Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 September 2

= September 2 =

Japanese change of address postcard
Can someone please tell me what information/fixed expressions are used on a Japanese change of address postcard? (Kanji ok). I had an example that I used to use, but I've lost it. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See Japanese addressing system. Oda Mari (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but that's not really what I meant. I'm looking for the standard format for change of address postcards.  Exploding Boy (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean something like this? Oda Mari (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And this one. Oda Mari (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. I know how to write the address on a postcard or an envelope.  The situation is that I'm moving to a new apartment, and I want to send notices with my new home address, so that people know where to reach me.  I have a book with a standard format postcard (it says, in Japanese, something like "I've moved.  My new address is xxxxxx").  I've already packed the book, and I can't find any examples online, so I'm just wondering what the standard format is for that type of notice.  It's probably a lot more simple than I remember (something like 引っ越しました followed by the new address), but I thought there was more to it.  Am I wrong?  Exploding Boy (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Stupid of me. See these examples. Oda Mari (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perfect. Thank you.  Exploding Boy (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Secret Code
I remember reading a FoxTrot strip where Peter and Denise are on to Jason and Marcus wiretapping them, so they start speaking in a secret code where one would say "The local train stops on the hour" and the other would say "the heavy flag flaps not at night". Does anyone know the name of this secret code? Thanks in advance.

Americanfreedom (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard the term "open code" for a code where ordinary words and phrases are substituted for others, but I can't find a source to confirm that (googling for the phrase produces too many false hits to be helpful). The Code (cryptography) article uses the term "idiot code" for a related concept.  --Anonymous, 08:40 UTC, September 2, 2008.


 * Velvalee_Dickinson... AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words, Steganography.  Corvus cornix  talk  18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Steganography is about concealing the presence of a coded message.  "The heavy flag flaps not at night" is not an example of that.  --Anon, 05:51 UTC, September 3, 2008.


 * It would probably be considered a form of substitution cipher, where you're not substituting individual letters, but words or phrases, using a predefined dictionary. The Navajo code talkers in World War II did something similar, where certain concepts were substituted with a word in Navajo (e.g "hand grenade" becomes the Navajo word for "potato"). In the case of FoxTrot, I doubt there was a particular code being used. Bill Amend probably just used phrases that sounded mysterious, using the style of passphrase challenge-response that is common in spy novels/films. (To be sure that the person you're talking to is your contact, as opposed to an enemy spy, you first trade a set a pre-arranged phrases which no one who isn't your contact would know or could guess from context.) -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a cipher either. "Cipher" specifically refers to an encryption where the units are characters or bits rather than words or phrases.  See Cipher.  --Anonymous, 03:46 UTC, September 4, 2008.

Per aspera ad confusion
I've found Per Aspera Ad Astra, Per aspera ad Astra, and Per aspera ad astra (a redirect). Is the last one properly capitalized, or does Latin not capitalize? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Latin doesn't have clearcut rules for capitalization. While it was an everyday spoken language, lowercase letters hadn't been invented yet. Modern Latin tends to follow the capitalization rules of the native language of whoever's writing it. I'd say both the disambig pages should be merged to Per aspera ad astra (or Ad astra per aspera, the version of the proverb I know best). —Angr 06:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the alphabet of classical Latin had letters in only one case, which was neither upper case nor lower case, and that alphabet has survived as our (Roman) capital letters. But Latin went on developing long after there were lower case letters, and when we write it now, as we nearly always do, in upper case and lower case, English speakers generally follow the practice of using capital letters where we would in English; the French use capital letters in Latin titles very sparingly, just as they do in French titles, but German speakers don't capitalize all Latin nouns, as their own language does. So I agree with Per aspera ad astra or Ad astra per aspera. Strawless (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There were other kinds of Latin script that had differently shaped letters - we usually think of Roman square capitals, but they also wrote with rustic capitals and Roman cursive. But yeah, they didn't really have a system of uppercase and lowercase, or even punctuation, like we do. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really on topic, but only one of those is a disambig page, so a simple merge may not be appropriate. jnestorius(talk) 21:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. I should have it cleared up in a day or two (after a page deletion). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin pronunciation
Can someone summarise Latin pronunciation, preferably using examples from English? In addition to the pronunciation of individual letters, diphthongs, etc how do you determine which syllables are stressed? Thanks in advance--212.120.246.239 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Latin spelling and pronunciation will surely be of interest. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Memento nullos circa esse Romanos qui tuam corrigere possint locutionem. — OtherDave (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is correct
Which is correct: None of the group have.... OR None of the group has...?--79.76.154.239 (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That depends. In American English, it is common to refer to groups in the singular. In British English, as far as I know, it is common to refer to groups in the plural. Can someone who actually speaks British English either confirm or deny that last statement? J.delanoy gabs adds  22:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's something about "none of the group" that just sounds bad to me. Personally I'd prefer "no one in the group has," which is always singular, by the way.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be because 'none of the group' treats 'group' as plural, which is (I believe) unnatural to a native American speaker. To J.delanoy: see American and British English differences. Groups can be referred to in the singular or plural depending on whether the group is acting as a corporate body or as a collection of individuals. In this usage, the group is being treated as a collection of individuals, none of whom have done something, so 'none of the group have' is correct in British English. Algebraist 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The original question is nothing to do with the plurality or not of 'group', because the subject is 'none', not 'group'. Among those who believe in 'correct', there are some who insist that 'none' should always take a singular verb (the rationalisation I was told was that it stands for 'no one'). In ordinary speech I think it is more often construed with the plural, but not exclusively. --ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * just ask yourselves: what is 'none' a contraction of? Could it be 'no one'? Or 'not one'?


 * "None" can be plural or singular, and is derived from the Old English nān (itself from ne = not and ān = one).

DuncanHill (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the grammar guides I've seen agree that with "None of…" phrases the verb should be plural if the object of of is plural, singular if the object of of is singular ("None of them are going"/"None of the water was potable")—a form of notional agreement. In this case, as the original responders have said, it boils down to whether one construes group as singular or plural. Deor (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A better rule is that if you would expect there to be more than one, but there are none, then you should treat "none" as plural ("What do you mean, you have 10,000 employees and none of them are right-handed?"); otherwise treat it as singular. But it's correct either way.  --Anonymous, 05:55 UTC, September 3, 2008.

These questions keep coming back, I think we need an article that explains if zero is sigular or plural once and for all, another that explains if group words ("team", "set", etc.) should be singular or plural, depending on where you are, which situation, or the actual meaning of the phrase (like "a total of..."). Otherwise we will keep rewriting the answer and arguing for pages and pages about it, everytime the question comes up. Not being a native speaker of English, I am not volunteering to write these articles. --Lgriot (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the great secret that schoolteachers are keeping from you: the English language lives in the heads of its native speakers. It is ridiculous to argue from syllogisms, and it is ridiculous to decide on the grounds that the word was two words before they were joined nine hundred years ago: it has certainly not been a contraction since then.  You should therefore say both sentences to yourself and decide which one sounds correct, and then use that.  If you really want someone else to lay down the law, then as a native speaker I claim my right to tell you that "none" takes the plural. Marnanel (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (That said, if you're asking whether "group" should be plural or singular, it's a dialectal matter, and WP:ENGVAR proscribes "fixing" dialectal differences.) Marnanel (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (Only within Wikipedia, though.) --  JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)