Talk:छिक्कति

(New) Sanskrit

@Bhagadatta I'm sort of confused here; the terms chikkā and chikkana don't seem to be newly-coined terms, do they? The oldest citation I've put here is from 1851; is it so that chikkā was coined after this and then somehow became way more attested than this verb? Also the root *chikk- better justifies the formation of chikk-ana and chikk-ā, so should छिक्क् be moved to RC:Proto-Indo-Aryan/chikk- which formed chikkā and chikkana in Sanskrit and chikkati in New Sanskrit? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 03:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH: छिक्क् (chikk) should be deleted. You can't make up roots or any entries like that. छिक्का and छिक्कति are both onomatopoeic; it is easy for one to be derived from the other without involving a "root". It should be "Proto Indo Aryan" either, it should be deleted. As for which form came from which, it is suffient to say that they're all onomatopoeic. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 03:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: I do find a few mentions of the root chikk (eg the last citation here mentions it) but it may not be sufficient for an entry. If the root is being deleted, then should the root and verb class be kept here at the headword? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 04:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH: Yeah the entry could be deleted but we can mention it. To qualify as entries, Sanskrit roots should feature in Pāṇini's Dhātupāṭha. But it's fine to mention them in other entries if they don't appear in Monier Williams (who follows Dhātupāṭha). -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 15:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)