Language desk
< July 3	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

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.

July 4[edit]

Cuneiform[edit]

(Re-posting question from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 March 31 which wasn't answered at the time)

Can somebody help me identify the characters on this tablet?

The left column looks like A AB BI A2 ALEPH U I, and the top of the middle column like AL MA GAR; but the rest of the characters are too difficult for me to match against the list of cuneiform signs. --51.9.70.251 (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possessives[edit]

I received some great help on possessives a few weeks ago, and have a couple follow-up questions:
"Columbia Records's new artist" - I've been seeing Records's so often that doubt has crept in and I'd like to check that this should be Records'.
Then there are names that appear to stylistically substitute z for s like music artists Outlawz, DJs Headhunterz and SwizZz, and children's information provider Medikidz. Any opinions on possessives? Plural agreement seems to apply but I feel I might be making an assumption about the intention behind the z. - Reidgreg (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for Columbia Records, I view it as singular, as in "Columbia Records is a music company". So the rules for possessives of singulars ending in s apply. There are two competing rules: add apostrophe, or add apostrophe plus s. Myself, I use whichever accords with the way I pronounce it—apostrophe plus s if I pronounce an extra syllable, just apostrophe otherwise. In this case I would not pronounce an extra syllable, so I would just go with the apostrophe. But as I say there are two competing rules, so either choice is justified. Loraof (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can avoid the Saxon genitive and say "the new artist of Columbia Records".

—Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples I've come across - Columbia Records, DC Comics, Malaysia Airlines, Pacific Street Films, Prophecy Productions, Plymouth Raiders - I'd pronounce without an additional s for the possessive. But with pronunciation as the guide it seems like a matter of dialect. - Reidgreg (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught that all words finishing in x or z or x, whether plural or not, should not need the s, just the apostrophe, when adding a possessive. So I would write "wacth this Medikidz' video", just like I would write "the Martins' car". --Lgriot (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The usage I see in America tends to put an 's after an x, as in this headline, which refers to "White Sox's win over Braves". It doesn't quite seem correct, because "Sox" is just a slangy way of spelling "Socks". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides dyslexia, what reading or writing impairments exist?[edit]

Are there reading or writing impairments independent of dyslexia, and that are not explained by simply being ignorant? --Hofhof (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blindness. Dementia. Death. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aphasia, and I suspect plenty more in Category:Communication disorders and Category:Language disorders, and if not covered by the above, Category:Alexia (condition). --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, see List of language disorders, which gives a lot of info in table form. Loraof (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as writing, physical problems with the hands, like arthritis, nerve or muscle disorders, or amputation, would have made writing impossible for earlier generations (other than by having somebody transcribe what was said). But there are some modern technologies like what Stephen Hawking uses that allow such people to write today. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Term for "string of synonyms"[edit]

Is there a specific rhetorical/literary term for a string of synonyms or near-synonymous words or phrases? As in "terrible, horrible, no-good day" or "mysterious and poorly understood." 75.4.17.33 (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isocolon is the technical term. Tevildo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accumulatio? -- BenRG (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tautology? --Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beating a dead horse? —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links everyone, those terms seem applicable to what I was describing-- although it looks like there's some overlap and ambiguity between them. 75.4.17.33 (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot "very bad", by the way. The parisosis just ain't the same without it. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schesis onomaton sounds close. And looks dreadful. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might just be me associating it with the Skeksis automaton, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

We should throw Hendiatris into the mix, as well. Tevildo (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]