Language desk
< March 31	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 1

British accent

How can I do a British (RP) accent? --108.225.112.237 (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Received Pronunciation has information on the characteristics of that accent. If you want specific instruction on how to use RP yourself, you should hire a professional dialect coach. --Jayron32 00:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sounds in RP correspond to the sounds in GA? --108.225.112.237 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article General American has details on that accent, and there is a small chart that compares certain words. --Jayron32 03:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reasonable good ear, you simply listen / watch Aunty Beeb, Meryl Streep (playing a demented Baroness) or Hugh Laurie (NOT playing a demented medic). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meryl did a great job as MT, but as a a general principle, I don't think I'd be recommending listening to how an actor imitates an accent that is non-native to them. Your actual natives are the experts here. (Btw, nobody should ever copy Streep's take on the Aussie accent in Evil Angels (film) - it was a good effort, but any blindfolded Aussie could instantly spot the imposter.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(It was the dingo.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Try this article and this article. Omg † osh 17:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm biased but I'd suggest you should do a northern English one instead doktorb _words^deeds 18:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that would defeat the poster's likely aim of achieving greater sophistication... Omg † osh 18:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so Alan Bennett and David Hockney are not sophisticated. Richard Avery (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonable to assume that the Royals speak RP? If so, watching and listening to recordings of Lizzie, Chuck, et al, ought to provide some instruction. And if they don't, then who, pray tell, does? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe reasonable, but probably wrong. See a short list of Notable speakers @ Received Pronunciation. The Royal Family seem to have a variant all their own; I've never heard any other humans pronounce "house" as hice etc. RP-speakers don't do that. If you walked into the middle of a conversation and "Chuck" was talking about "the mouse in the house", it would be impossible to say whether he was talking about one mouse or multiple mice unless you had more context. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Standard' RP is really a middle-class accent (using the British class system, not the American system). The upper classes have a couple of accents, the country version (at least) featuring huntin' rather than hunting, for example. The Queen speaks an upper class accent, although I did read an interesting article a few years ago reporting on some Estuary influences in her contemporary accent. In any case, the royal family are not actually at the very top of the upper classes: I gather they're considered slightly common in some circles. The English class system is weird. 86.161.110.210 (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Social structure of the United Kingdom, particularly Accent and language. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm curious now. Who would be an example of someone at the very top, who isn't a royal? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking at the old Dukes here, such as Hastings, Westminster or Devonshire - the families who came over with the Conqueror and regard the Hanoverian imports as nouveau arrivistes. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that's incredibly silly of them to have that lame attitude (as if the whole British class system isn't incredibly silly and lame), as well as historically flawed. Lizzie has Hanoverian blood, but she can trace her lineage back to very early inhabitants of the British Isles, before there were any such places as England, Hanover or Normandy. On that score, she well and truly out-Britishes anyone whose family arrived as late as 1066. Who are the new arrivals now? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I too can trace my family back to England before the Conquest, through the same lines as Lizzie can. And to Norman France before the conquest. But you did ask and I did answer. It may be silly and lame but that's the upper class for you.)--TammyMoet (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UK class system is not merely a matter of money (some impeccably upper-class people are quite poor, many very rich people are certainly not upper class) and/or historical antecedents, or geography (Scotland has it's own indigenous variations); it also, perhaps mostly, involves one's family's internal (and publicly perceived) cultural practices (like what one might eat at breakfast and with what tableware – Tupperware™ is a little infra dig) and their degree of correspondence to those of other families in the relative class network. It's almost impossible to fully appreciate unless you've grown up immersed in it (and even so many do not), and much of it is perceived unconsciously. Bear in mind, Jack, that the bases of class distinction aren't generally consciously designed, they just grow organically. Australian class distinctions are doubtless rather different to ours, but I'd wager that (a) they're just as complicated and irrational and (b) you're not consciously aware of a lot of them. Of course, at one level it's all a big game, but it's a game many take very seriously most of the time. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.26 (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I should have mentioned that just because a system is silly and lame does not necessarily make it uninteresting. The British way is endlessly fascinating, for all its crazinesses. It's a lifetime's work just keeping up with all its entrenched intricacies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If not from royalty, then from who, pray tell, was the received pronunciation received from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Received Pronunciation#History: The word received conveys its original meaning of accepted or approved – as in "received wisdom". That's from who they got it from. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hitoshi Doi

Hi! For Hitoshi Doi I would like to find:

Wilner, Norman. "Anime fest invades Toronto." Toronto Star. June 18, 1999. Entertainment Start Page 1
Also I would like to find the following television episode: Undercurrents Season 2, Show 8 Original Telecast: Nov. 22/1996
- Specifically this segment: "Otaku Producer: Adrian Callender Reporter: Todd Southgate One extreme form of obsession with technology is the information junkie. They are people actually in love with information, and they first came to light in Japan, according to Todd Southgate."

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that you want a full copy of the Toronto Star article, WP:REX is the place to go. I don't know about the TV show. Deor (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whups, sorry! I thought I had posted it in REX... WhisperToMe (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bora Bora

Can someone translate the French article on the Kingdom of Bora Bora? I have contacted every translators on the list of French-to-English translator to no avail before. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, are you looking for something more accurate than the machine-translated version (with mouseover popups of the original French) which is linked in the box at the top of the (English Wikipedia) article you have already linked to? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.103 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean for someone to translate the content of the French article into English.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Providing that" vs. "Provided that". Is one of them more common?

According to Goggle hits for these phrases, "Provided that" is seven times as common as "Providing that". How come? Is "Providing that" regarded as "high" - hence less common? Note that I'm not a native speaker, so I'll appreciate any native speaker who may elaborate on that a little bit. Thanks. 87.68.252.137 (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either one or the other might be considered strictly the more correct in a particular grammatical construction, one being notionally in the continuous present (or possibly future) tense and the other in the past tense (if you'll excuse my oversimple use of possibly obsolescent grammatical terms). For example:

"Providing that y happens, we can do x" v. "He could have done y provided that z had happened".

However, the majority of native English speakers are, I suspect (being one), not usually consciously aware of the difference and may frequently use one, more often "provided", where the other would theoretically be more appropriate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.103 (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but no cigar. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I don't smoke. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.103 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "provided that" is a lot more common. No, "providing that" is not high language. There is no difference in meaning. "Tenses" have nothing to do with it. As a non-native speaker, use only "provided that", or even better "if". FWIW, I'm a very experienced ESL teacher and professional translator. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why "As a non-native speaker, use only "provided that"? What's bad in "providing that" if I'm not a native? 87.68.252.137 (talk)

You use the one that's more common. It's safer. And "if" is even safer. It's like with "have to" and "must" for obligation. You should use "have to" because 1) it's always correct; and 2) "must" isn't always correct, and is never better than "have to"; and 3) the rules for using must are very difficult for a non-native speaker. ("Must" as in "You're wet! It must be raining" is a different matter). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your example in 3 contradicts 1, doesn't it?

Anyways, back to "provided that", you're claiming that it's safer because it's more common: I could have understood that in the "must"-case (in which you've brought not less than three reasons for establishing some connection - between the prevalence of "have to" - and its being safer), but what about "providing that"? Can you establish any connection - between the prevalence of "provided that" - and its being safer, as you did in the "must"-case?

Admittedly, when I received Google hits for these phrases, and realized that "Provided that" is seven times as common as "Providing that", I was taken aback! Because, AFAIK, there is no difference in meaning, as you - too - indicated, so I wondered: What causes this prevalence of "provided that", being seven times as common as "providing that"? As a non-native, I suspected it had something to do with the difference between high language and low language, but now you're claiming there's no such a difference, so I still wonder: What makes "provided that" so much more common? An incident only?

Btw, I was taken aback again when reading your warning - to prefer "provided that" to "providing that" - on the ground of being "safer", while I couldn't see any connection - between the prevalence of "provided that" - and its being safer, as long as there's no difference in meaning (not like in the "must"-case) - as you indicated - and as I have always known. Again, I'll aprreciate any further clarification on that matter.

87.68.252.137 (talk)

What's so difficult to understand here? I advised you that when there are multiple ways of saying something, it's better for a non-native speaker to choose the one that is more common. It's safer for the simple reason that it is more common. Non-native speakers who use the less common form run the risk of sounding odd, and of stepping on linguistic landmines if there are subtle differences in meaning, as there are with "have to" and "must". The fact that in this case there is no subtle difference in meaning does not mean that my advice was not a good general rule to follow.

The best alternative, as I said, is "if". It's always right, it's by far the most common (and therefore safest), and neither "provided that" nor "providing that" are ever better alternatives. You'll never go wrong with "if".

Why even bother thinking about using "provided that" nor "providing that"? In all my life, I don't think I've ever used either one. And I'm a highly educated 52-year old who comes from an academic family and has studied classical languages, modern languages and science at excellent universities in America and Europe and has written or translated about a dozen books and more than 500 articles. If I've never had the need to use either phrase, than neither will you.

As to why "provided that" is more common than "providing that", it's probably because it fits in with similar phrases like "given that" or "granted that". But that's academic.

By the way, nothing here has to do with formal/informal language. My advice is good for both registers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand the advice (for the non-natives) to follow the more common phrases, I think it should only be followed when there's a difference in meaning, and should be ignored - when there's no difference in meaning - as in our case.

As for your explanation: Note that "provided that" fits in with "given than" and with "granted that", just as "providing that" fits in with "assuming that" and with "supposing that". However, I think your explanation is reasonable, because the verb "prodive" is semantically closer to the verbs "give" and "grant", than to the verbs "assume" and "suppose". Additionally, here is another explanation for the prevalence of "provided that" (according to Google hits): Google gives results of the written language, in which case one would rather write a word having 8 letters only ("provided"), than write a longer word - having 9 letters ("providing"). However, I prefer - your "academic" explanation - to my "psychological" one.

87.68.252.137 (talk)

Yes, before I got to the end of your post, I was going to make the comparison with "given that" and "granted that". Nobody ever says "giving that" or "granting that", so why say "providing that"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Provided that ... ", like "given that ...", is an absolute construction which requires no antecedent (there is nothing, at least nothing expressed, which is doing the giving or providing). I conjecture that "providing that ... " was originally an error, based on phrases like "assuming that ... ", which is a participial phrasing modifying "I" or "we" - as it is I or we that are doing the assuming. --ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting conjecture. As for "assuming that", there's also "supposing that". Anyways, the verb "prodive" is semantically closer to the verbs "give" and "grant", than to the verbs "assume" and "suppose". 87.68.252.137 (talk)

I agree with Colin Fine on the meaning of provide in providing that and provided that, except that assuming that and providing that are not errors in my opinion. Here is the relevant sense of provide, taken from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

to have as a condition : stipulate <the contract provides that certain deadlines will be met> 64.140.121.160 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that "assuming that" was an error, and I didn't think so. I suggested that "assuming that" (and "supposing that") make sense because the subject of "assume" (and "suppose") are the salient "I" or "we". I suggested that "provided that" is a different, absolute, construction, because the subject of "provide" is not salient in the discourse; and that "providing that" is a hybrid construction that adopted the pattern of "assuming that": it is a dangling participle, whereas "assuming" is not necessarily. --ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of "Assuming that Romney wins the election, the health care law will be repealed"? Obviously, it isn't the health care law that's doing the assuming. A purist might call "assuming" a dangling participle here, but the "assuming that" clause is really a "sentence adverb" (or more accurately, a sentence adverbial phrase). The meaning of the sentence is "Assuming that Romney wins the election, one can say that the health care law will be repealed." Another example of this is "Strictly speaking, a dentist is not a doctor." (I don't know if that's true.) The dentist is not the one speaking, yet this sentence is certainly correct. In my opinion, "providing that" for "if one provides that," where provide has the meaning "stipulate," is no different than these examples. In any case, providing that has been in the language at least since 1423, and provided that since 1460. 64.140.121.160 (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage has an article on providing and provided. It can be viewed on Google Books. It says that both are standard and have long histories, but also that "the notion that providing is an error has entered the mainstream of American usage lore and in particular the world of pedagogy; Bernstein 1971 says that generations of schoolteachers have insisted on provided and proscribed providing." Its advice is: "You can use whichever sounds better to you. Our evidence shows that provided is used more often than providing and that provided has the greater literary backing." I see no reason that this advice should apply only to native speakers. In time, a non-native speaker may form their own preferences, and that's fine.

While Dominus Vobisdu is correct in saying that some expressions should be avoided by second-language speakers especially, I don't feel that that advice applies in this case, because both forms are standard. Most such cases involve language from which hearers are likely to draw negative inferences concerning the speaker's social class or education, and the word "standard" says precisely that no such inferences can be drawn. Those "purists" (and I'm using quotation marks because in the present case providing is older than provided) who do make negative inferences in these circumstances are not numerous enough to have changed the practice of educated native speakers, so there is no reason that second-language speakers should pay too much attention to them.

Here are a couple of other cases where non-native speakers need to pay attention. Swearwords, slang or other words characteristic of certain social groups, whose use may implicitly carry the message "I'm one of your group," may appear incongruous from someone who obviously doesn't share the group's language. Excessively formal language juxtaposed with obvious second-language mistakes has a similar effect. 64.140.121.160 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 87.68.252.137 (talk)

You said you used a Google search. Whenever I'm trying to determine the frequency of some expression, I always use Google Books or Google Scholar instead of an ordinary search. Using Advanced Search, you can also specify the language (if the same form appears in more than one language) and time period. 64.140.121.160 (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not to use the ordinary search when you try to determine the frequency of an expression used in everyday life? Btw, I wrote "Thanks" to your previous response - which I read only after I'd responded to ColinFine's response. 87.68.252.137 (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the way Google's ordinary searches work (the details of which are proprietory secrets, and I doubtless wouldn't understand them anyway) their quoted numerical results can (I have read) be wildly inaccurate, and can vary hugely between different users and locations, and from day to day. You might find some relevant discussion of this topic on the academic linguists' blog Language Log, where User 64.140's approach is, as I recall, favoured for giving more realistic results for word usage statistics. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.26 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of these problems with search results. I suggested Google Books because the results are more likely to reflect good usage. There may be occasions when I'd prefer to include everything there is on the internet, but that's less common. 64.140.121.160 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Negative energy

Hi. Is there a specific term that means "chanelling negative energy such as anger into doing something productive including an athletic activity or artistic pursuit"? Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sublimation (psychology)? Henry ^Flower 15:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirection" might also work, as in "You need to redirect your anger into some activity less likely to get you on the Jerry Springer Show". StuRat (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]