User talk:Pulimaiyi/2021

Hindi चीजबस्त (cījbast)

I saw this word in the entry वैयक्तिक चीजबस्त. As I searched Google for it, I found that it means "effect". However, this word gives no results on any dictionary and looks like a neologism. I am wondering what is its etymology. Is it चीज़बस्त (cīzbast), from चीज़ (cīz) +‎ बस्त (bast) or a loanword from some other language or a calque. Thanks and regards - द्विशकारः^{वार्त्ता•योगदानानि•संरक्षितावलयः•विद्युत्पत्त्रम्} 07:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: The entry is misspelled as it should be चीज़बस्त. I found this blog post where this word is described so I guess this is some kind of rare, undocumented/poorly documented word... there are a few words like that, like औलट (aulaṭ) which I heard in a song which I still haven't found any mention of or even learned its meaning. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 13:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for giving the link to that blog post. So, as the blog post says, "फ़ारसी में “बस्त” में भी वस्तु का ही भाव है", then बस्त#Etymology 1 is from Persian or is the current etymology (Inherited from {{inh|hi|sa|वस्तु|tr=vástu}}) correct?

Also, should there be an entry for चीज़बस्त (cīzbast) and what does it exactly mean - a precious thing or effect?

I've moved the page (वैयक्तिक चीजबस्त) to its correct form (with nuqta).

Regards - द्विशकारः^{वार्त्ता•योगदानानि•संरक्षितावलयः•विद्युत्पत्त्रम्} 14:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: If it was a true inherited word from Skt it would be vastu --> Pkt vatthu --> Hindi *bāth (*बाथ). So it seems it may not be inherited but then again, I don't have any reason (right now) to believe that Persian would have a cognate word to Sanskrit vastu, and on top of it even with the same meaning, so until I look into it in more detail in the literature later, I would not favour a Persian origin. Maybe बस्त (bast) is a semi borrowing or an ardha-tatsama from वस्तु (vastu). I believe चीज़बस्त merely means "thing" or "stuff" but there's only one way to be sure enough to put it in an entry - if you manage to find sources for it or find an instance of its usage where you are able to derive its meaning through context. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 14:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

 Changed inherited -> ardhatatsama. The word gives some results on Google books. The sense "effect(s)" is given here, in the भारतवाणी dictionary, so that explains वैयक्तिक चीज़बस्त = personal effect(s). बस्त#Etymology 1 seems to a feminine, so I guess cīzbast is also a feminine and therefore I have changed the gender of वैयक्तिक चीज़बस्त. I'll create cīzbast with both the senses. Regards - द्विशकारः^{वार्त्ता•योगदानानि•संरक्षितावलयः•विद्युत्पत्त्रम्} 15:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: I'm curious now, which song? —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 22:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Albeliya by Kailash Kher! I'd last listened to it five or six years ago so I went back and listened to it now - the word is ओलट (olaṭ), not औलट (aulaṭ). Mystery solved! 👍

Here it is: https://youtu-be/KaHcWpJO_c4 (Replace the hyphen with a dot). -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 00:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Potentially useful site

[1] a very nice Sanskrit database website, with the Rigveda in accentuated form with translation and everything. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 00:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh and DSAL has a new Prakrit dictionary. @Kutchkutch as well. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 00:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Thanks so much! That's a wonderful resource. I usually use the Digital Corpus of Sanskrit but it misses a few attestations here and there, plus, I have to then get the translation separately. This database not only gives the English translation but the German one too (which I hear is in fact more favoured by linguists for scholarly work). BTW Kutchkutch told me about DSAL's Prakrit dictionary and created the amazing {{R:pra:Sheth}} which takes in the Brahmi script from the title and converts it to Devanagari inputs that in the DSAL search. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 01:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Accents in Sanskrit compounds

Hi, are there no accents in a Sanskrit compound? You said "the accent(s) of individual terms in a compound do not necessarily determine the accentuation of the compound. मद्य having an accent is no reason for this word (मद्यपान) having one", so then, how do we determine where there is an accent in a compound or are compounds always without accents? Thanks. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 13:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक There are some rules here: youtu.be/N9ZG6OxNQ40 at 2:06 Kutchkutch (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: For any word, it's best to check Monier-Williams. In a compound word, if there is an accent, MW mentions the accent. The term Madyapāna is under the headword Mádya in the dictionary. If this word was indeed "mádyapāna", MW would have given it like this: (mádya-)pāna. But he does not make this second reference to the word, it's simply given as -pāna under the headword mádya which means that the accent is from the attestation in Vedic texts and the compound carries no accent.

Secondly, this term is from the Mahabharata, it does not appear in Vedic literature. So your assumption that it would be mádyapāna simply because mádya has an accent is a bit too straight-forward. Very few post-Vedic Sanskrit terms have an accent. It did not exist in Classical Sanskrit. Only sometimes will a Classical Sanskrit term have an accent because the accent for the word was mentioned by Panini.

Lastly, MW does sometimes forget to give the accent. In such cases we can add it when we look at the attestation of the word in Vedic texts - primarily the Rig Veda, but also the Atharva Veda, Taittriya Sanhita etc. There are various resources which have excellent and accurate transcriptions of the Vedic texts which tell us about the accents of the word you're interested in.

PS: I've decided that in 2021 it'll be easier to follow the discussions on the talk page if they are sorted according to their topics instead of the user they come from so I gave this a section of its own ;) -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 14:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I've got no problem with this discussion having a section of its own, and thanks for explaining how MW mentions accents. @Kutchkutch: Thanks for the link, it's great for learning about accents. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 15:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Suture

Thanks for inviting me to comment. I don't have really much to add except for what I posted yesterday. I'm a Canadian studying Sanskrit in India and when I came across the word सूत्र् (sūtr), the connection seemed obvious to me. In this Wikipedia article on Pāṇini, it's quite evident that Indian culture had achieved a degree of linguistic sophistication way beyond anything that the Romans could have conceived of, and this is around 500 BCE. Also, the word सूत्र् (sūtr) is actually one of Pāṇini's dhātus (verbal roots), likely in existence before the Roman Republic even began. Further, it's well documented that the Romans were actively trading with both Indian and Chinese traders via the Silk Road for centuries. So that's my logic. I must confess, however, that I'm not a linguist, just a great lover of Sanskrit and Indian culture. So I just posted this as a matter of interest. P.S. I used to me a major contributor to Wikipedia 10 years ago, in the astronomy section, but have since been focusing on my own research. Do what you think is best with my suggestion. It just seems to me that Indian culture and history are seriously undervalued by the world community and that's why I'm here in India. Good luck with everything. — This unsigned comment was added by 2401:4900:5A54:DA79:91D5:1825:16CC:DAC0 (talk) at 22:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC).

Thanks for your interest. But Latin sūtūra is a native derivation, my friend; you also have sūtor (“cobbler”) and suō (“I sew”). The reason it looks so similar to Sanskrit सूत्र (sūtra) in form and meaning is that they are in fact related; both derive ultimately from the same Proto-Indo-European root for the act of sewing. To say one is derived from the other would be incorrect. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 01:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sanskrit विनति (vinati, “request”) & Hindi विनती (vintī, “request”)

Do you think that this it some kind of re-borrowing (or maybe phono-semantic-matching)? S. विज्ञप्ति -> H. vintī -> S. vinati. According to MW and CDIAL ([2]), it doesn't mean request, it only means "bowing, obeisance to, humility, modesty", but Apte mentions the sense "request" ([3]) and Platts, Dasa and McGregor, all these Hindi dictionaries say that in one sense this is a synonym of बिनती (bintī, “request”). What's more, the root नम् doesn't mean "to request" and neither does नति mean that. Another possibility is that it is from Prakrit विण्णत्ति (see Pk. viṇṇatti at R:CDIAL) 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 06:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Also @Kutchkutch. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 06:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक This is certainly an interesting set of words. There was an earlier discussion at Talk:विनती. The inheritance from Sanskrit विज्ञप्ति → Hindi विनती seems conservative, and the anusvara (/ […] ən. […] /) in the Marathi term could either be hypercorrection or indicative of earlier nasalisation. The Ashokan Prakrit term is indicated as vinati, but this appears to be the result of reconstructing illegible characters. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Since only Apte mentions the sense "request", I guess his interpretation of the word was influenced by the Hindi term. विनती was inherited and its resemblance to विनति is a coincidence in my opinion. Of course the fact that their meanings are somewhat related enforced their similarity where people may be using both interchangeably. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 11:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your guess seems convincing to me. How about labelling the sense with New Sanskrit, splitting the 2 etymologies with the second etymology being - {{psm|sa|hi|विनती||request}} which is itself from {{der|sa|sa|विज्ञप्ति}} and adding a line beside the Hindi etymology explaining it being a twice-borrowed term? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 11:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Sure thing, that can be done. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 12:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was thinking:

[Apte's] interpretation of the word was influenced by the Hindi term. विनती was inherited and its resemblance to विनति is a coincidence […] the fact that their meanings are somewhat related enforced their similarity where people may be using both interchangeably Kutchkutch (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I realized this just now - the Digital Corpus of Sanskrit doesn't mention the sense "request", so it is very well possible that the sense "request" was itself an innovation by McGregor ([4]) and Platts ([5]). I think the word was borrowed into Hindi, and it's meaning was changed with the influence of the already existing विनती which meant request (Dasa still preserves the original sense). Also, many people may write it with the shorter i to make it look Sanskrit-like, which may have been the reason for vinati to mean request in one sense. Next, I think, came Apte's interpretation, which we discussed above. Do you agree? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: That's right. Digital Corpus uses MW's definitions but the fact that there are no attestations of the second sense means we needn't include it. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 16:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

All right, so I am removing that sense since it is making the things all the more confusing. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Albemarle Commission

Hello Bhagadatta. I noticed you deleted Albemarle Commission because the content was "." I just wanted to let you know that I was the one that made it as a period. That is because if you look at the history, 2600:387:A:9C2:0:0:0:64 made that article and wrote quite inappropriate things on there. Since I don't have the power to delete the article and it wouldn't let me blank it, I just put it as "." Hope that clears that up! Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: Yes, I quite understand. Pages like that are deleted, so next time just replace the content with the lowercase letter d inside curly brackets {} so that it's brought to the attention of admins who will delete it. Thanks for fighting vandalism! -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 05:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

possible sockpuppet

I don't know anything about this but there has been constant creations with similar names. They have just been created.

• Wiktionáry Vándalism club
• Long term abuse of Wiktíonary
• Banned Wiktionarian
• The longest term abuser

All created in a few minutes. Probably sockpuppetry but you should check it out.

Best regards,

Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

SHTDCaA, unless th(is/ese) user(s) ha(s/ve) done any vandal edits, the only argument to block them would be unacceptable username. For sock puppetry, check-users are the only ones who can check since they get the access to a user's IP. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 13:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक They just did and I reverted it (They got 1 day banned by an admin). It was the Banned Wiktionarian, so he is probably going to use his other accounts. Be on the lookout! Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Banned Wiktionarian was Wonderfool. Possibly others are also. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Feminine of Pali aḍḍha 'rich'

What's your evidence (or argument) that the feminine is aḍḍhā rather than aḍḍhĩ? RichardW57 (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57: You must mean aḍḍhī. I've updated it now but I can't find any attestation either way. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the bleary-eyed typo. I've struck the feminine form out and reverted to the old pattern of {{pi-decl-noun}} for the genders separately. I think there are a lot of Pali adjectives for which we cannot give the feminine. I'm a little worried that might also apply to the middle participles, but for now most participles seem to have predictable nominative singulars, with santa (“being”) being the one exception I know of. {{pi-decl-adj}} only handles the common cases, and I'm about to document its limitations. RichardW57 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Just so you know

I haven't said anything lately because they've cleaned up their act in recent years, but you've forced the issue by nominating them for whitelisting. See w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive893#DerekWinters to stop editing anatomy articles and Talk:lore so you know who and what you're dealing with. I'm not saying they shouldn't be whitelisted, as their DerekWinters account is, but you should do it with both eyes open. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Blimey, I hadn't the faintest idea that Smettems was DerekWinters. I really thought they'd left for good. I thought Smettems was an old timer who left Wiktionary and returned recently but now I wish I hadn't stirred the issue as I do not know how much Smettems/Derek is comfortable with people knowing.

All said and done, this was 6 or 7 years ago so knowing this hasn't really affected my regard of them and how much I think they should be whitelisted. Based on my extensive interactions with DerekWinters, I can vouch for them. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 14:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Chuck was just linking to that as demonstration that the two are the same. My main issues with Derek related to his creation of unattested entries in many languages he doesn't speak, but I guess that hasn't been an issue with Indian languages. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I was taken aback. And you're right, his edits in the Indian languages haven't been problematic in the recent years. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 16:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Had I done some research to understand the editor, I'd have known who he actually (i/wa)s. Whatever, this is good: we now know DerekWinters is still here, albeit under a different name! Informing others too. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 05:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  @SodhakSH: Assuming that they are the same individual, their disappearance and reappearance is certainly quite mysterious. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Etymology of lampaṭa

Working today on terms deriving from Sanskrit रम् (ram), another related term came to my mind: लम्पट (lampaṭa, “lustful”). I'll probably be adding an entry for it today, so I need to know about its origin. Is it √ram —> *rampaṭa —> lampaṭa? 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH: The connection does seem tempting but the word is likely of Deśī origin. Just think of the meaning. lampaṭa implies lust, greed etc whereas the root रम् originally implies "glad", "happy". But there is also a root लम् (lam), given by MW but not by Panini which is said to be a variant of रम्. So a probable connection cannot be ruled out. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 13:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Deśī/deśaja = non-Indo-Aryan/Dravidian or Munda? How should the etymology be given, like कपोल#Etymology_2? 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 13:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH: That's right. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 13:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What is…

… a “source type” in linguistics? Does it mean an etymon? -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 23:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: It appears to be a computational linguistics thing. Where did you come across it? Maybe context could help. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 02:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I should have done so; it must be an obscure term then, but it is not related to computational linguistics.

{{R:ODBL|1|xxiv}}:

SIGNS

= indicates a cognate form, or a source type.

The symbol has been employed throughout the work, mainly for Sanskrit etymons of reconstructed MIA words, as

‘ঘুঁট [NIA form] […] (*ghuṇṭa, *ghuṭṭa == ghṛṣṭa)’ (page 355);

‘কুঁদে […] (*kundaï, kuddaï == kūrdati)’ (pages 369-370); and so forth.

Here I just assumed that *pācīla is an earlier form of *pañcīla (may be they are rather simply variants, what do you think?); if I indeed be right then do you think *pācīla can be an Ashokan Prakrit form?— Chatterji’s presentation might also be for the reason that Ashokan Prakrit and Sanskrit are thought to be contemporaneous languages (hence they are possibly presented as cognates using the = sign)?

The term in question also appears here.

-_⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Ah, it's clear now. In this context, the "source type" means a close cognate or a variant of the actual etymon. Chatterji here gives OIA etymologies for MIA and NIA words but considers Sanskrit to be strictly classical Sanskrit as opposed to the entire OIA dialect continuum. He even considers Vedic and Sanskrit to be different. Hence etymologies are given in the following manner: ভাই (bhai) = bʰrā́tr̥ instead of ভাই (bhai) < bʰrā́tr̥, this is because the exact OIA dialect from which Bengali was born was technically different from the attested Sanskrit or Vedic (the latter was based on a dialect cluster in the north-western Punjab region). Many other sources do the same: Sanskrit/Vedic terms because of their archaicity are really convenient as representatives of OIA terms but they also want to stress that the particular dialect that went into Sanskrit/Vedic was not the one that gave rise to the MIA/NIA lect in question.

*pācīla was surely an Ashokan Prakrit (or to be more precise: a Proto Middle Indo-Aryan) term which then underwent spontaneous nasalisation, a development which is seen in late OIA, MIA and early NIA. So I believe your earlier assumption was correct; it was the earlier form as opposed to a variant. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

So can *pācīla be created as an Ashokan Prakrit entry? One downside is that it has no non-Magadhan descendants; or that matters not? Also, for spontaneous nasalisation, do you think the word ‘corruption’ is needed, especially in light of Proto-MIA and Prakrit being treated as different languages by us? -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Oh, I thought that the entry for *pañcīla was an Ashokan entry, so I didn't oppose the word "corruption" and called *pācīla an earlier form. But yeah, as Chatterji on page 470 mentions *pācīla as belonging to the early MIA period, *pācīla can be a valid Ashokan entry. The descendants do not really matter since you've got a source to back the reconstruction. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

व्युष्टि

To your reversion of my change a month ago - not that it's supremely important, but the claim of 'incorrect sandhi' is strange; the Vedic poets weren't *in error*; they simply didn't conform to the mandatory sandhi of later Sanskrit. The grave accent on *vyùṣṭi* "accounts" for the lost syllable in that it's the accentual consequence of syllable loss, but víuṣṭi is a distinct form. Not one we possess in the recitations, but something that we know to have originally existed. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hölderlin2019: I am well aware of the vowel hiatus in Vedic but that information should be provided as pronunciation or as a transcription, not in declension. The entry for व्युष्टि currently gives the Vedic transcription and pronunciation. But the declension should be for the lemma, the form recorded by the dictionaries and the form attested in the texts is व्युष्टि. If one wants the readers to know the metrically restored versions of all the declined forms, then one can of course create entries for the declined forms and give their alternate transcriptions and pronunciations, like how it is done on the main lemma page. "*विउष्टि" (more properly *वियुष्टि) represents just the metrically restored form. In all the modern renditions of the Rig Veda, both recited and written down, the form has always been व्युष्टि, ever since the Rig Veda was redacted in the late Vedic age.

Declining व्युष्टि as विउष्टि, is like declining, say, śyená as śyainá. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 03:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

My edits on lahore

I just removed misinformation from Lahore. why did you undo my edits? IMPNFHU (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@IMPNFHU: You removed valid translations from the entry. There's also a strong possibility that the name entered English through Hindustani instead of directly from Punjabi. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 05:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes there's a possibility that english got this word from hindustani. But what about the sanskrit translation? The "city of lava" etymology of lahore is just a theory and there's no evidence that prove it to be true IMPNFHU (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Also lahore is officially called "लाहौर" in hindi. The translations that i removed were not official IMPNFHU (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

yes, लाहौर is the official name and it has many other valid forms which are given at page लाहौर. but that doesnt mean that other names cant be there. eg india is the official name the country but other names like भारत, हिंदुस्तान, etc. exist in hindi. city of lava may be a theory but then someone considered it a valid one and attested the term ‘lavapura’ in his book. the translations in hindi/sanscrit are valid,search google and google books for yourself until i create those pages with valid references. Svārtava 06:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because someone considered it a valid one doesn't make it valid IMPNFHU (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

India is the official name in english and भारत is the official name in english. hindustan is not a official hindi name IMPNFHU (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@IMPNFHU: Although this wikipedia article does not claim Lava-pura to be the only possible etymology for Lahore, it does make some compelling points. Given the alternative forms of the name, it's hard to write off the relation to Lava-pura as just a theory. In either case, the Sanskrit etymology is not even there on the page right now. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 06:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

"लाहौर" is the official and widely used name of of lahore. the other translations are unnecessary and just cause confusion. IMPNFHU (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There's other theory that suggests that lahore is derived from ravi river which is much more believable than "city of lava" theory IMPNFHU (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

But still none of these theories have been proven yet. So don't state any of these theory as a fact just because you personally believe it to be true. IMPNFHU (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

even if [lava+pura] is dismissed as a theory, how does it make the translations invalid? search google books for लवपुरे, लवपुरं, etc. and see they exist. see ਲਾਹੋਰੁ. Svārtava • 07:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@IMPNFHU: Again, as I said, the etymology wasn't even present on the Lahore page. And as stated above, the Sanskrit translations definitely exist. The fact that you don't like an etymology does not make it baseless or untrue. If there are alternate possibilities for the etymology, you should be adding them without removing the current, sourced etymology which has a high likelihood of being true. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 11:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

revert on template:bn-sadhu-conj-c

hello, I just wanted to talk about how the transliteration and conjugation used on the template:bn-sadhu-conj-c was wrong, hence i reverted it. But it seems you have reverted my revert, I was just curious as to why because the conjugations and transliteration I used are correct and fit with the transliteration used for Bengali entries. Shohure Jagoron (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shohure Jagoron: Hi; you transliterated স (śo) as "sh" which is no doubt how it is informally written but on Wiktionary, ś is the character used not just for Bengali but for all Indic languages. You also replaced ô with o. User:Inqilābī made these edits for that very reason and you undid it, so I restored it to Inqilābī's version. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 08:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

ah i see the correction for ś, but as for ô and o, there is a nuance, ô only occurs everywhere except before syllables with the vowels I and u and in the ends of words, so in that aspect user:inquilabi was wrong. Hence something like বড় would be bôṛo, with ô signifying ɔ and o signifying o. Never boṛo. Likewise with conjugation, করিল (has done) would only be korilo, not kôrilô, since the inherent vowel comes at the end of the word as well as before a syllable with the vowel i. Compare this with করে (does) which would be, and truly is, pronounced kôre, never kore. I take I can fix it accordingly? Shohure Jagoron (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

of course there are other places where ô becomes o, but since we are talking about conjugation, these are really the only two phonetically relevant rules Shohure Jagoron (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shohure Jagoron: Hi. You are unfamiliar with our Bengali transliteration. Due to vowel mutation, /ɔ/ becomes [ɔ̝~o] dialectally (including in the standard dialect), but this is not universal as this does not happen in Vaṅgiya dialects. Therefor, for vowels, we follow the orthography: hence বড় is transliterated bôṛô, করিল kôrilô, etc. Note that the pronunciation spellings বড়ো and করিলো exist, and only these should be transliterated bôṛo and kôrilo respectively. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the explanation but in this case, should we not alternate transliteration for dialects like vaṇgiya? And since Shadhu is a register of Standard Bengali, shouldn’t it also be transliterated according to its own vowel mutation?

Shohure Jagoron (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shohure Jagoron: In order to ensure that the intended person gets the notification about your message, you have to use {{ping|USERNAME}} and then end your message with four tildes: ~~~~. In this case, I get notified anyway because this is my talk page but Inqilābī doesn't. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 07:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@BhagadattaShohure Jagoron (talk) oh thank you, i am unfamiliar with how talk pages work.

@Inqilābī Sorry l forgot to ping you last time, what do think of my proposal that we make the transliteration for the standard conjugations more defined since they are of course standard? Shohure Jagoron (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shohure Jagoron: Replied on your talkpage. Sorry for the late reply, I did see your response. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Lahore

Fortunately, I do not need to edit this page. But if I did, I would be very annoyed by the block you have imposed. DonnanZ (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Donnanz: I wanted to make it autopatrollers only but that option was not available. It's due to expire anyway. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 17:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

According to the page history you set the block to expire on 6 August, then changed it to expire on 23 August, so the block will be there for another fortnight, as I see it. But the idea of autopatrollers only seems like a good one (apparently I am one - I had forgotten), it could be raised on the Beer Parlour. DonnanZ (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• You can do a user-specific block. By the way, I also support the idea of an autopatroller level of access. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Donnanz: I'd support that. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

For the time being, you can do a user-specific block; or can only bureaucrats do that? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I did think of a user-specific block, which would keep the page in question open. But it is better to avoid edit-warring altogether; a straight revert alerts the user whose edit you reverted, but it's so easy to do it, it could be said it's far too easy as it can start an edit war. It is better to use more subtle means to restore the original; the "offending" user doesn't get pinged as he would with a straight revert. DonnanZ (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: I can; I was just concerned that he would be able to circumvent by editing the page as an IP or under a new name. Let's chance it anyway; I'll lift the restrictions and impose a page specific block on the user for the remainder of the time. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Question about derivation of सरित् (sarit) & related words.

I just created a page for सरित् (sarit, “river”), and gathered that the root in PIE would have been *ser-, see page at Anc. Greek ὀρός (orós). But some hydronym pages such as Romanian Siret links to this word and compares with *sel-. If I may have your time, could you have a look at the Sanskrit page in case I made some mistakes?

(BTW for something totally unrelated: your username in the Middle Chinese era would have been written like 婆迦達多 (MC ba kae dat ta) by the Chinese :) --Frigoris (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: The entry looks great! Monier-Williams relates the term to सरस् (saras) which would make the PIE ancestor of this word (a derivative of) *sélos. Mayrhofer also supposes the PIE term to have been *sal- (thus leaning more towards *sélos).

And it's really interesting to see my name being rendered in Middle Chinese; Chinese spellings of Sanskrit/Pali terms have always fascinated me! -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 17:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: hello! Thank you for the information. If you wish, could you put some of the information to the Etymology (and maybe remove anything inaccurate already there, such as the {{root|sa|ine-pro|...}} stuff I put there)? --Frigoris (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: Sure thing! -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Interestingly, there is a user whose name is cognate to yours. Guess who? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: It's User:Bogdan, isn't it. I was taken aback when I first saw it. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, LOL. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Categorization by roots

Hi, just for confirmation: I think we generally only categorize a word by roots (PIE roots, etc.) if it is not a compound word. Therefore, I guess, Sanskrit हिमालय (himālaya) should not be categorized by roots since it’s a synchronic formation, while its components हिम & आलय should definitely be categorized. I am sure it is pretty redundant to categorize synchronic derivatives by roots. Are you of the same opinion? Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: I too prefer to limit categorisation to the primary derivatives of a root or at least such derivatives where there is only one component. It's the same line of reasoning that dictates that {{inh}} should (ideally) not be used when not all components of a particular word are inherited from the etymon given. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 02:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Need help again, Prakrit terms related to स्फटिक (sphaṭika)

Hello Bhagadatta - If you have the time, could you check the Prakrit terms in the descendant section at Sanskrit स्फटिक (sphaṭika)? I'm interested in this word because it (eventually) gave rise to a very common "everyday" word in Chinese languages (for glass, the material) via borrowing and shifts in meaning. I got the Prakrit forms from Sheth's dictionary hosted at DSAL, and there seems to be many forms involved, some with the "vriddi"ed phā- while others not. The Turner comparative dictionary lists other forms. Surely some double checking could be used, I gather?

Also, the etymology of the Skt. term seems mysterious.

If you can help, please. Thanks! --Frigoris (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: The descendants are correct. I'm looking to see if any more are available. The Prakrits have the medial /l/ because the voiceless retroflex stop was first voiced and then, as was common in Old Indo-Aryan and Middle Indo-Aryan, converted to the retroflex later flap via allophony. Finally, the retroflexion was abandoned, giving a simple /l/; a phenomenon we also see in the reflexes of Old Indo-Aryan ṣóḍaśa. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 09:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: thanks! Sorry I should've been more specific. I meant the Sanskrit term's origin seems to be elusive. I don't know about any claims of comparable etymologies in Indoeuropean languages, so I put up an RFE there. Do you have any insight about that? I've no doubt about how /l/ arose in Prakrit, which is important to the Chinese etymology. This also matches the derivation given by Chinese reference works. --Frigoris (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: Sorry about that delay! I've added the (possible) etymology. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 03:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by a supposed sockpuppeteer

SodhakSH (talk • contribs) / Svartava (talk • contribs) / Svartava2 (talk • contribs) has been on an agenda to unnecessarily revert my edits (e.g., diff). I think a block is warranted, because undisclosed socks are not allowed to do disruptive edits. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 10:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

What disruption, Dictator Inqilabi? Socks shouldn't vote twice and should not disrupt discussions and should not make it seem that there is more support for anything than it actually is. I did none of it, Dictator Mundi, and I just wanted to clean up my bad reputation here (by one mistake I let it slip accidentally, some time before revealing it on my user page! By the way, Inqilabi, Chuck Entz and Bhagadatta (two admins, mind you) already knew about it! And I damn care about WHAT YOU THINK. Svārtava² • 14:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I always thought that the whole Svartava thing was a bad idea, and said so when asked off-wiki, but it only becomes sockpuppetry by our standards when it's used to break the rules or gain an unfair advantage. They felt they were being stigmatized for all the mistakes they made starting off, and wanted to get a fresh start under a new name. They could have managed the transistion more gracefully (to put it mildly), but they meant well. They strike me as rather impulsive, and tending to do too much, too quickly, without thinking things through.

You, on the other hand, have a very strong tendency to mistake your personal preferences for immutable universal truths, and to treat any opposition as not just wrong, but illegitimate. The whole {{inh+}}/{{bor+}} debacle is a prime example of the disruption this can cause. If you keep at your current course you're going to alienate all of your allies and end up talking to yourself in a corner somewhere about "what fools these mortals be".

I don't see any reason in this whole sorry mess for a block- yet. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I am seriously annoyed by their editwarring (diff, diff)— I was just mincing words to describe this wanton trouble-maker. Anyways, there was no need to tell their story which was known only to admins. And I disagree with your inh+/bor+ lesson. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I am seriously annoyed by your ridiculous ideas, you Hitler-like DICTATOR!. How dare you not count my contribs, dictator, before stating my as this wanton troublemaker? YOU are the REAL troublemaker here Svārtava² • 02:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Inqilābī, Svartava2: OK, y'all, now this is a trivial issue which could have been resolved without having to come to blows. The usage of alt-text in etymologies, (something which I prefer to avoid) is not forbidden; although it should be considered how desirable it really is. There is a difference between undesirable and outright illegitimate.

  It started off as people using the alt text parameter to show terms borrowed/inherited from Sanskrit in modern IA languages; possibly as a subtle suggestion that the fact that Sanskrit was written in the native script of these languages facilitated the borrowing; that is a harmless editing style which is idiosyncratic and aesthetic in nature. Obviously, a better approach is always using the script that people best know Sanskrit by: Devanagari. And in the case of Brahmi, it is better to not use that script in the alt-text parameter because the use of this script to write Sanskrit in a few inscriptions a couple millennia ago hardly justifies rendering every Sanskrit etymon in Brahmi. If this is to be made the standard, we can consult everyone who is likely to be involved (User:Kutchkutch as well) and agree not to engage in such editing again. Until then, no rules would have really been broken.

  As for avoiding {{inh}} when only a part of the term comes from the etymon given: I think, in keeping with the KISS principle, this rule should be relaxed for pleonastic suffixes. When a term has two discernable components which independently function as words but the compound itself is not attested in the ancestor language (examples being Marathi हिंवाळी (hiuvāḷī) et al.), I agree it's better to use {{der}}. But extending this rule to terms having pleonastic suffixes is unnecessarily pedantic - for then we will have to forbid any Hindi adjective or noun ending in ā from carrying the {{inh|hi|sa}} tag or reconstruct the exact Middle Indo-Aryan predecessor for each and every one of these terms. If we keep it simple and stupid, it can help to keep the categorisations accurate as well - people will look for tadbhava words in the inherited terms categories and a large percentage of tadbhavas not being there will not help. We have {{inc-ext}} now as well; and the way the template functions really tells you how terms were first inherited and then attached to affixes - even in the New Indo-Aryan stage. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 11:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

  Template:inherited states: ‘This template should not be used for terms that were reformed morphologically during their history. A morphological change breaks the chain of inheritance.’ Thus, it would be unfair if we relax the rule for pleonastic suffixes. Categorization should never be an issue: we still have tons of true inherited words in NIA. It is the traditional grammarian’s approach to consider any word akin to the OIA form, regardless of whether it was morphologically reformed or not, to be a tadbhava. However following the principles of diachronic linguistics, such forms are not at all inherited. We already nicely present descendants and derivations together in the Descendants section. Also, you will find sets of cognate words in the same language (such as Middle Bengali গহির (gohir), গহিরা (gohira)) — one directly inherited and the other affixed with a pleonastic suffix. I never want to see them as doublets! Just for the sake of having ‘a full list of tadbhavas’, we should not be undermining Wiktionary’s legitimacy: here we are to make perfect etymologies and have the capacity to do the same, irrespective of what people have traditionally done in philology. We should really have this policy to prevent the misuse of the {{inh}} template. Calling @Rua, RichardW57 for more input on this. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

  The problems seem to be that:

  1. We need a category '... refashioned from Sanskrit' corresponding to the use of {{der}} because of morphological refashioning instead of plain {{der}}; and
  2. You want a merger of categories '... inherited from Sanskrit' and '... refashioned from Sanskrit', for which a working title might be '... genetically derived from Sanskrit'.

  One could make the latter a 'hidden' category so that it doesn't show up in the entry's footer.

  Our policy disallows ignoring pleonastic suffixes - we are in the same position as with English 'hound' not being inherited from Indo-European. The problem is that another round of phonetic attrition could erase the pleonastic suffix -ka-, which is probably why I don't feel uneasy about forms with and without being described as doublets.

  I think any solution derived here will merit exposure to the Beer Parlour for general comment. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

  Notifying Kutchkutch Svārtava² • 10:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

@Svartava2: Although the accuracy of Module:sa-convert is not entirely clear, that doesn’t mean that writing any given Sanskrit term in the Brahmi script is outright illegitimate. Even if Sanskrit in the Brahmi script is only attested in a few inscriptions a couple millennia ago, whether a particular Sanskrit term is attested in the Brahmi script should not be of importance since attestation should be independent of the script. If a term is attested in at least one script it should not matter what other scripts it is written in as long as they are supported by Module:sa-convert. Kutchkutch (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Svartava2, Kutchkutch: Well, look at the test cases! And provide them! A particularly worry should be consonant clusters beginning with ra - I think we need some research into the variability of doubling after it. Also, Khmer -ry- may be troublesome - Chuon Nath, for example, uses two different spellings for it. I have doubts about Lao syllabic consonants. The issue here is that we should aim to get the spelling right. There also needs to be a documented way of handling the cases where we don't know the spelling in the script. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

However, since this has caused conflicts and confusion, I’m fine with avoiding Brahmi for Sanskrit in certain locations if a compromise is needed and if we don’t want to venture too far into this grey area.

Regarding pleonastic suffixes, having {{der}} for pleonastic suffixes is unnecessarily pedantic for etymology sections. However, showing descendants with pleonastic affixes in the Derived terms section instead of the Descendants section may be more suitable in certain cases. Kutchkutch (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The derived terms section for a Sanskrit entry is reserved for Sanskrit terms. It is not available for descendants. Are you proposing to include reconstructions in the derived terms section? --RichardW57 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57: Thanks for the reminder. However, I was referring to something like 𑀣𑁄𑀅 + थोडे and 𑀓𑀧𑁆𑀧𑀟 + कपडा rather than Sanskrit. Kutchkutch (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Need help checking some Sanskrit descendants

Hey! Special:Contributions/90.74.121.13 This user had some long-standing, badly formatted edits here that I've just fixed (for the most part) but it led me to believe the edits were never patrolled? Anyway, if you could double-check their edits for correctness that would be good. Thanks! Fytcha (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fytcha: Greetings. I have fixed them. They were correct but poorly formatted. As for tato, this Romani term was already listed as a descendant of 𑀢𑀢𑁆𑀢 (tatta). Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 05:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning it up. Fytcha (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-Aryan

Bhagadatta, why are you removing Proto-Indo-Aryan reconstructions from Sanskrit etymologies? --{{victar|talk}} 09:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Those extra terms clutter the etymology section and are unnecessary when they are too identical to the Sanskrit, eg. diff. In बृहत् and छाया they don't look very useful either. Have you forgotten about the recent deletion of many useless PIA entries? —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 11:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't ask you. {{victar|talk}} 16:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Victar: For the same reason you remove PIE constructions from Sanskrit entries. I want etymologies to be concise and PIA reconstructions (which are almost always Wiktionary-reconstructed and unsourced) take up space which can be used better by showing a few cognates. I do make it a point to include {{dercat|sa}} for the sake of categories. PIA reconstructions can be found on the reconstruction pages, so what's the big deal? I'm also in agreement that excessively long etymologies & cognate-lists should be avoided for languages further down the family tree like Hindi, but I think a few cognates and an etymology up to PIE is harmless for Sanskrit entries. I won't enforce anything on editors of other languages but this is the harmless aesthetic of my edits & I'd like to stick with it. I'm going to have to restore my edits at the two pages that you undid: they break no rules and are harmless. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 05:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

च़, ज़, झ़ in Marathi (and Konkani) headwords

Although these should not be used in page titles (as discussed in previous discussions), would it be okay to use them for headwords? Also, च़ाक (ċāk) (with the nuqta) would link to चाक. Although they are nonstandard, there are a few publications that use them. Perhaps this could be extended to Konkani as well. Kutchkutch (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: I have also seen the nuqta being used for Konkani. If you're in agreement, then sure, we could start showing these nonstandard spellings under the header. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 07:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation about Konkani. Although a somewhat opposite conclusion was agreed at Category_talk:Konkani_language, I wasn't aware that |entry_name= in Module:languages is what causes the Arabic script diacritics to be removed in links. In addition to Turner's transliterations, {{R:gu:Gujaratilexicon}} and Central Hindi Directorate dictionaries use the nuqta for some words. Despite being nonstandard, it would be helpful to provide an indication of these sounds in the script without having to rely on the IPA. If it needs to be shown that a term can be pronounced multiple ways, |head2= etc. could be used. For Konkani, would the Kannada-script equivalents be ಚ಼, ಜ಼ and ಝ಼, and is there a way to show the alternate pronunciations of अ, ए ओ etc. in the Devanagari/Kannada scripts ? Kutchkutch (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, the Kannada-script equivalents should be ಚ಼, ಜ಼ and ಝ಼ but I have never seen them used. It seems the Kannada script for Konkani simply uses ಚ, ಜ & ಝ. As for the vowels, the roundness and openness of the vowel represented by अ depends on the dialect. Broadly it is the Konkani as spoken by the Catholics that rounds the /ə/. This is why the Latin script spellings use o as an equivalent of अ. The short vowels e & o are represented by ಎ & ಒ and their longer counterparts by ಏ & ಓ whereas in Devanagari both the short and long vowels are represented by ए & ओ, except for some, rare sources which use ऎ & ऒ for the short vowels. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 05:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

लुण्ट्

Do you think it would be OK to add back the Descendants section here (but not add anything to the etymology)? Prahlad balaji (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Prahlad balaji: Yes, in fact, I wasn't even aware that you'd added the descendants too. I thought I was only reverting the wrong etymology. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 05:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was asking this because a user before me had removed the descendants section and I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to add it back. Prahlad balaji (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

ऋक्ष

I noticed you'd reverted this edit that added अच्छ as a descendant of ऋक्ष: it's unclear why? अच्छ#Etymology_2 has this etymology mentioned and you can confirm it from the source linked there. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 16:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Manishearth: Because it isn't a direct corruption of ऋक्ष (ṛkṣa) per se although Monier labels it as one. It is rather borrowed from Pali or Prakrit, as evidenced by its attestation date. It is definitely true that Pali accha is itself from Sanskrit ऋक्ष (ṛkṣa) but your edit made it seem like अच्छ (accha) was inherited by Sanskrit from Sanskrit. If you really want to show अच्छ (accha) on the descendants section of ऋक्ष, you could add it as **{{desc|sa|अच्छ|bor=1}} BELOW the Pali descendant, marking it as a borrowing rather than a direct descendant. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Manishearth With older sources like Monier Williams, the best approach is to pay attention to the information on who used it and when with what meanings, but mostly ignore what they say about origins- unless it's verified by a more modern source. Loaded terms like "corruption" are generally avoided by modern etymologists, so that should serve as a red flag that it's likely based on outmoded theories. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Makes sense, thanks! I was unaware of that distinction in descendant lists. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 05:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Continuation of User_talk:Bhagadatta/2020#Truncating_etymologies_&_Sanskrit_in_other_scripts

(Here because of diff) I think it is useful to keep etymological chains up until 5 terms, as this also shows the user the evolution of the word over time. Could we keep an upper limit on the number of terms one can keep in such an etymology? Pinging @Kutchkutch, Victar as involved in the previous discussion --Rishabhbhat (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC) --Rishabhbhat (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose strongly per previous discussion. Currently, I see the major etymology section cluttering problem in NIA entries is that of a lot of cognates and lots of alternative script forms like at Special:Permalink/64957362#Etymology. Adding 5-terms long etymology chains will only make the matters worse. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 15:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rishabhbhat: Hello Mr. Bhat! That used to be my style of writing etymologies as well, until the practice came under considerable scrutiny. I then adopted a compromised version: let's at least have the full etymology for classical/ancient languages and truncate the etymologies of modern languages if we must, since they have a longer chain of evolution. I am not really a fan of making a user click through zillion pages to get its full etymology: that is the case now in many English entries and irks me to have to navigate through multiple pages to get to the PIE term. Back when they used to have complete etymologies, reading these fascinated me, an outsider, to study more about etymology and that is how I got into editing Wiktionary as a contributor rather than just a reader. Moreover, I see that at ॳछ (ạch) you only added a PIE etym, without causing any cluttering, so I believe, @Svartava2, it wasn't very courteous of you to change the wording in an entry someone else created without consulting them through the entry's talk page first. Such changes are warranted only when the present content is alarming to site visitors. As I have always insisted, we should allow for ample scope for idiosyncratic editing styles and leave decisions related to such harmless details up to the person who added the content. @Rishabhbhat: You may re-add the PIE etymology if you wish. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 09:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I see, so just to be clear, we can add from <sanskrit>, ultimately from <pie term>, right? --Rishabhbhat (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rishabhbhat: Not if the etymology is already "from Old Hindi, from Sauraseni Apabhramsa, from Prakrit, from Ashokan Prakrit, from Sanskrit". If it is without cluttering the section like in the above page, then there is no problem with it per Bhagadatta. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 13:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)