Talk:paccuppanna

Etymology

Discussed at Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2020/August#paccuppana. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Productivity of pacc-

What is the evidence for "pacc-" functioning as a productive suffix? It is akin to creating an entry for प्रत्य् (praty) and claiming that this suffix just happened to be attached to those words starting with a, e, o or u. That entry should be deleted (but it is for another discussion). Also the primary Pali reflex of Sanskrit prati is paṭi - this form, with the retroflex, is even more unlikely to synchronically give rise to "pacc-". Also pinging: @Svartava. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 11:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pulimaiyi, Svartava: If you look at pacc-, you will see it described as an alternative form of pati- and paṭi-. For livish alternation, you'll find at least the aorists paccabhāsi and paccassosi of paṭibhāsi and paṭisuṇāti. The augment doesn't seem very common after prefixes. However, if pacc- was dead, I would expect pati- and paṭi- to also be dead. If we keep the latter two, we ought to keep pacc-.

Note that these two verbs are preserved with the retroflex prefix. Does anyone know a rule for choosing between pati- and paṭi-? The suggestions I've seen for the twofold development imply L1 interference. Retroflexion in this environment appears to be a minority development. The allomorphy may well have been learned, like the choice between 'a' and 'an' in English, which I do remember being taught by a workbook in primary school. Remember that the alternation was kept active by the augment in verbal inflection. --RichardW57m (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

According to Norman's additions to Geiger §55, not only retroflex nasals but retroflex oral stops may affricate with <y>. We actually have a 3-way development (affrication/assimilation/epenthesis) as with nasals:

From vikuraṇḍa we get *vaikuraṇḍya which then yields Pali vekurañja.

From आढ्य (āḍhyá) we get both aḍḍha and, unmentioned by Norman, āḷhiya.

Thus paṭi- could quite well have given rise to pacc-.

I also found a remarkable double of Pali pacceka, namely pāṭiekka／pāṭiyekka. I'm not sure where the vowel lengthening comes from - it might be part of the cluster resolution, though it's the opposite to the resolution of -ry- and Geiger has a different suggestion.

Geiger §42 gives a neat partial explanation of pati- v. paṭi-. A following retroflex consonant forces the use of the dental in the prefix. --RichardW57 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@RichardW57 or @RichardW57m But we don't give words like Sanskrit प्रत्येक (pratyeka) as praty- + eka but rather prati + eka. It is similarly reasonable for Pali as well. IMO pacc- should at best be mentioned in usage notes of the main entry instead of a separate entry. Svartava (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There are two Latin precedents - ir- (“not”), which is a term, but words containing in it are analysed as containing in- (“not”), though for English, words visibly containing ir- (“not”) are categorised as containing it and not in- (“not”).

The opposite approach is taken with -āris, which was originally a highly predictable allomorph of -ālis. Words with the former are analysed as containing it.

If you are proposing using only one of pati- and paṭi- in (surface) etymologies, then pacc- can likewise be removed from them. Either way, the three remain as terms. I've just demoted pati- and pacc- to prefix forms. English ir- (“not”) is also a non-lemma. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)