Talk:𐎼𐎢𐎨𐏃

@JohnC5 Any idea on a Sanskrit cognate for this? —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 23:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: रोचस् (rócas). We also mention of it here. where did you find this spelling? I only found 𐎼𐎢𐎨 (ra-u-ca). —JohnC5 04:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5: I think rauca is nominative singular. Skjaervo gives raucah- as the stem. Although maybe it's rauca^h and the h is assumed to have pronounced but not written? —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 12:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: See now we get into the question of whether we want to provide the "stem-form" of the lemma as we do in Avestan or Sanskrit or only the actually attested forms as we do in Hittite. @Victar? —JohnC5 15:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5, Aryamanarora: For me, that question has already come and gone -- no, I don't think they should be reconstructed stem-form but instead in sg.nom. for nouns and sg.3rd for verbs. As a parallel, we don't reconstruct VL in the present infinitive, even though its descendants take that form. If you disagree, I recommend starting a discussion on a broader talk page, but fair warning, I will fight tooth and nail on this. --Victar (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I think I misunderstood. Yes, at least for now, I think the OPer lemmas should be in stem-form, which is kind of a non-issue for OPer anyway, since they're usually identical, as the -ʰ is an academic notation of a silent letter, from what I understand (I may be wrong on that). --Victar (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victar, Aryamanarora: Thanks for your input. Just to be clear though, the name of this entry is currently ra-u-ca-h, which is useful for showing the declension of the noun, but is unattested. The attested forms of which I know are:

• 𐎼𐎢𐎨 (ra-u-ca /⁠raucaʰ⁠/, nom.sg.) Behistun 3, row 8, word 4
• 𐎼𐎢𐎨𐎱𐎫𐎡𐎺𐎠 (ra-u-ca-pa-t-i-va-a /⁠rauca(ʰ)-pati-vā⁠/, “or, moreover, by day”, acc.sg.) Behistun 1, row 20, word 3
• 𐎼𐎢𐎨𐎲𐎡𐏁 (ra-u-ca-b-i-š /⁠raucabiš⁠/, inst.pl.) Behistun 1, row 39, word 7 & row 47, word 3

I'm fine if we want to put OPers. in stem-form, or nom.sg., or the "closest" attested form to nom.sg., but I'd like us to agree. I'm gonna ask this more generally soon, but I want your opinion first. —JohnC5 17:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think if Av is in stem-form, so should OPer. If we change one, we should change both. --Victar (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, Avestan is already (or should be) in stem-form because that his the dictionary practice. Tolman's 1908 Ancient Persian Lexicon gives Old Persian in stem-form as does Skjærvø when mentioning terms. —JohnC5 17:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'm aware. It was a rhetorical if. --Victar (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! —JohnC5 18:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: Unless you can cite the reconstructions elsewhere, I recommend holding off on creating entries from the table we're working. We're still fleshing out those reconstructions, and this one is a good example of that. --Victar (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: I wasn't aware this was in the table... I was reading through Skjaervo's Introduction to Old Persian when I found this word. I'll hold off for now. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 17:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)