Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 May 19

= May 19 =

Agent Smithspeak
In The Matrix Revolutions, we see the character of Agent Smith appear again, who throughout the trilogy has a very distinctive way of speaking. But what's interesting and amusing is how well Bane, who is supposed to be infected with Smith's mind via the Matrix, manages to copy this same distinct pattern of speaking. What's amusing is that the ability to talk in just this manner is clearly infectious; just as the seed of vampirism has spread throughout "Vampire Goths", it is plausible that someday a whole high school subculture will have millions of children infected with this Agent Smithspeak. But I'm not very observant linguistically and it's hard for me to tell - does the uniqueness of Smith/Bane's speech depend on what they say or how they say it? How hard is it to copy this speech pattern convincingly? Wnt (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's more a question of prosody, rather than the actual words they say. As for the question "how hard is this to copy?": the answer will vary heavily from person to person. Gabbe (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the way he speaks was partly a result of Hugo Weaving attempting to speak with an American accent. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hugo Weaving lived in Nigeria, then England, Australia, South Africa, England again, and Australia again. Add to that an attempt to speak with an American accent, and it's no wonder what comes out is a little mongrelised.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Bane, played by Ian Bliss, takes on this manner of speaking after being infected with the Smith program. It is crucial to the scene that the average viewer recognizes that he is recognizably speaking in the same way.  Part of it is that he has a way of asking questions about himself, but I don't think that is all. Wnt (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing I most distinctly remember about Agent Smith's way of talking is his peculiar rhythm, the tiny little...pauses and the way he always gives a bit of extra...stress to the first syllable...following the pause (often accompanied by a small...raise in pitch). Watching the Bane scene on youtube, I was surprised to see Ian Bliss doesn't do that very much at all...I haven't watched Matrix Revolutions so it's possible the effect is more noticeable in the context of the movie, but just form that scene, I think he did a rather poor job of sounding like Smith -- Ferkelparade &pi; 16:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"marked with"
The article Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland contains the following section (emphasis added):

"Media coverage

The visit was covered extensively by Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ) and TV3. RTÉ and TV3 extended their normal programming. RTÉ broadcast events on television, radio and internet. The Queen and Us, by Tommie Gorman, was broadcast on the night of 17 May at the end of the first day of the visit.[21]

The visit was marked with several documentaries, including: " (three programs are listed)

I'm seeking opinion here. In this context, does "marked with" carry a positive or negative connotation, or it is simply a concise and neutral way of saying that the three programs were shown at the time of the visit because of their relevance?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In my reading "marked" doesn't have a particular positive or negative implication, but it does have a subtle meaning. Firstly, it implies that the showing of the problems now wasn't coincidence; also that the either the programmes were commissioned to be shown now, or else some effort went in to showing them now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems neutral to me (I would have said "marked by", though, not "marked with"). You might be confusing it with "marred", which is definitely negative, as in "the protest was marred by several outbreaks of violence". StuRat (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, "marked by" and "marked with" are slightly different, although it's hard to think exactly what the difference is. I think "marked by" would be more general, like things that merely happened while the Queen was there, whereas "marked with" makes it sound like a very exact event, like the marking of an anniversary with a festival or whatever. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree that both "with" and "by" are both neutral terms. The distinction might be clearer if we make the sentence slightly more prolix - "The television companies marked the visit with several documentaries", as against "The television companies marked the visit by producing several documentaries".  The first sentence answers the question "What did the television companies mark the visit with?", while the second answeres the question "How did the television companies respond to the visit?".   So, "with" carries a (fairly well hidden) assumption that the television companies were going to do _something_ to mark the occasion, while "by" leaves open the possibility that they might not have done anything at all. Tevildo (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that there's also an active voice/passive voice distinction. To my ear it's "The television companies marked the visit with several documentaries," but "The visit was marked by several documentaries." In the first it's the television companies that are doing the marking (and they use the documentaries to do so), but in the second the documentaries are the ones doing the marking. I don't like the "The visit was marked with several documentaries," as that associates the documentaries into part of the essential character of the visit itself, as opposed to being the work of a separate agent applied externally to the visit. Although, if the documentaries were planned by the Queen's staff and seen as part of the associated festivities, I would see the case for the passive+with (e.g. "The visit was marked with several press photo opportunities.") -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)