Talk:पयोहिम

@AryamanA: Does this pass the CFI? There are no attestations, not even as a neologism. Only spokensanskrit.de has this word, which makes me think this is a made-up word. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

ٰ@माधवपंडित: I found some stuff definitely: [1] (pretty funny actually), [2], and [3] (I wonder if any people read Sanskrit recipes). Also this tweet by a Sanskrit poet makes me wonder if existing New Sanskrit usually uses this word. Anyway, I think New Sanskrit qualifies as an LDL like New Latin, so only one cite is enough. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 19:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Lol, never read a Sanskrit joke before. Thanks for checking! -- माधवपंडित (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA, माधवपंडित So could words like शर्मण्यदेश (śarmaṇyadeśa, “Germany”) at page 1332 have entries as New Sanskrit?

न पुनः शर्मण्यदेशं, समग्रमपि विश्वमेकनीडायन्ती भाषा विश्वस्मिन् विश्वे केवलं संस्कृतमेव विद्यते।

or पातालदेश (pātāladeśa, “America”)?

सर्वासु दिक्षु पातालदेशपर्य्यन्तम्। Kutchkutch (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus that New Latin counts as an LDL and that one cite suffices. I certainly disagree with that view for Latin, as well as for Sanskrit. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Technically, yes, I guess. But as Metaknowledge said, this is a grey area. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Well, it has more than three cites, I just linked to whatever was convenient to access.

@Kutchkutch: Theoretically yes, I think. But yeah, what Madhavpandit said. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 13:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)