Talk:क्षान्ति

Lemmatisation

@Svartava See Talk:ಮರಹಟ್ಠ

Kutchkutch: Should words be lemmatised or entered as attested?

AryamanA: I think words should be lemmatized for consistency and the use of the lemma for comparative purposes, but in tables we can always note that the lemma form is not actually attested in a particular dialect.

Kutchkutch (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: That is true, but this is a little different case as Turner's CDIAL gives the non-lemma form, which it doesn't do for most Ashokan words (which are also most probably different from their attested inflections). Its fairly easily to deduce the lemma from the accusative singular and also having a strong inherited etymology so the confusion arises from Turner showing the non-lemma. Svartava (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava: Deducing the lemma form can be a bit a guess, but if it is based on one or more reasons, then it should be permissible (similar to the |ts= parameter). There are other examples such as

587 ayám

8179 pitŕ̥

7799g paralōka

8525 praṇaya

12682 śráma

just to name a few. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: I see, but Ashokan Prakrit 𑀙𑀸𑀢𑀺 (chāti) may be considered guesswork/original research on Wiktionary even if it is permissible since I can't back it up with any source. I'll probably avoid creating this for now at least. Svartava (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Sorry for over-burdening you with notifications. What would be your preference for the lemma page for paraloka, praṇaya, śrama? Would you confidently enough create the lemma entries for the stems (which I agree are very obvious in these particular cases) from the accusative? Svartava (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava: What would be your preference for the lemma page for paraloka, praṇaya, śrama? … (which I agree are very obvious in these particular cases)

Yes, although deriving lemma form may seem intimidating at first, they are very obvious.

For paralōka, praṇaya and śráma, the lemma form would be obtained by the deletion of the accusative marker -ṁ.

Dhauli paṇayaṁ, palalokaṁ

Jaugada paṇayaṁ, palalogaṁ

[No lect specified] samaṁ

For the adjective pāralaukika

The lemma form of Girnar pāralokikā would be the replacement of the feminine marker -ā with -a

Shahbazgarhi and Mansehra paralokika already appear to be in their lemma forms. The reason for this may be that -ā cannot be represented in the Kharoshthi script.

Kalsi palalokikyā appears to be a combination of pāralaukika and pāralōkya since it has both i and y. However, if the stem is ignored, the lemma form of Kalsi palalokikyā would be the replacement of the feminine marker -ā with -a.

Would you confidently enough create the lemma entries for the stems

Yes, although it may also be helpful to consult other sources such as {{R:inc-ash:Hultzsch}} and {{R:inc:CGMIA}}, I would confidently create the lemma entries for the stems if I decide to edit those groups of terms. Unless someone raises any concerns, this should be fine. Kutchkutch (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava:

Regarding chātiṃ

On page 90 of {{R:inc:CGMIA}}, it says

The -i (-ī) Declension (Feminine)

ACC. SG. -m (with dialectal loss of the ending)

Girnar chātiṃ, Shahbazgarhi chaṃti, Kalsi khaṃti < kṣāntim

This citation is sufficient to lemmatise Girnar accusative singular chātiṃ as chāti. However, the Shahbazgarhi form starts with ch instead of kṣ in {{R:CDIAL}}.

Regarding palalokikyā

On page 182 of {{R:inc:CGMIA}}, palalokikyā has been lemmatised as /paralokikya/ with the first <l> reanalysed as <r>.

Page 82 of {{R:inc:CGMIA}} says that the -ā in the attested form palalokikyā instead of the -a in the lemmatised form is a feminine marker.

If these two pages are cited, there is no original research with respect to lemmatisation.

With respect to the stem, page 182 of {{R:inc:CGMIA}} analyses it has having the pleonastic suffix -ikya rather than being influenced by pāralōkya.

Kutchkutch (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Thank you for the research! Regarding the Shahbazgarhi term being different in the two sources, perhaps they can be given as alternative forms (since both the sources are decently reliable) with both entries having their respective citations. It is known that l ~ r variants are nothing unusual but the reanalysing of palalokikyā as paralokikya does bring in some confusion but to follow sources we could lemmatize per the source and mention that the attested form is palalokikyā and has been reanalysed thus (with inlined references). Svartava (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)