User talk:Pulimaiyi/2020

Accentuation of Sanskrit पितु

Are you sure that the two entries at पितु (pitu) have the same accentuation? You hoisted the pronunciation out of Etymology 1 and applied it to both lemmas, presumably accidentally mismarking the accent as being on the first syllable. However, the accent for the first lemma was marked in the transliteration as being on the second syllable. I've changed it to be on the second syllable. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

However, I am not sure what the accent is on the second lemma. If the etymology is a valid guide, I would expect it on the first syllable as in Greek. (I may easily be missing something - there seems to have been quite a bit of accent shift between PIE and the daughters attesting the accent.) --RichardW57 (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The dictionaries I've consulted seem to give these two entries as the same word. Consequently, I think we need quotes to establish the accent. I don't know how to mark the entry up as in need of attention, and I think we may need to move the pronunciation down to the per etymology level. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57:: i) I moved the pronunciation up because there were 2 entries and having separate pronunciations for both would be kind of redundant (the entry would tell the reader the pronunciation of this word four times and three of those four pronunciations would be identical, if we exclude the accent for the second lemma).

ii) My placing the accentuation on the first syllable was indeed a mistake, it was meant to be a=2 and not a=1; thanks for fixing that.

iii) As you pointed out, the dictionaries don't even consider them to be separate words - food, nourishment, drink, sap, fat, juice - are all mentioned together as though defining a single word. I think it's our decision to declare them two separate words - owing to the cognates. I cannot really recall whence this reasoning came from, but since Lubotsky does not mention the Greek and Latin cognates, we felt the need to split this entry into two lemmas. If someone would go through the bother of going through Beekes' dictionary and check if he mentions this Sanskrit word, it would help us to club both the etymologies into one.

iv) So, if it cannot be determined if the second lemma was indeed a different word AND that it had a different accentuation, I think it will do no harm to leave the pronunciation at the top, accounting for the accented pronunciation of the first lemma and the un-accented pronunciation of both the lemmas. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

PS. Just checked the entry. Turns out I created it 3 years ago, when I was new and was mostly involved in moving information from wiktionary to wiktionary. My sources for etymology used to be etymologies at other pages. Hence it's possible I may have seen this red-link word at the entry for fat or πίτυς or pinus and decided that this sense of the word was different from the one related to Avestan 𐬞𐬌𐬙𐬎 (pitu). Relation to English fat and Latin pinus is almost certainly false. If one could confirm the cognacy of this word with the Greek term (because THAT Greek word looks very temptingly related), then this entry would stay as 2 separate lemmas. If not, remove the Greek, Latin and English cognates and merge both the etymologies. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a good chance that someone will copy the accent from the pronunciation to the transliteration of the second lemma. I don't know how to flag the desirability of checking this word, even though it take 10 years before someone gets round to doing it. I'm inclined to flag and otherwise leave as now is, as sorting it out needs a fair amount of work or skill, possibly both. Your program of work also makes sense. However, there is also the possibility that the two words have become one - a tricky situation for a lexicographer. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: I checked Beekes. (Very fiddly to navigate around, in that huge PDF, looking for the letter pi, but I did it.) It was as I suspected; tempting as it is to relate πίτυς to पितु, they are not really related. Beekes rather pairs it with "पीतुदारु (pītudāru) or पूतुदारु (pūtudāru)" (what even is that?). So the conclusion is clear: there really is just one word and I made a mistake when I created the entry. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Pūtudāru = the Pūtu tree, the wood of which is prescribed for the ghee ladles used in some Atharvavedic rituals. I'm chiming in here, per my older comment above, to just note that you seem to systematically have mismarked the accent in a bunch of entries. We could go through manually and fix them all, but I wonder if there's some simpler programmatic way to do it. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I manually added declensions to those few entries which the template wouldn't touch- root nouns, mostly ending in consonants. I don't think there are many. But yeah, they need corrections because I'd just copy the transliteration of that word's stem & paste it, making only obvious corrections like vowel lengths. I've been meaning to fix that and these root nouns are usually scantily attested and a list of attested forms is given by Monier-Williams when only a few forms are attested, so I'll be including only those inflections and be leaving the rest blank, as they aren't attested. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You think we should exclude unattested forms, where the paradigm is predictable? I don't necessarily feel strongly either way, but I do think we should avoid inadvertently implying that paradigms were defective when we have no reason to suppose that they were. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Are these root nouns words that are no longer used in compositions? --RichardW57 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

They're generally quite archaic, and don't usually feature in modern compositions - they're most common in the older Vedic literature, particularly the Rigveda, although they sometimes show up in later works. I personally do occasionally use them when composing macaronic verse; I am intentionally archaizing there. I should also note that I don't read enormous amounts of modern Sanskrit composition, so for all I know there is a large community somewhere intentionally affecting an archaic style. There are twin questions of whether to include unattested forms (/forms that we don't know to be attested), and then, if we do, whether to mark the accent. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is that as a service to Wiktionary users, the unaccented forms at least should be there if they comply with Panini. A user might not be sure that they are after the meaning of a noun, and there may be several possibilities for the citation form. It's helpful to be able to search for inflected forms. It would be good to footnote them to say unattested. Some of the Sanskrit templates seem to be relatively amenable to manually entered footnotes, but I have seen Wikimedia footnote systems misbehave. --RichardW57 (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but it needs to be acknowledged that these are root nouns, in the zero grade, ending in consonants and they were present in the old Vedic language and not so much in Classical Sanskrit. Vedic Sanskrit was far less homogenous and does not always adhere to the rigid, defined structure and rules of Panini's codification. The ones I'm talking about are nouns like हिम् (him, “snow”), where if you decide to get speculative and enter the whole declension, the nom. sg would be "hín", which is absurd and patently incorrect (sanskrit.inria.fr, otherwise a very good resource, gives "hin" as the nom sg). Or the adjective युज् (yuj, “yoking”), where one may say the nom. sg is युक् (yuk) and enter it as such but the true inflection is युङ् (yuṅ). I do not oppose the idea of adding all the declined forms regardless of attestations, i just want it to be known that the inflections of these words may not always be predictable. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Does the simplex adjective युज् (yuj, “yoking”) exist in modern Sanskrit? If it does, can one use it in accordance with Panini, and if so, what does he allow? I don't know why you can't just say strong stem yuñj (word-final yuṅ), weak stem yuj, and populate from there that for the simplex. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

With regard to हिम् (him, “snow”), is that really a word in modern Sanskrit, or is there just an adverb हिमा (himā, “by snow”)? (Perhaps it should be treated as an irregular case form of हिम (hima).) Or is this word only Vedic Sanskrit, in which case we can far more reasonably refuse to extrapolate. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: It's a root noun attested in Vedic Sanskrit, yes. Distinct from हिम which is an a-stem. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

'Yes' to what? What's the evidence that the consonant stem is a distinct word? To me, it looks as though the consonant changed to an a-stem, with only the old instrumental singular surviving. Remnants like that are quite common in some IE languages. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The dictionaries & sources consider these root nouns to be distinct words. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian Murmured Clusters

Are you respecting a consensus for the Proto-Indo-Iranian murmured clusters, e.g. the precursors of Sanskrit -ddh-? I believe there are claims that the murmuring extended to all the occlusives, which your recent edits (e.g. at muddha) are now denying. --RichardW57 (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: To be clear, my edit at muddha did not deal with the ancestor of Sanskrit -ddh- (that would be Indo-Iranian -*dᶻdʰ-, from an earlier *-dʰt-. It altered the predecessor of Sanskrit -gdh- (whence Pali -ddh-). I don't recall any consensus at wiktionary that it was PII *-gʰdʰ-. The reconstruction *dʰáwgdʰi has -*gdʰ-. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. It looks like an issue of orthography. I think Wiktionary should pay more attention to the orthography of proto-languages; there are a lot of competing orthographies around, which make contributing unnecessarily difficult. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sanskrit vs "pre-Sanskrit"

Also, RE you edit at gandha; while we acknowledge that Pali and maybe the Prakrits' ancestor was not exactly Sanskrit, it should also be noted that the difference between Pali's ancestor and Sanskrit was very minute. So for wiktionary purposes and taking into consideration Panini's codification, we decided circa 2017 or 2018 at wiktionary that we'll treat Sanskrit like Latin and just say "from Sanskrit" for most words. Because Sanskrit as codified by Panini is a collection of different Old Indo-Aryan dialects of which only one (Vedic Sanskrit) was recorded during the Vedic times. So it'll be a lot simpler and not at all wrong to say that a particular Pali term is "from Sanskrit". And in words like ujjagghati and paggharati, you can have the PIA etymology. Cheers. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

For precision in origin, Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2019/July#Visibly_Untrue_Pali_Etymologies. Wiktionary hasn't the clout to redefine the term 'Sanskrit' as presented to the public, even it can redefine the language code 'sa'. There's also a difference between a term being inherited from whatever and being a borrowing from Vedic or Classical Sanskrit, which is completely buried in 'From Sanskrit'. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: In the discussion you linked, it was pointed out that Sanskrit is being treated as an Old Indo-Aryan dialect continuum. It'd hardly be "redefining" Sanskrit. It just means that wiktionary, just like {{R:CDIAL}} derives Pali and Prakrit words (even inherited) from Sanskrit when their ancestor term was identical to the Sanskrit term. OTOH for a term like paggharati, it'd be blatantly false to say it comes from Sanskrit प्रक्षरति (prakṣarati) because the Pali term's ancestor differed significantly from the Skt. term. This is what Turner ({{R:CDIAL}}) also does. I mean, while PIA had the voiced sibilant aspirate *źʰ, not a single IA language preserved it. Every last one, like Sanskrit, has a /h/. It would be a bit much to assume that *źʰ developed to /h/ independently in all IA languages. There's also the common trait of avoiding voiced sibilants and also turning the voiced sibilant ź to an affricate /j/ (Kobayashi's paper "Historical Phonology of Old Indo-Aryan Consonants" explains this wonderfully - I recommend it). Obviously all IA languages couldn't have done this independently. Keeping all this in mind, we would not be wrong if we said a Pali term comes from Sanskrit. Cheers. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

PS: This discussion makes everything clear AFAIK 🤪.

It's hard to tell what Turner is doing it - I can't find the key to his notation. He does list Pali paggharati under Sanskrit प्रघरति (pragharati), but in small type. The problem is that {{inh|pi|sa}} produces a link to the Wikipedia article on 'Sanskrit', where it is not given the same meaning as 'sa'. I think a solution you would like is to have a Wiktionary page that explains the meaning of 'sa' on Wiktionary , and then gives a link to the Wikipedia page Sanskrit. --RichardW57 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, where does one find out what to write in the etymology of prakritisms? --RichardW57 (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: That would possibly work but the point I'm trying to put across here is that it would NOT be a lie to say a Pali term comes from Sanskrit (as you have often claimed). Did you not look at the linguistic evidence I just showed you? Your issue seems to stem solely from the Wikipedia article about Sanskrit and ignores the consensus that was reached by the wiktionary editors over 2 years ago and the linguistic evidence which I presented. To say "pre-Sanskrit" for an entry like gandha would not only be pointless but also confounding to the reader. And to THEN claim that the Sanskrit etymology given is "a lie" even when it matches perfectly and supported by Turner's dictionary AND the DSAL Pali dictionary would be tantamount to making stuff up. If you like, I can start ANOTHER discussion in the Beer Parlor although I know the editors will be frustrated to have to partake in yet another discussion about this issue that has been done to death. But you'd like to know what they think about this, I will gladly start a new discussion there. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you not just resume the July 2019 conversation? Remember, the issue is that 'sa' and Sanskrit as we explain it to the public via the entries are not the same. I thought we had come to a usable solution. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: So if I've got this right, you will be okay with deriving (most) Pali words from Sanskrit (the ones that are etymologically derivable from Skt) so long as the hyperlink redirects one to a page on wiktionary (maybe this one) where we say that for simplicity's sake and following the K.I.S.S principle, we mean the Old Indo-Aryan dialect continuum when we say Sanskrit? This is also what some dictionaries do, even though they know that technically it wasn't "Vedic Sanskrit" who was the ancestor. I guess we can do that given editors like JohnC5, Victar, AryamanA and DerekWinters have all agreed that they were on board with this. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll manage by holding my nose. (If the page is long, the scope of 'sa' needs to be found soon after following the link.) I may be reluctant to actually add such etymologies. However, I will insist that we may reconstruct words to language 'sa' whose form contradicts that of Wikipedia-Sanskrit. I'm also not happy about doing it for words that don't go back to the 'point' of divergence. (I know, see discussions of the divergences of the great apes, including us, for the notion of 'point'.) The names of the letters are a case in point. I am doubtful that the trisyllabic names (kakāra etc.) go back that far, and I also doubt that for the most part they were coined in Sanskrit. (Ṅakāra, śakāra and ṣakāra may well have been.)

@RichardW57: ok now we're approaching the same page. As for your proposal to reconstruct unattested parallel Skt. forms when they deviate significantly from the attested forms: Yes, it was agreed that we may have Skt. reconstructions for the very purpose you mentioned so that's not a problem. As for entries like kakāra, even I would not favour Skt. etymologies for them - very likely synchronically formed. All I am saying is that in the entries (again, most, not all) where we now have "from pre-Sanskrit" (cf gandha and sesa; where the "pre Sanskrit" terms are identical to the attested Sanskrit terms and the etymological dictionaries agree that these Pali terms come from their Skt. counterparts (as they do for gandha and sesa), we just remove "pre" - because that is what we mean by Sanskrit here at en.wiktionary anyway. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't understand this claim of agreement. Do you just mean that the dictionaries agree that they came from something identical, in citation form at least, with the Sanskrit terms? The PTS seems to have trouble deriving sesa from Sanskrit शेष (śeṣa), perhaps because the morphological overlap, 'remainder', is small, but perhaps because the word seems not to be attested for Vedic Sanskrit, except arguably in a very derived sense. Instead the PTS derives it from the verb root. Perhaps I have been too bold with the etymology of sesa; I was relying on the support of the other Prakrits. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: "Do you just mean that the dictionaries agree that they came from something identical, in citation form at least, with the Sanskrit terms?" Well, they give a Sanskrit etymology (perhaps the sesa example was not the best choice but you can find many words which the dictionaries derive from attested Sanskrit words and we at wiktionary have the same etymology except it says "pre Sanskrit"). That's what I'm proposing. Instead of "pre Sanskrit", we can say "from Sanskrit" and make it clear in Wiktionary:About Sanskrit that we're treating Sanskrit as an OIA dialect continuum. Otherwise, because of the shared linguistic features in Sanskrit and Pali (like *źh --> h and many more) we will need to make a new proto language that is between PIA and Sanskrit -- now THAT would be making stuff up, THAT would be creating a language out of thin air because it has no scholarly support. We tried to make "Proto-Middle Indo-Aryan" and we couldn't name it that because one cannot create languages just like that. We then went with Ashokan Prakrit. OR we'll need to change the way we reconstruct PIA itself - no źh, no voiced sibilants etc. Doing that would mean we go against every scholar who has studied Proto-Indo-Aryan. So I think treating Sanskrit as an Old Indo-Aryan dialect continuum is the least controversial thing and not something unique to only wiktionary. For names of letters (eg kakāra) I defer to your preference. Add Sanskrit etymology for them or don't, I'm on board either way. If you're okay with this then maybe we can ask people to update Wiktionary:About Sanskrit -- Bhagadatta (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What I understand the etymological dictionaries to be doing is to treat the words as if they came from Sanskrit, unless there is good reason to do otherwise. It seems to be a similar situation as with English, which derives from Anglian Old English rather than West Saxon, but West Saxon is a lot better documented than the Anglian dialects, so we derive from West Saxon by default, without truly claiming descent from West Saxon. I was objecting to your assertion that the dictionaries were claiming descent from Sanskrit. --RichardW57 (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Your account has left me confused. When I researched the Wiktionary position, I formed the understanding that Wiktionary had extended Sanskrit back to the root of the crown clade of attested Indian Indic languages - Proto-Indian Indic. Now, are you suggesting that you have instead expanded it to cover Indian Indic at the same level of phonetic development - 'grade is more useful than clade'? So, to ask what I hope is an easy question if you have your concepts clear, what and where is the latest common ancestor of Sanskrit नीड (nīḍa, “nest”) and Pali niḍḍha? If not in 'sa', what are the precursors of the Pali niḍḍha in 'sa'? The Pali doublet nīḷa can happily go back to the standard Sanskrit form in 'sa' - though there may be some complicated but hidden histories. I would have plumped for pre-Sanskrit **niẓḍá. Hmmm. How do you sequence aspiration and the elimination of a sibilant? If it's easier, please answer the same question for Pali paggharati. --RichardW57 (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: For such examples, I would reconstruct what the expected OIA form would be, or even only list the PIA. I would certainly not link to नीड as the etymological source. And yes, I think maybe instead of linking directly to Wikipedia, we maybe should consider linking to an intermediate page explaining how we treat Sanskrit. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 00:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for chiming in, @AryamanA:! I was going to ping you on your talk page asking if we could alter the link to "Sanskrit" in the etymology to a page on Wiktionary after this discussion was done. So can it be done? Can we update the "about Sanskrit" page maybe or some other page on en.wiktionary?

@RichardW57: Like AryamanA said: We either reconstruct it (there will sometimes be multiple dialectical variations of a word in a dialect continuum) or show the PIA ancestor. So nīḍá, *niḍḍá and nīḷá could all have existed. You could therefore either say "from {{inh|pi|sa|*niḍḍá}}, akin to नीड (nīḍa) or you could jusy show the Proto-Indo-Aryan term. For paggharati there'd be Proto-Indo-Aryan *pragẓʰarati and from there, there would be forms like *praggharati, *prajjharati, *prakṣarati, etc in that continuum. Again, you could just show the PIA term for such entries. This has been my stand since the beginning. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah! Is Pali niḍḍha (“nest”) now disbelieved? 'sa' having *niẓda had bothered me. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S: It may also be noted (albeit it may not hold much relevance in this discussion) that Sanskit as defined by wikipedia itself is not a single dialect. Scholars have noted several different dialects of Old Indo-Aryan that went into the making of Sanskrit (ie, "Sanskrit of the northwest", "Sanskrit of the banks of the Ganges", "Sanskrit of the Kurus" and "Eastern Sanskrit"). Features not present in Vedic were later found in Classical Sanskrit. So Sanskrit is not new to being treated as a collection of dialects. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: "Ah! Is Pali niḍḍha (“nest”) now disbelieved? 'sa' having *niẓda had bothered me."

I'm not sure what you mean by "disbelieved". Now a "Pre Sanskrit" *niẓḍá isnt a good idea because it would be identical to the PIA form and we know that Sanskrit and other IA languages deleted the voiced sibilant and it would be untrue if we said they did it independently. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sound changes seem to be capable of crossing language boundaries - look at the East Asian tonogenesis. There there's then the conversion of initial voicing differences into voice register and or tone, which also affected some still non-tonal languages, though this split is still mopping up - even a few tone languages or dialects in the general area are still resisting it. Spreading through a dialect continuum is even less difficult. How about cluster simplification? That's at least very similar across non-Sanskrit dialects, though with some funny exceptions. The breaking of Latin short ě to Romance /ie/ in open syllables looks at first glance like Proto-something Romance, though closer examination reveals all sorts of local conditioning. so that change was going on 'independently'.

Now one widespread Indic development is sibilant + stop > geminated aspirated sibilant. That would remove any voiced sibilant + stop clusters that hadn't been removed by voiced sibilants before stops assimilating to either the stop or the vowel. There seems to have been another round of voiced sibilant + stop removal in the Sanskrit sandhi of /s/ in voiced environments. If we accept Pali _niḍḍha_ 'nest', you're now proposing a dialectical zḍ > ḍḍh in/leading to 'sa', followed by the same change after 'sa' generalised to voiceless clusters. Sanskrit does show some place assimilation between voiced occlusives, so mopping up voiced stop plus sibilant on the way to 'sa' outside Sanskrit does seem reasonable; there's less reason to assume that they survived until the general cluster simplification after the 'sa' stage. (It's very easy to cut oneself on Occam's razor.) The post-sa development of voiceless stop + sibilant seems a bit messy; I don't know how uniform it was. --RichardW57 (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: So, in cases like these, where the derivation is patently not from the attested Sanskrit form, you can show the Proto-Indo-Aryan ancestor or reconstruct an Old Indo-Aryan or a "sa" term. And entries with {{inh|pi|sa}} (like... ahaṃ) will lose the prefix "pre" and we'll update this page. That works? @AryamanA, what do you think? -- Bhagadatta (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: I've added a big notice on top of WT:About Sanskrit. Also, I don't think "pre-Sanskrit" makes much sense as a label (isn't that just Proto-Indo-Aryan??) nor is it common in any literature I've looked at. I do think, in lexicographic contexts, treating Sanskrit as a dialect continuum is the simplest and best solution (and is based in fact, as there has been work showing that Vedic isn't just one dialect); otherwise, we would get a lot of redundancy in terms of PIA and Sanskrit entries when there is no need. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 15:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta, AryamanA: In terms of labelling what you have been regarding as unproblematic, all we need now to retire 'pre-' is to redirect the language link that the template 'sa' generates. (The inflection of the ancestral form may be problematic, though I think the early literature is overstating the issue.) --RichardW57 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In so far as we can trust the record of Vedic, there is a stage between Sanskrit (usual sense) and Proto-Indo-Aryan where there were no voiced sibilants; it wasn't Proto-Indo-Aryan and it may not yet have been Sanskrit. You may also have to revise 'modern-day' just in case you find you've excluded the ancestor of Gandhari Prakrit - we have no modern-day descendant here! (Palaeontological cladists dig themselves into all sorts of holes in this way.) You've also strongly suggested that the 'Pontic Indo-Aryans' did not speak a language derived from Wiktionary Sanskrit. (I think that is correct, and I'm not sure that 'Pontic Indo-Aryan' actually is Indic.) --RichardW57 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you seem to have no usable notion of the boundary between Wiktionary Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-Aryan. Perhaps our ignorance of the history is too great. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Thanks a lot for updating the page. The etymological dictionaries do the same, even when they know attested Sanskrit is not the direct ancestor of these languages.

@RichardW57: Look, I agree with you about the linking part but fixing that may require an edit to Module:etymology/templates. I don't think it's a big deal but it'll affect all entries; the link produced by the template for any language would redirect to its about page on wiktionary and not to Wikipedia. While, as I said, personally I don't see an issue with it per se, it's still too big of a change for anyone to implement without getting others involved. Maybe some day in the future, this would happen if there will be more etymology-only languages here. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I had hoped the implementation would be something along the lines of adding the wikipedia_article field to the language data for Sanskrit. Even this change would invalidate the cache for most pages. Now, we could bend the function makeWikipediaLink (there are several of them, in the {{Module:languages}}, {{Module:families}} and elsewhere) to be sensitive to the syntax of the value of the optional field wikipedia_article. At the crudest, we treat it as an external link if it contains '//' and as an English Wikipedia article otherwise. A more elegant solution would be a field wiktionary_article that linked to a Wiktionary article. Linking to w:Proto-Indo-Aryan language (a simple data change) probably won't do the job, but it comes as close as we can without mentioning Wiktionary. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As for defining the boundary between Proto and Old Indo-Aryan, determining the inflected forms of OIA or trying to determine whether the "Pontic Indo-Aryans" (do you mean Mittani?) spoke OIA or late PIA or "post-PIA but pre-OIA" I believe this much detail would be futile. For instance, we also have in Modern IA, a wide dialect continuum called the "Hindi languages". We don't concern ourselves with, say, "Proto-Hindi" and its intermediary between Sauraseni Prakrit. I think this kind of brainstorming would be best left to the papers on academia.edu. For wiktionary purposes, if you are unable to reconstruct an Old Indo-Aryan form, just give a PIA form. (I agree, the Old Indo-Aryan ancestor of niḍḍha would be *niḍḍʰás, not *niḍḍás as I said before). I might bring up the issue of editing Module:etymology/templates at the BP some time in the future (right now I have too much on my hands) but other than that I believe a consensus has been reached and that consensus is to follow the consensus from two years ago. Cheers. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The 'Pontic Indo-Aryans' are based on place names on the northern shores of the Black Sea and some scanty evidence from classical sources. I don't mean Mittani Aryans, but they might be connected. I'm sceptical. I think the distinctive Iranian group underwent massive expansion, obliterating most other Indo-Iranian groups. ---RichardW57 (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty incredible how spread out the Indo-Iranians were. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I have now included the Middle Indo Aryan languages too so that no MIA language without a modern descendant, like Gandhari, gets left out. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: So what else remains to be done, exactly? One possible fix is writing a short section in the Wikipedia article on Sanskrit about OIA dialects and linking to that instead of the top of the article. That merits a section anyways! And I can run a bot turning "pre-Sanskrit" into "Sanskrit" everywhere. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 23:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Two modules need changing - one to record that a Wiktionary article is to be linked to, and one to act on that datum. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think idea of using your bot to remove the "pre-" suffix is rather good -- Bhagadatta (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA, RichardW57 So I opened the Wiki article of Sanskrit to see where this section could be written and saw that this point was already present on the page. It read: "Sanskrit, though not necessarily Classical Sanskrit, was the root of the Prakrits and the Modern languages of North India" and cited Woolner, where he says the same thing we're saying now: "if Sanskrit is taken to mean the Vedic language and also the Old Indian dialects, then it would be true to say the Prakrits are derived from Sanskrit". This much info was already there when I viewed it. I updated the information to make it clearer. Now there's a chance that I may be reverted there because I have less than 100 edits there and someone may think what I wrote is untrue. Let's see. I only reinforced the point that was already there so it should not be an issue. I believe this issue has now been resolved and we can go ahead and remove the "pre-" suffix from Pali entries. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What evidence is there that Woolner actually used 'Sanskrit' in the broader sense? A portion of that quote was actually being used to simply say that the modern languages derived from Sanskrit in the narrower sense. I tracked the quote down, and expanded it to include the protasis. I read Woolner as saying that to make that claim true, one has to broaden the definition of Sanskrit. That doesn't mean he used the broader meaning when he wrote 'Sanskrit'. Similarly, I haven't seen any evidence that Turner used the broader concept under the name of Sanskrit. Turner and Rhys Davids seem to have chosen to use the oldest suitable Indo-Aryan available as an ancestor or near-ancestor, much as some works relate English words to Gothic rather then using a concept of Common Germanic or proto-Germanic. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC) The way the broader sense is used fits badly in the Wikipedia article on Sanskrit. I expect it to get edited out, especially as there doesn't seem to be good evidence for its use outside Wiktionary. (Wiktionary Sanskrit doesn't give the broader sense!) A lot of minor edits are now needed elsewhere in the article to explain what is meant by 'Sanskrit'. {{inh|...|sa|...}} should perhaps generate 'Sanskrit (or near enough)', but that doesn't fit our current toolset at all. {{bor|...|sa|...}} seems to work, but there may be some non-learned borrowings where 'narrow Sanskrit' is unwarrantedly broad. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Although that quote does not necessarily mean Woolner uses the broader definition, it is an indication that the broader definition is not an invention by Wiktionary. That Turner uses it is evidenced by the fact that he derives Pali and Prakrit words from Sanskrit words where they are formally derivable and attested. Pali to English dictionary does the same, McGregor's dictionary does the same. The notice had been added to the Wiktionary page for Sanskrit and the Wikipedia page... well, it would be wrong to say I added it when all I did was reword it. I'm surprised how you based your entire stance on how Wikipedia defines Sanskrit and the broader definition was actually there all along. Look Richard, I honestly believe that stalling effective action further would now be futile. Too much time has been squandered defending a consensus that was reached more than two years ago. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Also @AryamanA (sorry for spamming your notifications BTW, what with all of those entries linking to यौवन and this ping): I believe there really isn't anything left to prove now; I thought updating the about page and the article would be the end of it but evidently it isn't. I now believe there really isn't any argument against removing the "pre-" suffix now. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If I apply the principle of checking what you say by checking what I can and then assuming that the rest is as accurate, I have no confidence that your claim of 'Sanskrit' having been significantly used with a broad meaning is correct. Let us look at what the Pali Text Society Pali-English dictionary says on its use of Sanskrit (p. VII of Part I (A), published 1921, reprinted 1952):

"We have given throughout the Sanskrit roots corresponding to the Pali roots, and have omitted the latter. It may be objected that this is a strange method to use in a Pali dictionary, especially as the vernacular on which this Pali is based had never passed through the stage of Sanskrit. That may be so; and it may not be possible, historically, that any Pali word in the canon could have been actually derived from the corresponding Sanskrit word. Nevertheless the Sanskrit form, though arisen quite independently, may throw light upon the Pali form; and as Pali roots have not yet been adequately studied in Europe, the plan adopted will probably, at least for the present, be more useful."

Clearly Rhys Davids' use of the term 'Sanskrit' does not automatically embrace some hypothetical ancestor of Pali. --RichardW57 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: Haha, I turned off page linking notifications a long time ago, so no worries. The fact is, we make a broad judgement whenever we deal with inheritance from OIA and MIA. Pali and the Prakrits, as attested, were certainly not vernacular languages; they too have been standardized to fit literary, religious, poetic demands as necessary. (I really don't think a person on the street in Mauryan-era India would speak anything perfectly like the MIA that we know of textually.) We only have literature to go off of unfortunately, and literature is artificially standardized and less reflective of changes that occur in spoken language. In that sense, saying a Hindi word is derived from Old Hindi (which favoured other dialects as opposed to modern Hindi), when there is no attested written Old Khariboli (the Delhi dialect of Hindi, and the basis for Modern Standard Hindi), also reflects the broad judgement that whatever literary tradition Old Hindi had reflects a broader spoken language that ultimately led to Hindi. What I'm trying to say is that the written and spoken forms of a language do have meaningful differences, but we still treat them as one unit.

When you look at it like that, it makes sense to say that the textually-preserved language of the Vedas is just one register of a broad OIA spoken language group that happened to be standardized and artificially frozen, and, for our purposes, Sanskrit is that spoken language as a whole, not merely the bits of it that are preserved and handed down. And, say, 90% of the time, the textually-preserved form concords exactly with what the actual spoken ancestor of Pali word X would have been. The remaining 10% is no reason to not call the ancestor Sanskrit. And of course, I agree that narrow definition of the written Vedic register is not the ancestor of MIA, just the same way literary Shauraseni Prakrit is no ancestor of modern spoken Hindi--but that ultra-narrow definition of only writing/oral preservation is not, I think, reasonable. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 00:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Exactly my point (btw I had written the message about spamming notifications and forgot to sign it).

@RichardW57: Sorry for the delay. First of all, my bad about the Pali dictionary. I was wrong about their usage of the term Sanskrit. I'll own that. But:

Your point was that Wikipedia definition of Sanskrit did not match with the wiktionary definition of Sanskrit. But it did. It patently read "Sanskrit, though not necessarily Classical Sanskrit was the root of the Prakrits etc etc". This was before my edit. Even if I go back now and revert my own edit at Wikipedia, it will still be consistent with the wiktionary sense of Sanskrit.

So, the issue here was to i) match Wikipedia with Wiktionary when it came to defining Sanskrit. It did match. Look, I agree there is no evidence that Woolner used the "broader definition" but its mention was made. He said that one could treat Sanskrit as a catch-all term for all OIA dialects because he knew how similar they were. The ancestor of most Prakrit/Pali words were identical to the attested form. This is why even Wikipedia (before my edit) said that Sanskrit was the "root" of MIA. Because they differentiated between Sanskrit that was codified by Panini and that before it. ii) Stating how "Sanskrit" was treated here at wiktionary. That has also been done. Now there is evidence which you seem to have written off by postulating some kind of "Post Proto Indo Aryan but pre Sanskrit" stage, which although no doubt existed, seems to be quite redundant. For instance, the Sanskrit root गृह् (gṛh) has an IE etymology where the -h- corresponds to a "bh". The "bh" was weakened by Sanskrit. But the Pali root for the same is gah (gaṇhāti). What accounts for this? It should have been something like *gabhṇāti. To say "pre Sanskrit" for something like this would be incorrect. Even Classical Sanskrit and Epic Sanskrit (the two are slightly different) were not descended directly from Vedic. So must we split that into two/three languages on the account of a few minute dialectal differences between Vedic and Classical Sanskrit's ancestor? No. Hence, we could also do the same for the OIA ancestor of Pali and use the broader definition; this is why people agreed to do that here in Wiktionary. You too seemed to agree to this before. To quote @AryamanA here, as he said in the message above: ....that the written and spoken forms of a language do have meaningful differences, but we still treat them as one unit. When you look at it like that, it makes sense to say that the textually-preserved language of the Vedas is just one register of a broad OIA spoken language group that happened to be standardized and artificially frozen, and, for our purposes, Sanskrit is that spoken language as a whole, not merely the bits of it that are preserved and handed down. And, say, 90% of the time, the textually-preserved form concords exactly with what the actual spoken ancestor of Pali word X would have been. The remaining 10% is no reason to not call the ancestor Sanskrit.

This really elucidates what I want to say. I'd say that the dialectal differences between Attested Sanskrit account for even less than 10% but that's just me. @RichardW57: I can understand your issue stems from the reasoning that "It's incorrect to call x an acestor of y when x and y's ancestor were contemporaries. But here the contemporaries would be Vedic and the ancestor of Pali, not Sanskrit because Sanskrit was in fact a catch-all term for different dialects contemporary to each other. They were standardized because of that. It doesn't mean Vedic does not have a large imfluence on Sanskrit, but it means that Sanskrit is not just Vedic. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA Any update? IMO, treating Skt. as an umbrella term for Old Indo Aryan is exactly the same as what we do with Ashokan Prakrit when we treat it as some sort of a Proto-MIA and derive Sauraseni and Maharashtri and Pali from its words even if they're not attested. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Sanskrit vs "pre Sanskrit" (contd.)

Closure?

@AryamanA, RichardW57 What remains to be done? I don't mind updating all the entries with "pre-Sanskrit"manually. Apart from myself and Aryaman, editors like JohnC5, Victar, DerekWinters (no longer active) also agreed to treat Sanskrit (which is already a representation of several dialects) as an OIA dialect continuum. Wikipedia (before the edit) also agrees, which was the focal point of this whole issue. What's stopping us from using just "from Sanskrit" in the etymology? I seek a closure to this issue ASAP so I can focus on real editing. Thanks -- Bhagadatta (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Oh yeah whoops, been caught up with some other stuff on- and off-wiki. I can run the bot right now! —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 04:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57, Bhagadatta: It's done. Surprisingly fast, now I know how to override bot editing speed throttle ;) —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 04:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Lol that's it...? It's done that quickly? Very cool. I hope @RichardW57 has no objections. Well anyway, as I said, it's no different than what we do when we treat Ashokan Prakrit as proto MIA. Thanks for implementing it! 👍 -- Bhagadatta (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Well it can be reverted just as quick but I think we should get past it at this point. Also yes, it took a while but I have enough technical ability to run a bot now 😌 it seems everything I learn for IRL university/research/job purposes ends up getting repurposed for Wiktionary. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 04:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Cool! I really hope they're not reverted. BTW the bot missed the entries with "Pre-Sanskrit" (with a capital P). -- Bhagadatta (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Oops, done. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 04:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Reversion

@Bhagadatta, AryamanA: The redefinition of Sanskrit at w:Sanskrit got removed on 13 October 2020, in the edit that reduced article size by 1072 bytes; the discussion is in w:Talk:Sanskrit dated 10 October 2020. I didn't expect the redefinition in the article to last, but I had no hand in the change. As things stand, the wordings of Wiktionary and Wikipedia are no longer consistent. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: I'll ask one of them to include a sentence about it. There was a debate-cum-edit war with respect to a sentence about Sanskrit's influence on Tamil, so I expect the whole paragraph was removed and re-worded. It does still say that Sanskrit connotes several Old Indo-Aryan varieties and one of the cites attached to that sentence is the same one which was earlier used for saying that the varieties that MIA languages descend from can also be called "Sanskrit", so Wiktionary and Wikipedia are still somewhat on the same page. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 00:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA: It would be good for the claim if one could find a good sentence clearly illustrating this extended usage and include it as a quote for Wiktionary. The ideal would be a passage that actually cautioned that the narrower sense was not being used. I suspect the best one will find is a definition rather than an example of use, and that uses will be fragments rather than full sentences. I don't think sentences claiming etymological licence will cut it, and I'd be hesitant to use "Sanskrit descends from Tamil" as evidence for [i]Tamil[/i] meaning 'Proto-Nostratic' or for meaning 'Proto-World'. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey now it looks like we're going to have the entire discussion all over again and there's no point to it. Wikipedia and Wiktionary still do not contradict each other. There's as much distance between Vedic and the base of Classical Sanskrit as there is between Vedic and the base of Pali. Does this now mean we should split Vedic and Sanskrit too? And I've also shown you how Pali and the Prakrits come from dialects that often overlapped with and diverged from the OIA dialects that formed attested Sanskrit. This is why the about Sanskrit page here says that Sanskrit connotes several OIA varieties and the Wikipedia agrees. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 03:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Where does the Wikipedia article tell us that the term Sanskrit embraces the reasonably hypothesised dialect that embraces the divergences that indicate that Pali does not descend from Vedic or Classical Sanskrit as we know them? Connoting several OIA dialects leaves open the possibility that it does not include this one. The Wiktionary entry for Sanskrit, as it stands, could be used for evidence against the word in plain speech meaning what 'sa' does at Wiktionary. I was suggesting that you plug that hole if you can. --RichardW57 (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As to splitting Classical and Vedic Sanskrit, tradition suggests that we can manage by tagging the glosses and occasionally the forms, rather than having two Wiktionary languages. Pronunciation is already split, and there are annotations in the inflection tables. --RichardW57 (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: The sentence at Wiki does not actually seem as vague to me as it does to you but I'll attempt to make it clearer. It was in the same paragraph that described Sanskrit's influence on Tamil which some user did not like and hence removed the whole thing. Bhagadatta^(talk) 06:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: I'm not going to rehash my arguments again, their validity still stands. I will say Wikipedia is not Wiktionary and Wiktionary isn't Wikipedia, and us having different definitions of a language is not necessarily an issue since we have practical concerns such as limiting unnecessary redundancy (i.e. a ton of PIA entries that are identical to Sanskrit) and making a useful well-linked dictionary (i.e links to Sanskrit are useful in etymologies of Pali for our readers). —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 06:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, we cannot change the way Wiktionary does things every time someone at Wikipedia changes a line. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 06:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Then we cannot use Wikipedia. The challenge is how to make snappy links from Pali lemmas to Sanskrit cognates, at least when Pali lemma derives from a form (near enough) identical to the Sanskrit cognate, without uttering untruths. I thought the problem has been cracked with the formula 'Inherited from pre-{{inh|sa...}}'. If we call on Wikipedia to define Sanskrit, then we have to live with the Wikipedia explanation of what Sanskrit is - unless we can find persuasive sources support the explanation we need. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: That you don't like it does not make it an untruth. The whole premise from the beginning was how the Wikipedia and wiktionary do not agree and I'm trying to tell you that they do. My edit was not a "redfinition" as you're trying to push it -- the essence was there before I edited it and is still there. Maybe an iota of vagueness will be found if one applies to it analysis of the level of microscopic detail as you have: "Oh it says several OIA dialects, not all so maybe Pali's direct ancestor is not included": it's exceedingly unlikely anyone will read wikipedia and think that. Anyway case "pre Sanskrit" does not sit well either, that will be something exclusive to wiktionary. It will be misleading to apply this label to terms that are obviously Sanskrit innovations and are yet found in Pali. We will then have say that many Sanskrit-originated sound changes, some of them irregular (like occasional weakening of voiced aspirates to /h/), happened at the "pre-Sanskrit" level. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 05:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The Ashokan Prakrit Wikipedia article says that its ancestor was different to Vedic Sanskrit; this is likely to be interpreted as meaning that Ashokan Prakrit does not descend from Sanskrit! Why is the weakening of voiced aspirates to /h/ obviously a Sanskrit innovation? What stops it descending from proto-Indic? The process proceeded further in Pali than in Classical or Vedic Sanskrit; it looks like a change that was active for a long time, and was quite capable of producing doublets. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Because linguists do not consider these changes to have occured in Proto-Indo-Aryan and we would have to go and insert an /h/ in Proto IA terms then. They reconstruct *źh which we will have to discard. Moreover, Pali does not usually weaken aspirates like Prakrit but it does where Sanskrit has weakened these aspirates. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 01:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

We already say Mahatashtri and other Prakrits are descended from Ashokan Prakrit even though Middle Indo-Aryan was a much more diversified dialect continuum than OIA. There are Prakrit terms that are more archaic than the corresponding Ashokan terms and we still (rightly) treat Ashokan as proto-MIA, reconstructing words when we must. This is no different and there isn't any contradiction anywhere (even Wiktionary:About Sanskrit was amended for this cause). -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 05:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The extension to the continuum is a new invention (c. September 2020). --RichardW57 (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Remember that the casual reader has no reason to suspect that Wiktionary:About Sanskrit even exists, which is why I suggested that the {{inh|sa}} refer to it, only to find that implementing such a change was not straightforward. I shall have to seek a solution elsewhere. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Source for Proto-Dravidian *tand-

Hi, I noticed you wrote that ತಂದೆ (tande) derives from *tand-, where did you get that reconstruction from? {{R:dra:DL}} doesn't have it, and instead gives *tan-tay or *tan-ṯi. Kritixilithos (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kritixilithos: Apologies, this was written back when I was new and wasn't familiar with mainstream sources and relied heavily on starling.rinet.ru for Proto-Dravidian and Proto-Indo-European. I've since realized that it's not a reliable source. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I'll fix it according to {{R:dra:DL}}. Have a good day. Kritixilithos (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

User:शब्दशोधक

सन् शब्द की उत्पत्ति

नमस्कार माधवजी! विक्षनरी शब्दकोश पर सन् शब्द की उत्पत्ति संस्कृत भाषा से बताई गई है यद्यपि अन्य शब्दकोशों में इस शब्द की उत्पत्ति अरबी भाषा से बताई गई है। मैं केवल जानना चाहता हूँ कि क्या कोई स्रोत है जो यह स्पष्ट करता है कि शब्द की उत्पत्ति संस्कृत से है। धन्यवाद। (शब्दशोधक (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC))

@शब्दशोधक: आपने सही परखा। संस्कृत में "सन्" यह संज्ञा नहीं बल्कि धातु होता है जिसका अर्थ है "प्राप्त करना". हिंदी शब्दावली में "सन्" शब्द का प्रवेश अरबी سنة (sana) के द्वारा हुआ है। यह बात मेरे ध्यान में लाने के लिए धन्यवाद! -- Bhagadatta (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: आपका धन्यवाद शब्द की उत्पत्ति सुधारने के लिए। किन्तु यदि अरबी भाषा के शब्द में अन्त में अ स्वर है, तो हिन्दी भाषा में यह हलन्त शब्द सन् क्यों हो गया है। धन्यवाद, (शब्दशोधक (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC))

ध्यान में रखते हुए कि हिन्दी भाषा में हलन्त का बहुत महत्त्व भी नहीं है और यह केवल संस्कृत से लिए गए हलन्त शब्दों में प्रयोग की जाती है जैसे जगत्, पश्चात् इत्यादि, जिनको भी अधिकतर लोग हलन्तरहित ही लिख देते हैं। तो मैं जानना चाहता हूँ कि सन् शब्द में इसका क्या महत्त्व है? उदाहरण के लिए अन्य विदेशज शब्द जैसे ट्रेन, कार, बस, इत्यादि जिनमे हलन्त का प्रयोग उचित रहेगा परन्तु इनमे हलन्त का प्रयोग नहीं होता। धन्यवाद, (शब्दशोधक (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC))

@शब्दशोधक: यह बहुत उचित प्रश्न है। पहले मुझे लगा कि "सन्" एक संक्षिप्तीकरण है किंतु {{R:hi:McGregor}} में संक्षिप्तीकरण का कोई उल्लेख नहीं है। संस्कृत में "सन्" यह एक युग का नाम भी है ऐसा {{R:sa:MW}} में बताया गया है। ऐसा हो सकता है कि سنة (sana) को हिंदुस्तानी शब्दावली में सम्मिलित किया गया और संस्कृत "सन्" के प्रभाव से शब्द के अंत में विराम चिन्ह लग गया। इसमें कोई आशंका नहीं कि यह शब्द अरबी से है परंतु यह वर्तनी से कौतूहल अवश्य उत्पन्न होता है। मैं @AryamanA का भी अभिमत जानना चाहता हूँ। -- Bhagadatta (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: शीघ्र उत्तर देने के लिए धन्यवाद! आप उचित कहते हैं कि इस वर्तनी से कौतूहल उत्पन्न होता है क्योंकि मुझे एक भी उचित कारण नहीं दिख रहा है कि इस शब्द में हलन्त हो। १. अरबी में शब्द के अन्त में अ स्वर है। २. हिन्दी में हलन्त लगने पर भी उच्चारण में कोई अन्तर् नहीं है क्योंकि शब्द के अन्त में आनेवाला अ स्वर तथापि लुप्त हो गया है। ३. इस कारण से, हलन्त का प्रयोग केवल औपचारिक रूप से किया जाता है संस्कृत के तत्सम शब्दों में। ४. विदेशी भाषाओं से आए शब्दों में हलन्त का कोई औचित्य नहीं है। जैसे अंग्रेज़ी से आए अनेक शब्द जैसे कार, बस, ट्रेन, प्लेन, इत्यादि का उच्चारण कार् बस् ट्रेन् प्लेन् ही होता है नाकि कार् + अ, बस् + अ, ट्रेन् + अ और प्लेन् + अ। नियमानुसार देखा जाए, तो इन सब में हलन्त होना चाहिए किन्तु नहीं है। धन्यवाद शब्दशोधक (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta, AryamanA: यदि संस्कृत शब्द सन् से कुछ प्रभाव पड़ा है इस शब्द पर तो हम शब्द की उत्पत्ति में जोड़ सकते हैं - Also influenced by {{der|hi|sa|सन्|t=name of an era}}? शब्दशोधक (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: जी यह आपने बिलकुल ठीक कहा कि विदेशी भाषाओं से आए शब्दों में हलन्त का कोई औचित्य नहीं है। इसलिए यह संक्षिप्तीकरण हो सकता है अथवा इसपर संस्कृत "सन्" का प्रभाव हुआ है।

यह बात भी उल्लिखित होने का अर्हित है कि फ़ारसी में سن (san) का अर्थ "आयु" होता है।

मुझे लगता है कि संस्कृत शब्द "सन्" का प्रभाव हुआ होगा यही परिकल्पना फ़िलहाल हमे व्यक्त करना चाहिए, ठीक आपके प्रस्ताव की भाँति: "Also influenced by {{der|hi|sa|सन्|pos=name of an era}}". -- Bhagadatta (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta, शब्दशोधक: मुझे आपकी सारी बातें सही लगीं। ऐसा हुआ होगा कि मैंने हलंत देखकर समझा कि "सन्" शब्द संस्कृत से ही व्युत्पन्न हो सकता है। यह पृष्ठ मैंने कुछ साल पहले बनायी थी, उस वक़्त मैं शब्दकोशों पर ज़्यादा ध्यान नहीं देता था और अपने अंदाज़े से योगदान करता था। संस्कृत का प्रभाव का उल्लेख करना फिर भी अच्छा रहेगा, पर मैं सहमत हूँ कि असली स्रोत अरबी ही है। —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)}

@Bhagadatta, AryamanA: आप दोनों को धन्यवाद अपना मूल्यवान् समय देने के लिए और सन् शब्द की उत्पत्ति सुधारने के लिए शब्दशोधक (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

संस्कृत क्रिया रूप

@Bhagadatta, AryamanA: नमस्कार! पुनः कष्ट देने के लिए क्षमा चाहता हूँ किन्तु कुछ समय से मैंने कुछ अवलोकन किया है। आप स्वयं इन शब्दों को देखें - खादति, खेलति, वदति, इत्यादि, जो संस्कृत की धातुएँ खाद्, खेल्, वद् के रूप हैं लट्लकार वा वर्तमान काल के प्रथमपुरुष एकवचन में। इसलिए अँग्रेज़ी में इनका अर्थ chews, bites, eats, plays, speaks, pronounces, इत्यादि होना चाहिए और धातुओं के अर्थ में देना चाहिए to chew, to bite, to eat, to speak, इत्यादि। मैं जानना चाहता हूँ कि आपको इसमें कितना औचित्य लगता है। ऐसी धातु सम्बन्धी समस्याएँ तो बहुत हैं परन्तु धीरे धीरे हम सभी को सुधार सकते हैं। धन्यवाद, शब्दशोधक (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: इत्तेफ़ाक़न यह विचार मेरे मन में कुछ समय पहले आया था। Wiktionary पर यह परंपरा रहा है कि हम संस्कृत क्रियाओं के लिए लेख बनाते है लट्लकार रूप में परंतु उनके अँग्रेज़ी अर्थ देते है तुमन्नंत में। यही परंपरा आदिम हिंद यूरोपीय, आदिम हिंद ईरानी, पाली, महाराष्ट्री प्राकृत, शौरसेनी प्राकृत इत्यादि में भी लागू होती है। इसके पीछे मैं कारण नहीं जानता; मैंने बस पुराने लेखों से यह अभ्यास अपनाया। मैं सहमत हूँ कि यह प्रथा थोड़ा सा भ्रामक है। इस प्रथा को बदलने हेतु हमें बहुत लोगों की सहमति सहमति लेनी होगी जो कठिन सिद्ध हो सकति है क्योंकि आदिम हिंद यूरोपीय, आदिम हिंद ईरानी लेख बनाने वाले बहुत लोग हैं। अन्यथा हम यह प्रथा केवल हिंद आर्य भाषाओं (संस्कृत, पाली, महाराष्ट्री प्राकृत, शौरसेनी प्राकृत etc) के लिए लागू कर सकते हैं जिसके लिए मतैक्य प्राप्त करना सरल होगा (क्योंकि फ़िलहाल कुल मिलाकर पुराने और मध्यम हिंद आर्य भाषाओं में काम करने वाले हैं केवल User:AryamanA, User:Kutchkutch और मैं) -- Bhagadatta (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: धन्यवाद उत्तर देने के लिए! आपका दृष्टिकोण जानकर प्रसन्नता हुई। मैं सहमत हूँ कि ऐसा जो विक्षनरी पर चला आरहा है बहुत समय से, उसे बदलना बहुत कठिन रहेगा। शब्दशोधक (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

गुगल और अभियन्तृ

@Bhagadatta: कृपया इस शब्द पर एक दृष्टि डालिए - गुगल। मैंने अभी इसमें {{rfv|hi}} (कारण सहित) जोड़ा है। क्या इसका विक्षनरी पर कोई औचित्य है? एक गूगल शब्द भी था जिसको मैंने सुधारा है परन्तु मुझे गुगल जैसा कोई शब्द हिंदी में ज्ञात नहीं। बारम्बार कष्ट देने के लिए क्षम्यताम्। शब्दशोधक^{(सम्पर्क करें•योगदान)} 13:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: कुछ समय पूर्व मैंने अभियन्तृ शब्द किसी पुस्तक में पढ़ा था ( मुझे अभी स्मरण नहीं है ) और इसलिए मैंने उसे विक्शनरी पर जोड़ा था यद्यपि वो MW शब्दकोष में नहीं था। इसमें भी किसी ने {{rfv|sa}} जोड़ा हुआ है। जिसने भी जोड़ा है उसने यहाँ नहीं जोड़ा है शब्द को। आप गूगल पर दोहरे उद्धरण चिह्न (“”) सहित शब्द को खोजें और फिर निर्णय लें कि इस शब्द को यहाँ जोड़ें अथवा उससे {{rfv|sa}} हटाएँ। धन्यवाद, शब्दशोधक^{(सम्पर्क करें•योगदान)} 13:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Wiktionary पर सारे शब्दों के लिए लेख बनाया जाता है। व्यक्तिवाचक संज्ञाओं के लिए लेख बनाना ग़लत नहीं होगा। यहाँ हम शहर, देश, पौराणिक पात्र, इत्यादि के नामों के लिए लेख बनाते हैं। यदि Google और google के लिए यहाँ लेख हो सकते हैं तो गूगल और गुगल के लिए भी। अभियन्तृ शब्द मैंने भी एक पाठ्यपुस्तक में देखा है तो कोई समस्या नहीं है। -- Bhagadatta (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: धन्यवाद! तो क्या फिर अभियन्तृ और गुगल शब्द से {{rfv}} हटाना चाहिए और गूगल में “उत्पत्ति २” करके Google जोड़ना चाहिए? शब्दशोधकः^{(मया सह वदतु•मम योगदानानि)} 03:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: अवश्य। यही ठीक रहेगा। -- Bhagadatta (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: सुधार दिया है तीनों को। अपना समय देने के लिए आभार, शब्दशोधकः^{(मया सह वदतु•मम योगदानानि)} 04:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

कलम (kalama) शब्द की उत्पत्ति, ताम्रमुख, फिरङ्गिन् तथा फिरङ्ग

@Bhagadatta: सुप्रभात! MW शब्दकोष स्पष्टतया लिखा है “confer Latin, Greek, Arabic” कलम (kalama) शब्द के लिए, इसलिए मैंने उसकी उत्पत्ति में कुछ परिवर्तन किए थे, जिनको आपने अनुचित कहा। मैं केवल जानना चाहता हूँ कि इसकी उत्पत्ति आदिम हिन्द-यूरोपी *ḱl̥h₂mos से हुई है अथवा इसे प्राचीन यूनानी भाषा से लिया गया गई। मैंने तो यूनानी शब्द की उत्पत्ति से देखकर “Inherited from {{inh|sa|ine-pro|*ḱl̥h₂mos}}” लगाया था क्योंकि MW के अनुसार संस्कृत का कलम (kalama) शब्द यूनानी शब्द के तुल्य है। धन्यवाद। शब्दशोधकः^{(मया सह वदतु•मम योगदानानि)} 06:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

संभवतः मैंने भी MW में लिखी पङ्क्ति को समझने में कोई चूक कर दी है। शब्दशोधकः^{(मया सह वदतु•मम योगदानानि)} 06:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: कभी कभी MW में दिया हुआ शब्दोत्पत्ति ग़लत होता है, क्योंकि MW का प्राथमिक उद्देश्य था शब्दों का अर्थ स्पष्ट करना, शब्दोत्पत्ति नहीं। यद यह शब्द *ḱl̥h₂mos से आया होता तो यह शब्द *शूर्म (śūrma) होता, क्योंकि हिन्द-यूरोपी *ḱ-कार से आता है संस्कृत का श-कार (जैसे *ḱm̥tóm से "शत", और *l̥h₂ से उर् अथवा ऊर् उत्पन्न होता है। और तो और, "कलम" शब्द का उल्लेख न ही वेद में है और न महाभारत और रामायण में। यह शब्द का साहित्य में पहली बार प्रवेश भारत में यूनानी आगमन के बाद हुआ है। इसलिए इस बात में कोई आशंका नहीं है कि "कलम" प्राचीन यूनानी से लिया गया है। -- Bhagadatta (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: उत्तर देने के लिए धन्यवाद। एक और बात जानना चाहता हूँ कि आदिम हिन्द आर्य, आदिम हिन्द ईरानी और आदिम हिन्द यूरोपी के शब्दों का पुनर्निर्माण यहाँ विक्षनरी पर किस प्रकार किया जाता है क्योंकि विक्षनरी के अतिरिक्त मुझे शब्दों की पुनर्रचना और कहीं भी नहीं मिलती है। और यह कि पुनर्निर्मित शब्दों का कोई स्रोत रहता है विक्षनरी के अतिरिक्त? क्या ध्वन्यात्मक वर्णमाला के अनुसार इन शब्दों की पुनर्रचना की जाती है? शब्दशोधकः^{(मया सह वदतु•मम योगदानानि)} 10:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

MW शब्दकोष में फिरङ्गिन् (phiraṅgin), फिरङ्ग (phiraṅga), और फिरङ्गिणी (phiraṅgiṇī) शब्द दिए हैं जो निस्संदेह फ़ारसी भाषा से लिए गए हैं। पूछना चाहता था कि विक्षनरी पर इन शब्दों का कोई औचित्य है वा नहीं क्योंकि चीन (cīna) शब्द भी प्राचीन चीनी से उत्पन्न हुआ है किन्तु MW शब्दकोश और विक्षनरी दोनो पर ही यह उपस्थित है। धन्यवाद! शब्दशोधकः^{(मया सह वदतु•मम योगदानानि)} 10:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

और एक शब्द ताम्रमुख (tāmramukha) करके भी दिया है यूरोपी के लिए MW में। शब्दशोधकः^{(मया सह वदतु•मम योगदानानि)} 10:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: आदिम हिन्द ईरानी और आदिम हिन्द यूरोपी विषय में अनेक विद्वान एवं शोधकर्ता हैं जिनके publications और research papers हमारे लिए स्रोत हैं; ख़ास तौर पर Leiden University के publications. इंटरनेट पर आपको ऐसे अनेक स्रोत उपलब्ध मिलेंगे।

फिरङ्गिन् और ताम्रमुख दोनों लेख के लिए अर्हित हैं। -- Bhagadatta (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: हमारे बीच वार्ता को व्यवस्थित करने हेतु धन्यवाद! ताम्रमुख और फिरङ्गिन् शब्द अवश्य बना दूँगा यहाँ पर। पिछले दस दिन से मुझे आपसे अनेक बार सम्पर्क करना पड़ा, कष्ट देने के लिए क्षमा चाहता हूँ। शब्दशोधकः^{(मया सह वदतु•मम योगदानानि)} 13:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: मैं प्रसन्न हूँ क्योंकि मुझे आपकी शंका दूर करने का अवसर मिला। -- Bhagadatta (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Etymologies of Sanskrit words

@Bhagadatta: Hello! I just want to know from where to get etymology of Sanskrit words because in every Sanskrit word I have to place {{rfe|sa}} unless it is a derivative of a root. So I would be grateful if I can know the source of these etymologies. Like I saw a word that you created स्वादु (svādu) which had etymology from PIE. Thanks, शब्दशोधकः^{(मया सह वदतु•मम योगदानानि)} 15:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Well there isn't a single source actually, there are a lot of publications, research papers, theses etc which I've read over the last 4 years. There are several "etymological dictionaries" published for various languages which always mention the Sanskrit cognate so there's a fairly good chance I know the etymology directly off of my head for a Sanskrit root. There is in fact an "Etymological Dictionary" for Sanskrit by Manfred Mayrhofer but it is in German so it isn't of much use to me. I would suggest you to avoid dealing in etymology for now as it is a slightly messier subject than simply creating entries and defining them.. the etymology will be undoubtedly added by us as and when we can. The best way for you to find the sources for PIE would be to look at some Proto-Indo-European entries and check the references section where the sources will be listed. Most of them are available online. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 16:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Thanks for your reply. Etymologies are complicated, I understand. I won’t dive into this now as you advice but can I leave a ping for you or User:AryamanA so they can complete it? शब्दशोधकः^{(मया सह वदतु•मम योगदानानि)} 16:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Sure, no problem. Sanskrit sound laws are not difficult to grasp so once you start downloading some resources (dictionaries from the Etymological Dictionary Series by the Leiden University are best for beginners) and you too will be familiar with the origins of a lot of Sanskrit roots. Go for the Etymological Dictionary of Latin by De Vaan and observe the Sanskrit cognates he mentions. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Thanks for mentioning the etymological dictionaries :). I have found both of them of internet. Are these two dictionaries the 2 you mentioned? And maybe if I study them for a while I can get a bit of grasp on PIE. शब्दशोधकः^{(मया सह वदतु•मम योगदानानि)} 16:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Yes. Enjoy! -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 17:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Thanks. And a humble request to check the Urdu form of फलना (phalnā) which I created very poorly by copy-pasting. And Good night if you are in India right now, it is almost 11 pm. शब्दशोधकः^{(मया सह वदतु•मम योगदानानि)} 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: I've fixed the language name. Good night. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 17:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Borrowings, Learned borrowings and inherited words

Hello! Can you please explain me what is the difference between these as I am quite confused in Hindi entries I add here. For example, see भरण (Hindi entry). It can be an inherited word, a borrowing from Sanskrit and even a Learned borrowing (as it is from a classical to a modern language).

Thanks, शशकः 03:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Inherited words are tadbhava words and borrowed words are tatsamas, borrowed from Sanskrit without any change. For instance हस्त is borrowed but हाथ is inherited. Learned borrowings are even more formal than simple borrowings, words you will almost never hear in spoken speech. भरण is borrowed. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 04:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. But what about derived words, then? They are the tadbhavas, aren’t they? And I see जाल is inherited, even though it is a tatsama. And how to know if a word is a {{lbor}} or a simple borrowing?

Regards. शशकः 04:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Derived words are tatsamas if their constituent parts are borrowed from Sanskrit. Technically, a learned borrowing is a borrowing from a classical language into a modern language; so the borrowing happens first through a written medium. A simple borrowing enters the lexicon primary through the spoken medium, like Hindi speakers using English words in their speech. By this reasoning, all Sanskrit tatsamas in Hindi are learned borrowings, but for wiktionary purposes, we generally do not make a big fuss about the distinction between a borrowing and a learned borrowing; it is not considered to be wrong when one uses simply the term "borrowing" for learned borrowing. I'd suggest you to just stick to {{bor}} to be on the safer side. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 06:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Thanks a lot for explaining. So I think I’ll use {{lbor}} only for words I am pretty sure are rare tatsamas in Hindi, otherwise not. Like my recent additions in Hindi (अधुना, इह, कुत्र, etc). What about जाल? Is it an inherited word or a borrowed word?

Regards, शशकः 06:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta, शब्दशोधक: I want to make it clear that Sanskrit loanwords in NIA & MIA are really all learned (or semi-learned) borrowings; and so are Sanskrit loanwords in Dravidian (however OIA loans in Old Dravidian are natural borrowings) and Southeast Asian languages, Latin loanwords in Romance languages, etc. The thing is that editors here do not bother to mark & categorize such words distinctly, but you can feel free to do so. And I had actually for a long time been thinking of asking @AryamanA to do a bot operation to fix entries of Indo-Aryan / Dravidian learned borrowings, while @Benwing2 to fix entries of Romance learned borrowings. — inqilābī ^{[ inqilāb zindabād ]} 14:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Wait, so would the Persian loans in Hindi also be LBs because they come from Classical Persian or have I not understood the term learned borrowing properly? -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 15:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Well, the Persian loans in Hindustani (and other Indo-Aryan languages) generally are natural borrowings (perhaps with the exception of some literary Persian terms and grammatical structures that Muslim scholars and writers deliberately adopted from Classical Persian texts); the Persian loans came through contact with the various Persianised Turkic peoples who had adopted the Early Modern Persian language. — inqilābī ^{[ inqilāb zindabād ]} 18:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: जाल is likely inherited because there is also the Prakrit term jāla; so this word could easily have been inherited by Hindi from Sauraseni Prakrit and in turn, from Sanskrit. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 12:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! शशकः 13:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

प्लीज़ and सॉरी

Can you please tell me if the words प्लीज़ and सॉरी are there in Hindi? They are not in any dictionary. कृपया and क्षमा करें are the proper Hindi words for them. So, do you feel they should be deleted?

Regards, शशकः 13:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Honestly, I don't know what to tell you. Those words do get hits on google and I know for a fact that they're used in daily speech by Hindi speakers but then so are words like "but", "obviously", "actually" and countless others. I don't think they should be deleted but frankly I have no idea where to draw the line. @Atitarev can you help our friend here? -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 14:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

There are no good or bad words based on their origin. Hindi is full of anglicisms but that's the reality. It's not unique for Hindi. All words in all languages is the Wiktionary principle. If these words, written in Devanagari and in Hindi context are verifiable, then they should be kept. You can always {{rfv}} them, if any doubts. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta, Atitarev: Personally, I think that adding these words in a dictionary is like even more impurifying a language like Hindi, which already has a lot of foreign words from Persian and Arabic. So I am not supporting that these words should be added. A dictionary doesn’t generally have colloquial words as most people don’t refer to a dictionary before speaking, do they? Looks funny, doesn’t it - people checking a dictionary to find सॉरी (sorry) and then speaking it. What my point of view on foreign words is that, Hindi shouldn’t be “that open” for foreign words i.e foreign words should be added to Hindi, only in the absence of a native word for it. Even words like ज़्यादा, कम, तेज़, चीज़, etc. shouldn’t be taken. So, I feel that they should be deleted because if Wiktionary has it, then many other dictionaries will copy it and then it’ll be an official dictionary word.

Regards, शशकः 03:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: You're entitled to an opinion, of course but purity is not the main criteria for inclusion. Many words are even spelled the same way and mean exactly the same thing in different languages, they are still included. As I suggested, you can {{rfv}} terms. This will require citations, if they are not provided, the terms will be deleted. Not worth it, if it's easy to confirm that these words are actually used by Hindi writers. You can also {{rfd}} based on the purity and other considerations you mention, describing why you think they should be deleted, why Hindi should stop borrowing from English if there are native equivalents, etc. Whether to keep or to delete may be decided by a vote. We include colloquial, slang, regional, rare, archaic, vulgar and offensive words. What we DON'T include is made up words. The main criterion is the word should exist. If you don't like them, don't use them. Very simple. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I definitely avoid using foreign words while I speak Hindi. But here, I just gave my point of view. Words of Urdu which I mentioned - तेज़, ज़्यादा, कम, चीज़, etc are in Hindi dictionaries and have been borrowed into Hindi and I don’t deny that and I have no intention to alter that. What I want to say is that we should not add words like प्लीज़ and सॉरी in Hindi, which by no chance are in written Hindi or in any reliable dictionary. That’s why I want it to be deleted. Which foreign words have been accepted in Hindi, they are fine but we mustn’t add such words or else it will be added in MANY other dictionaries and then (it may take a long time) maybe it enters written Hindi and pollute the language. We can’t add any word we think of like because then there are A LOT OF English words used commonly by Hindi speakers. I am taking these 2 words to {{rfd}} and will mention this entire conversation regarding this.

Thanks and regards, शशकः 08:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

हिन्दी सुगंध

नमस्ते। यह शब्द हिंदी में पुल्लिंग है अथवा स्त्रीलिंग? शब्दकोशों (Platts, Dasa, McGregor) के अनुसार यह पुल्लिंग है परन्तु सामान्यतः जब इसे बोला जाता है, तो इसे स्त्रीलिंग संज्ञा जैसे बोला जाता है। इस वाक्य को देखिए - "सुगंध आ रहा है"। शब्दकोशों के अनुसार, यह वाक्य उचित होना चाहिए, परन्तु मैंने तो कभी ऐसा कुछ नहीं सुना। "सुगंध आ रही है" - यह वाक्य शब्दकोशों के अनुसार अनुचित रहेगा परन्तु यही प्रचलित है। यहाँ पर जो लेख है, उसमें भी इस शब्द को स्त्रीलिंग बताया गया है। मेरा प्रश्न यह है कि लेख में लिंग को पुल्लिंग में परिवर्तित करके कुछ प्रयोग-टिप्पणियाँ (====Usage notes====) जोड़ना उचित होगा अथवा जैसे है वही ठीक है। धन्यवाद - द्विशकारः^{वार्त्ता•योगदानानि•संरक्षितावलयः•विद्युत्पत्त्रम्} 14:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: (sorry - I'm on a PC with no access to a Hindi keyboard right now so i'm going to type in English) What I think happened here is, the gender was borrowed into Hindi from Skt along with the noun but the usage of the term itself is influenced by गंध which happens to be feminine. Even this word is masculine in Skt by the way so I suppose in Hindi its gender may have been modelled after ख़ुशबू which is feminine. Usually, informal, spoken language does not attach much importance to noun genders so it's not surprising that one may not have heard सुगंध being used as a masculine noun. I think you can go ahead with the usage note, no harm in adding it. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 16:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

 Added usage notes. What about the example sentence, which again treats the word as feminine? Should I change that also to इस फूल का सुगंध बहुत सुहावना है (is phūl kā sugandh bahut suhāvnā hai)? That would be the correct sentence (grammatically), but, on the other hand, may confuse people. द्विशकारः^{वार्त्ता•योगदानानि•संरक्षितावलयः•विद्युत्पत्त्रम्} 16:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: No, as it is now, the usage example and usage notes are in agreement. It serves to drive the point home. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 16:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your time for solving this out. You truly deserve to become an admin. Because of your guidance and help, I know so much more now than I knew 5 months back. Full support from me - द्विशकारः^{वार्त्ता•योगदानानि•संरक्षितावलयः•विद्युत्पत्त्रम्} 17:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Truncating etymologies & Sanskrit in other scripts

At diff you truncated the etymology beyond Sanskrit. Did you truncate that etymology because you agree with what was discussed at User_talk:Victar#Truncating_Germanic_etymologies? If so, then adding {{dercat}} would be helpful to preserve the categories. As discussed there:

The advantage of truncating etymologies is is that the descendant entries would not need to be updated if the information about any of the etymons changes.

The disadvantage of truncating etymologies is that viewing the complete etymology of a term would require looking at the entries of the etymons.

Also, as your edit to diff correctly demonstrates, there's no compulsion to use scripts other than Devanagari for Sanskrit in etymology sections, especially if it's not clear how to write Sanskrit terms in other scripts. At MOD:sa-convert, User:DerekWinters has written some Unresolved Issues when writing Sanskrit in scripts other than Devanagari. So if you're not sure about how to write Sanskrit terms that involve such Unresolved Issues, then it's probably best to use Devanagari.

If and when the terms in CAT:Old Marathi lemmas are updated and expanded, Sanskrit words in the etymology sections of Modi-script entries could possibly use the Modi script. However, a potential issue for the Modi script is that although इ should always written as ई and ऊ should always written as उ when writing (Old) Marathi, it may be helpful to maintain the distinction between इ vs ई and उ vs ऊ for writing Sanskrit.

Since Sanskrit was written in the Brahmi script, Sanskrit words in the etymology sections of Brahmi-script entries could possibly use the Brahmi script. However, although the Brahmi script was initially a simple script for writing Ashokan Prakrit, it eventually became a much more complicated script when it was adapted to write Sanskrit and other languages. The fonts available for the Brahmi script are probably not suitable for representing Sanskrit, so perhaps it's better to use Devanagari on Brahmi-script entries. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Actually, my approach to etymology differs slightly from the approach discussed in that talk page. I do not ever shorten Sanskrit etymologies as I find it immensely useful to show derivation till PIE and also list a few cognates as it's helpful for comparative purposes (why would I want the user to click on the parent entry and look the cognates and further etymology up instead of showing them on the entry?).

But I tend to draw the line with respect to the number of cognates to be shown (4 at most) and what languages to apply this approach to. I follow this method for Sanskrit (as it is an ancient tongue and has been historically been used for comparative analysis), and never for languages at derivational levels below Sanskrit. Consider, for instance, Hindi. A fully expanded Hindi etymology would be:

"From Old Hindi A, from Shauraseni Apabhransha B, from Shauraseni Prakrit C, from Ashokan Prakrit D, from Sanskrit E, from P.I.A F, from P.I.I G, from P.I.E. H".

Even though I exaggerated here a bit (we don't usually include Old Hindi or Shauraseni Apabhransha in Hindi etymologies here..), it's still a pretty long line of derivation. Plus, I am of the opinion that Proto Indo-Aryan terms in etymology sections are quite unnecessary as they are often very similar/identical to the Sanskrit form or to the P.I.I form or to both.

This is why I had a compromise in mind which I usually enact while editing IA entries. Show the cognates and PII, PIE etymology at the Sanskrit entries and link the MIA and NIA etymologies till the Sanskrit entry. Optionally MIA could also show PII and PIE (so if the full etymology + cognates are to be restored at 𑀩𑀥 (badha), I will not oppose it. It had the PIA term which cluttered the etymology as there was one term too many... if you left out the PIA term, it'd look better.) But it certainly is not a good look to link Hindi or Marathi all the way back to PIE so I tend to give etymology up to Sanskrit only.

And in diff I intended to put the Bengali script in alt text while linking to the original entry but I missed out on it. I edited it because the anon had mis-categorized it with {{inh|sa|iir-pro}} when in fact he should have used {{bor|bn|sa}}. Will add the Bengali script in the alt text now. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response regarding etymology sections. This appears to be what you’re saying:

For thriving and endangered modern languages, showing etymology beyond Sanskrit is unnecessary since it would be strange to be comparing languages spoken today with reconstructed languages.

Comparing Sanskrit and other I-A classical and dead languages with reconstructed languages is justified since they’re all objects of scholarly study.

This is all logical. However, categorising the thriving and endangered modern languages as derived from PIA, PII and PIE is still useful so {{dercat}} and {{PIE root}} or {{PIE word}} should still be used whenever possible.

Wiktionary appears to be the only place that reconstructs PIA on a massive scale so any mention of it is quite interesting. However, if you’re adamant about ‘PIA is relatively insignificant in comparison to Sanskrit and PII so don’t show it in etymology sections then it would be best to defer to your expertise.

The most common reason for breaking the rule of four cognates for NIA is that there are so many Languages with official status in India plus Sinhala and Dhivehi.

So how would you clean up the cognates list at खाणे (khāṇe)? Would it be anything more than ‘Remove Garhwali, Bhojpuri, Sylheti and Rajbanshi’?

Showing all the cognates is somewhat necessary if there is no entry for the Sanskrit etymon such as at बैठना (baiṭhnā) or when there is no Sanskrit etymon such as at भरवसा (bharavsā) and ठोकना (ṭhoknā).

Something needs to be done about improving the coverage of Apabhramshas and Paisaci Prakrit (possibly involving reconstruction). Leaving those stages blank in etymology sections forever is not desirable. There’s a comparable but less urgent situation with the other classical languages such as Old Hindi. Kutchkutch (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree about using {{dercat}} and {{PIE root}} for NIA entries. For Sanskrit and old MIA entries, I'm still a proponent of a detailed etymology with the cognates. If I were to "clean up" खाणे (khāṇe), I'd do exactly what you guessed; I'd leave the Hindi cognate and a few others on the page and let the user look the rest up at खादति (khādati) especially as the descendants are listed in detail over there. Now it's not like I vehemently oppose showing Proto-IA in etymologies, it's just that when I look at the etymology of a Sanskrit term, there's a nice display of step by step evolution in accordance to sound laws, from PIE to Vedic. But then in the middle you have Proto IA which looks almost identical to PII with a slightly differing notation. And because the Mittani donor language has been lost and because we use the term "Sanskrit" to refer to the whole Old IA dialect continuum, "Proto-IA" could refer to literally any stage after the branching off of Iranian and before the attestation of Vedic. This is in contrast to PII which isn't so ambiguous because it has more than one (branch of) descendant so you can define PII as being the last common ancestor of the IA and the Iranian languages. But that said, I would not really oppose PIA forms in the etymology if you find their inclusion useful; it's really just a matter of preference. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The role of Proto-IA in the formation of I-A is not as clear as it should be. The contact with Mittani, lack of a more precise time estimate and the existence Sanskrit makes Proto-IA a less than ideal candidate for being the last common ancestor of all I-A languages. However, being the last common ancestor of all I-A languages is still an important role.

Proto-IA would be particularly useful if an I-A cognate set without a Sanskrit etymon suggests a Proto-IA reconstruction rather a Proto-Prakrit reconstruction. A Proto-IA reconstruction would occur instead of a Proto-Prakrit reconstruction if the cognate set indicates that the ancestor must have sounds or phonotactics that are not allowed in MIA. Many of the terms in CAT:Terms derived from Proto-Indo-Aryan and the terms under reconstructed Turner entries would have to be judged on whether they're really derived from Proto-Indo-Aryan or if they're in fact derived from Proto-Prakrit. Kutchkutch (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: That's true, that's the reason we started reconstructing Ashokan Prakrit here is because the forms Turner gives most of the time are Proto-MIA instead of Proto-IA. There are others which are Sanskrit compounds or rather two Sanskrit words put together and they're not attested in that particular combination, like गो-रूप, भ्रातृ-जाया etc. I believe there is at least one word in Hindi उसांस (usāns) which seems to have been inherited from PIA *ut-śwāsa- without going through Vedic/Sanskrit sandhi rules which would render it उच्छ्वास (ucchvāsa), which IS an attested word (the current etymology says *उत्श्वास which contains a combination not allowed in Sanskrit. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Victar

• I didn't know my talk page was so famous... --{{victar|talk}} 18:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Heh, it seems the walls have ears. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

दीवारों के भी कान होते हैं। User_talk:Victar#Truncating_Germanic_etymologies and {{dercat}} are also applicable to Indo-Aryan. Kutchkutch (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi,

I have nominated you as an administrator in the English Wiktionary. If you accept the nomination, please edit the acceptance section, add languages you know with their level (perhaps as in your user page). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Thanks a lot for the nomination; I've accepted it. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 06:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and good luck! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)