Talk:पंछी

Etymology

@Bhagadatta According to {{R:hi:McGregor}}, this is 'adapted from' or 'adaptation of' Sanskrit, which is another way of saying 'semilearned borrowing'. The Old Hindi form is पंषि (paṃṣi), पंषी (paṃṣī) in {{R:inc-ohi:Kabir}}. Regarding ष it says:

[There is] group of tatsamas and semi-tatsamas consists of words in which the written retroflex ṣa stands for the original consonant cluster ... kṣa: Thus for the Sanskrit...वृष we see बिरष or बृष.

Kutchkutch (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Interesting. If I were to analyse it, I would posit पंछी (pañchī) as inherited from a Prakrit *pacchī ~ *paṃchī; the palatal parallel of the attested pakkhi ~ paṃkhi, and then explain the Old Hindi form(s) as hypercorrection(s). But in the event of a disagreement with a published source and a wiktionary editor, it is always safer to assume that the source is right. Should First attested as {{ncog|inc-ohi|पंषी}} be included? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 14:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Yes, if the etymology in {{R:hi:McGregor}} is to be used, then it follows that पंछी is first attested as Old Hindi पंषि / पंषी. Also, the transliteration of पंषि / पंषी is given as pãṣi / pãṣī in {{R:inc-ohi:Kabir}}. Kutchkutch (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta: It does seem quite likely that this word is inherited rather than being a semi-borrowing as mentioned in {{R:hi:McGregor}}. A couple of sources actually support that: [1], [2]. Likewise, the word being arrived at by inheritance is also perfectly plausible. Should we actually restore the etymology stating it is inherited? —Svārtava (talk) • 11:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Svartava, Kutchkutch: Interesting. I have also found a few attestations of the term पच्छिओ. I'm still trying to figure out its meaning, to see if it actually is the nom. sg. of पच्छिअ. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 06:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)