text because it has
virtually limitless solutions. And therefore, if the TSC is not found in some
previously existing text, the source text that generated it will never be
known.
Grammatical Analysis
It is easy to lay out, analytically, why most initialisms
from English text have endless numbers of solutions. Most of what I say here
will apply to a great number of other languages, but I discuss English
specifically.
English vocabulary falls into two rough subsets. There are
function words, generally drawn from closed classes of words, and content
words, generally drawn from open classes of words. Nouns, verbs, adjectives,
and adverbs are content words. They comprise the vast majority of all of the
words in English. Pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, and articles are
function words. Those parts of speech have only about 3 to 90 words each.
For all but the rarest letters in English, you can come up
with a very long list of any of the content word classes that begin with that
letter. For the function words, this is not possible. For example, there are
only three coordinating conjunctions: and,
or, and but. There are no coordinating conjunctions in English that begin
with 'z', ‘t’, or ‘e’.
Take any typical passage in English text, and write down the
initialism. You may then freely generate almost endless alternative readings of
the initialism by changing the content words to other examples of the same part
of speech.
"The platypus is one of the strangest animals in
Australian fauna."
"The pioneer is one of the strongest archetypes in
American fiction."
"The pastegh is one of the sweetest aliments in
Armenian food."
It's easy to do this with the content words in virtually any
sentence. So even if we kept the function words the same (as in the previous
examples), we can still generate many sentences with the same initialism and
warp the meaning entirely.
It is relatively difficult to play the same trick with
function words, because there are so few options to swap in. However, we could
choose different function words in different locations, in effect moving the
pivot of function words to another location and then manipulate the content
words in their new positions.
"Tommy, play in our old toyroom since Annie is acting
funny."
Most function words begin with relatively common letters in
English, which is true almost by definition. These letters can be used in other
words, content or function, and so the location of function words in an
initialism cannot be pinned down.
There are rare letters that could greatly restrict the
freedom of recombination shown above. A sequence like XXQXX in an initialism
might have actually no valid readings in English. However, the TSC has only one
rare letter, Q. Does the Q, or any other pattern in the TSC significantly
constrain the range of possibilities for TSC readings? If we can't determine
for absolute certain the reading of TSC, can we meaningfully narrow it down?
Learning from Examples
Using the same Project Gutenberg corpus which was searched
for matches of TSC substrings, we can search for shorter substrings to see
which phrases might match them. Substrings of length 6 are useful for providing
multiple matches (at least 7 unique readings) for each position in the TSC. If
the particular letters in the TSC constrain the possible readings
significantly, then we should see repeated patterns in the Gutenberg matches.
It should be noted first that the Gutenberg corpus has
multiple copies of some texts within it, which inflates the counts unnaturally.
This observation notwithstanding, there is no substring of length 6 in the TSC
that has any single reading which comprises the majority of its Gutenberg hits.
In other words, whichever reading we guess to be correct, it is wrong in the
majority of cases – over 60%, in fact. Therefore, the would-be sleuth who
writes a reading of the TSC and feels that their match is sure to be right is
being seduced by the fallacy that the solution they have in mind is rare in
matching the text. The sequence that achieves the best match is "do well
to bear in mind", which still only covers 38% of the matches for DWTBIM,
and is one of 59 different readings found in the Gutenberg corpus. For any
6gram in TSC, whichever guess you offer for the correct reading, you will
probably guess wrong.
Can we do better trying to pin down exact words? If we use the
6gram readings from the Gutenberg corpus and tally (counting each reading just
once, even if it appeared multiple times) how often particular words are used
to fill the specific positions in TSC, and call the share that each word has
for that position the derived probability. In these values, we see the same
inherent ambiguity as indicated above. Every position allows at least 7
different words to stand for that letter, and in very few cases is the most
common case more than 20% frequent, meaning that whatever word we guess in that
position, we will probably guess differently than the original text. There is
just one case where the most common case rises slightly above 50%: the A in
position 24 is filled 53% of the time by the article “a”, a poor, and in any
case ambiguous, starting point for interpreting the text. Almost all of the 33
derived probabilities that exceed 20% are exceedingly function words: “a”,
“the”, “and”, “in”, “of”, etc. These give not even the slightest indication of
topic, genre, or even tense or person.
Four words have a derived probability between 20% and 34%
and provide a slight indication of tense and person: There are two such
occurrences of “my” (positions 14 and 21), and one each of “is” (position 23)
and “am” (position 29). These effectively indicate three votes for the correct
TSC reading being written in the first person and two votes for the present
tense. These are difficult to interpret as probabilities, however, since each
of these votes is, in any case, less than 50% probable, and there’s no clear prior
probability of tense and person for a random unknown text. It should be noted
that a first person text still contains many third person references, and a
text that is primarily in past or present tense still may contain many
instances of the other. Therefore, we have a glimmering of an indication that
TSC may be an initialism of a first person text, but this is far from
conclusive, and in no other way helpful regarding the content. One related
observation: There are no occurrences of Y in the TSC, so there are no second
person pronouns (“you”, “your”, “yours”) although the second person can be
spoken of through circumlocution without those words.
Finally, the derived probability of “quite” for the Q in
position 30 is 43%, high among the derived probabilities, but still short of
50%, and utterly ambiguous regarding genre, topic, or content.
Summary
Cumulatively, we have conclusive evidence that the TSC is an
initialism, no source text has been identified in literature, and if the source
text is not found in an older source, it cannot be decoded into the original
text.
This is, most importantly, a strongly negative result for
those who have hoped that the TSC could be deciphered, helping to solve the
mystery of the Somerton Man, which is still quite a bizarre story even if the
TSC is left aside. It still leaves an intriguing situation in which the TSC,
which came to light because of the Somerton Man, is effectively a second
mystery, which one might have found and glossed over if it were not associated
with a dead body, but has been elevated in importance because of the body.
There are doubtlessly countless books in the world’s libraries that have
mysterious scribbles inside, and no one pays them any particular attention. (I
have found some in my older books, written in my own hand, mysterious to me
years after they were written.) However, since the case has gotten so much
attention, I’ll devote one more post to examining what the TSC might represent
– why an initialism might have been written, and what remaining, however
slight, possibilities exist for obtaining a definite reading of its content.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Murder and NLP: The Taman Shud Case, Part 2
In my last post, I showed that the Tamam Shud Cipher (TSC) is almost certainly
an initialism, a sequence of initials taken from English text. So what does it say, and why was it written?
It should be noted first that two hypotheses, not exclusive of one
another, regarding the other facts of the case are:
H1) That Somerton Man was a Cold War spy who was operating
for the Soviets or perhaps the Americans.
H2) That the nurse whose phone number was found in the book was
a potential lover of the Somerton Man, and the Rubaiyat was given to him by her to share the romantic aspects of
the poetry. She admitted having given another copy of the Rubaiyat to another man in 1945. That man and book both turned up
during the investigation.
In that light, some possibilities for the source text behind the Tamam Shud
Cipher:
P1) Passage(s) from existing literature.
P1a) Written out to help the writer memorize that
literature.
P2) Something written by a person who once had the book.
P2a) A message sent by a Cold War spy.
P2b) A message written out for a friend or lover to read.
P2c) A rough draft for original poetry or prose using
initials as shorthand.
P2d) Written out to help the writer memorize their own
composition.
P3) Scratchwork for solving a puzzle.
We can investigate each of these possibilities, although
definitive answers may prove elusive. I'll devote the rest of this post to beginning
an examination of possibility (P1).
If the TSC can be found, in its entirety, in the initials of
any previously-existing work of literature, then we can be sure we've found the
answer. Why? The probability of two texts sharing the same initials is a
function of their length, L, in words, and is approximately:
pMatch = 1 / 10L
The number 10 occurs here because the probability of two
randomly-chosen initials from English text being equal is about 1/10, not the 1/26
you would see if all letters occurred equally likely. The exact parameter may
be experimentally derived and certainly isn't exactly 10.0, but it's so close
that I use 10 to make the math easier to comprehend. The shortest line in the
TSC has 9 letters and the longest has 13. Finding a random passge of 9 words to
match the shortest line has a probability of about one in a billion, while a
passage matching the longest line has a probability of about one in ten
trillion. Meanwhile, the probability of an accidental match for the entire 44
TSC is a dicey 10-44, which is essentially zero. If we find any
existing text that matches the entire TSC, then it is definitely the text used
to produce the TSC.
Note: This does not mean that if a person tries to write out their own original match for the TSC and succeeds that they have found the answer. In fact, it's
not that hard to write text to match a given set of initials, which produces
the illusion that someone can make quick and easy progress towards figuring it
out. I will show in a later post how easy it is to concoct bogus matches after
the fact.
Of course, finding matches for shorter substrings is easy,
for sufficiently short length. Obviously, matches for substrings of length 1
and 2 are trivial to find, and by searching larger volumes of text, one finds
matches of length 3, 4 and so on.
Work has been done in the past on trying to find exact
matches for the TSC in a handful of major literary works, including the King
James Bible. After an initial, failing search through digital copies of 40 books
and 18 collections of poetry, I conducted a rather massive search which is as follows:
Project Gutenberg creates digital transcriptions of literary
works. For my search of TSC matches, I downloaded by torrent the April 2010 collection of 29,500 books.
Of these, 22,353 books are in text format. I preprocessed these to create an
index of their initialisms, which amounts to 1.3 billion words of original
text. I searched this for the longest matches that exist for TSC substrings, to
arrive at these results:
R1) There is no exact match for the entire TSC, or any of
its individual lines.
R2) The longest matches are of length 8, and there were
twelve of these. It is apparent that these are entirely coincidental for the
following reasons:
a) Many of them contradict one another, by matching the
exact same subsequence of TSC.
b) They each begin in the middle of a sentence, and continue
on into the middle of the next sentence.
c) We would expect, from the aforementioned formula, to find
about ten matches of length L=8 and one match of length L=9 by sheer
coincidence.
d) One of the matches is from 1963, many years after TSC was
written down.
The matches were from nine works of literature, and one work each
from science, economics, and reference. The matches are posted separately here.
In a nutshell, the Project Gutenberg corpus does not contain
a match, and this should set the tone for any future searches. The works in
this corpus are not only large in number but particularly central in literary
importance. It is hard to characterize "literary importance"
formally, but the reach of this corpus is impressive. When one
thinks of authors predating 1950 who are likely to be taught in university
literature courses, the number of works this corpus has is vast, although not
comprehensive. For many famous works, it includes more than one edition. There are also translations of English works into other languages
(although, recall, TSC is almost certainly an initialism of English text) and
translations of literature in other languages into English.
Until a match is found, we can never prove that there is no match. Whatever corpus of n books we search, it's always possible
that the exact match will be found in book n+1. It remains possible that TSC matches a book, poem,
newspaper article, or other text not in this Gutenberg Corpus, but a lack of
matches in 22 thousand books certainly suggests that searching any additional
one – or one hundred – books chosen arbitrarily will yield a very low
probability of finding a full, exact TSC match.
In an upcoming post, I'll discuss possibility (P2), and how to use a large corpus (now that we have one) as a resource for trying to decode the TSC. We can perhaps find
information about the words or genre that are encoded within it. And that will
also open up paths to searching for exact matches.
Murder and NLP: The Taman Shud Case, Gutenberg Matches
Appendix:
Longest matches of substrings of the Tamam Shud Cipher among the initials in a corpus of 22,353 Project Gutenberg books. These are all of length 8. There were many shorter matches and no longer matches.
Longest matches of substrings of the Tamam Shud Cipher among the initials in a corpus of 22,353 Project Gutenberg books. These are all of length 8. There were many shorter matches and no longer matches.
Title, Author, Substring, Passage
"The Iceberg Express", David Magie Cory
cittmtsa: cake i think the mermaid took somewhat after
"On Laboratory Arts", Richard Threlfall
cittmtsa: care is taken to make the strokes as
"Showell's Dictionary of Birmingham", Thomas T. Harman and Walter Showell
cittmtsa: Church in this town, Mr. Thomas Smallwood, an
"Beatrix", Honore de Balzac
cittmtsa: contemplating in turn the marshes the sea and
"The Nail", Pedro de Alarçon
iaboaiaq: is a beautiful one, and I am quite
"The Evolution of Modern Capitalism", John
Atkinson Hobos
ittmtsam: in the textile metal transport shipping and machine
"Northanger Abbey", Jane Austen
ittmtsam: it together that miss thorpe should accompany miss
"The Trouble with Telstar", John Berryman
ittmtsam: itching to take me to see a man
"Pensées", Blaise Pascal
mtsamstg: make them saint augustine montaigne s'bond the genealogy
"A Woman for Mayor", Helen M. Winslow
mtsamstg: motioned the stenographer and miss snow to go
"Ernest Maltravers", Edward Bulwer-Lytton
tpmliabo: that point my life is a bad one
"Carette of Sark", John Oxenham
ttmtsams: than twenty miles there soon after midnight steal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)