Talk:उषास्

spelling of nom.sg.

@Pulimaiyi I see you moved this page from उषाः to उषास्, but I'm not sure this is a good idea. The declension and conjugation tables consistently show final -s/r as visarga. I assume the logic behind it is that this is simply the actually occurring form when used in isolation (other sites like https://sanskrit.inria.fr/DICO/grammar.fr.html use this too). I know that older sources like Monier-Williams and Whitney give final -s/r, but in any case, the usage across the site should be consistent.

I think that in the long term, there should be some template showing all possible sandhi forms of a word.

Also pinging @Svartava2, @AryamanA, @Dragonoid76 Exarchus (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Exarchus: This is why I created a redirect for the visarga form! It is not just MW/Whitney, many many papers and articles dealing in Vedic refer to nom. sg of words using the final -s. It's impossible for me to link those now but you get the drift. Also, implementing this convention will mean creating entries with s in the stem (like वचस्) will also have to be looked at as now we will have to use the visarga there as well.

Really, I do not think consistency is being so much compromised here. The -s form is the original one and the visarga is the sandhi form before certain letters and [nothing]. I really doubt that any reader will really be confused when they click on the visarga form and are redirected to the original. I think such a basic understanding of how Sanskrit works is a prerequisite for someone who is reading these entries on Wiktionary. The nom. sg of अश्व for instance is अश्वस् and depending upon its placement in the sentence it may be अश्वश् or अश्वो as well, so would we say this compromises on the consistency or confuses the reader? We cannot go around creating all these forms right? Any reader of Sanskrit at Wiktionary can reasonably be expected to know at least this much. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 12:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

PS: On second thoughts, I want to say that if consistency is an issue, we should be modifying the declension tables to show the -s forms, since we anyways document the "mention forms" of the word on Wiktionary. This is because:

• It has a good precedent. We always write {{cog|sa|प्रातर्}} instead of प्रातः. This means we should also be documenting the "mention forms" of the word in the declension tables.
• This will eliminate the need to move terms like प्रातर् to the visarga final forms; moving such entries would be strongly undesirable to me and I'm sure to @Svartava as well. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 13:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The -s form is certainly the original one, but synchronically it's a bit weird not to consider the visarga form as the 'real' one, as that's the stand-alone form. But my idea wasn't to move lemma forms like प्रातर् to प्रातः, as we do give the underlying (stem) forms there. I was simply thinking about the declined forms, but I'd like to hear what others have to say about this. Exarchus (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

In any case, giving all sandhi forms in the declension table is undoable as for a case like उषास्, I count 6 options. Exarchus (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I think the only reason we and other websites give the visarga forms in declension because it is the form that is to occur by itself or stand alone without any word after it that modifies what it becomes. However, since we do regularly write terms like प्रातर् (prātar) instead of प्रातः (prātaḥ) (the standalone form), for example in etymology sections, etc. I do think we could start doing the same in declension tables by writing the terms like उषास् (uṣās) instead of उषाः (uṣāḥ).

This would also help for further clarification and removal of any possible ambiguity - for example, if the standalone visarga form is given in the declension table, it can be interpreted as either being the -r form or -s form and the sandhi forms of both are by no means the same, for example, प्रातर् (prātar) + एव (eva) -> प्रातर् एव (prātar eva) but कालस् (kālas, nominative singular of काल (kāla)) + एव (eva) -> काल एव (kāla eva). So writing out the -s form instead of the common standalone form of words ending in either -r or -s would help removing such confusion - which I myself had as a beginner in Sanskrit due to textbooks giving visarga forms as the nominative singular. Svartava (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Not a big fan of the sandhi form entries I find occasionally, I don't think they should exist. I'm good with having the visarga form redirect to the -s underlying form for these nouns. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 01:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't resist making a mock-up of my imagined 'sandhi template'. First a few disclaimers:

- I don't think this is the most urgent thing that should be done regarding Sanskrit entries.

- If a ton of new pages would have to be created for the implementation of this (one for each case form), this should obviously be done by bot (with which I have no experience).

That said, this is what such template for उषास् might rudimentarily look like:

Sandhi forms of उषास् (uṣā́s)
Before pause, क् (k), ख् (kh), प् (p) and फ् (ph)	उषाः (uṣā́ḥ)
Before vowels and voiced consonants	उषा (uṣā́)
Before च् (c) and छ् (ch)	उषाश् (uṣā́ś)
Before ट् (ṭ) and ठ् (ṭh)	उषाष् (uṣā́ṣ)
Before त् (t) and थ् (th)	उषास् (uṣā́s)
Before श् (ś)	उषाः (uṣā́ḥ), उषाश् (uṣā́ś)
Before ष् (ṣ)	उषाः (uṣā́ḥ), उषाष् (uṣā́ṣ)
Before स् (s)	उषाः (uṣā́ḥ), उषास् (uṣā́s)

(This doesn't include the more obscure rules in Whitney §173) Exarchus (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A low-key alternative would be to have every declension table link to a 'sandhi page', where all options are duly explained. (With maybe a few of the above tables as examples.) Exarchus (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I decided to make an appendix for 'Sanskrit sandhi', very much work in progress, but it should be useful whatever is decided to give in the declension tables (-s or -ḥ). Exarchus (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, the appendix is a nice way of explaining sandhi without creating every inflection page and adding the sandhi table on it, which would be unnecessary for the readers who have learned how sandhi functions. Svartava (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)