Category talk:Hindi Tadbhava

@माधवपंडित Is this really necessary? CAT:Hindi terms inherited from Sanskrit are all tadbhav and CAT:Hindi terms inherited from Sanskrit are tatsam. Also the name should probably be lowercase CAT:Hindi tadbhav. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 04:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: I saw that... it's got some tat-sama words like मातृ, द्वार etc. Moreover we don't consider Hindi to be a descendant of Sanskrit anymore do we? So inherited would be slightly misleading. Thats why this catagory attempts to list those words which have underwent a natural change from Old Indo-Aryan. ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित: For some reason the code for Mod:languages lists Shauraseni Prakrit as a descendant of Sanskrit but not any other Prakrits (which is puzzling). And in 95% of cases Sanskrit=all Old Indo-Aryan. CAT:Hindi terms inherited from Sauraseni Prakrit is a better for tadbhav imo. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 04:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

By "better" I mean it would make more sense to fill that up, because the categorization of tadbhav and "inherited from Sauraseni Prakrit" are the same and so the tadbhav category is redundant. Nice signature btw. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 04:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: True, I didn't see that. I thought wiki lacked a distinction b/w true Hindi words & the borrowings from Sanskrit. What now? ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित: Somebody (I don't know who) with a bot ought to convert all {{inh|hi|sa}} to {{der|hi|sa}}. And I think we should remove this category and instead fill up Cat:Hindi terms inherited from Sauraseni Prakrit which is missing probably thousands of entries. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 04:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Suits me. By the way, what do you think of adding Old Indo-Aryan as an etymology-only language? I was thinking if all native Indo aryan words in hindi ultimately go back to {{der|hi|sa}} it might mislead people who don't know better into believing that Hindi is an artificial language with no naturally inherited words or something. At the same time Old Indo-Aryan as a separate language would be redundant. ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित: Proto-Indo-Aryan is better for etymology I think. And I think we should keep Sanskrit because having Old Indo-Aryan separately would create a lot of redundancy. But, at the same time we shouldn't include the Hindi in the Sanskrit descendants section, instead in the PIA or PIIr. Also @Wyang could your bot help? —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 04:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, nearly all Sanskrit borrowings are recent artificial creations that are necessary so that Hindi can be used in more technical contexts. I doubt परिस्तुत and त्रिकोण were common words 2 centuries ago. Native Indo-Aryan words should probably have something like "From {{inh|hi|psu}}, from {{inh|hi|inc-pro}} (compare {{cog|sa}})". —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 04:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Sometimes the PIA forms would be so close to Sanskrit it would be unnecessary.. also all other dictionaries in all Indo-Aryan languages use the "from Sanskrit" pattern... - ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित, Aryamanarora Sure. Done now. Wyang (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang: Wow, thanks so much! @माधवपंडित: I agree, let's stick with Sanskrit. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 05:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang Could you do the same for the subcategories of Category:Terms inherited from Sanskrit? Thanks. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 12:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Certainly; done. Wyang (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora, माधवपंडित IMO it's best to treat OIA as a collection of dialects, of which Sanskrit was the standardized register, not as a separate language from Sanskrit. Yes Sanskrit is decently artificial, but that's due to the nature of its standardization. Treating them as separate causes confusion, and does nothing for wiktionary. However, I think it's a good idea to have some separation between Vedic Sanskrit, Classical Sanskrit, and the newer stages of Sanskrit. For example, Latin on wiktionary has quite a few subcategories for etymology and reconstruction: Medieval Latin, Late Latin, Renaissance Latin, Post-classical Latin, Vulgar Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin, etc. I think it would be a good idea to adopt some of these for the treatment of Sanskrit, considering that both Latin and Sanskrit were used in very similar ways in their respective regions for quite long after they fell out of use. DerekWinters (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: Yes, that's entirely true, Sanskrit is an Old Indo-Aryan dialect. However, it's not the direct ancestor of the Prakrits (even though Wiktionary lists Shauraseni as a descendant of it). The Prakrits preserve some clusters that get merged to ksha in Sanskrit, which is a small change but enough to say that Prakrit is not a direct descendant of Sanskrit. The current situation on Wiktionary is to treat only only Shauraseni as a Sanskrit descendant, which is misleading because it is not much different from the other Dramatic Prakrits. Note though that the use of "{{inh|..|sa}}" is being replaced by "{{der|..|sa}}"; it will still read "derived from Sanskrit", just not "inherited from Sanskrit" which would be misleading. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: The Prakrits may not derive exactly from Classical Sanskrit. But that's only if we treat Sanskrit as only Classical Sanskrit. The Sanskrit of many other texts shows what we call "Prakritisms" but really is just dialectical differences. That's essentially the case for खेलना to derive from Sanskrit. Thus, I would make the argument that Sanskrit, especially Vedic and Epic (that of the Ramayan and Mahabharat) are in fact OIA. And if the Prakrits and Pali derive from a form that isn't attested in the Sanskrit literature, then it derives from an unattested form, like the many words from French that derive from an unattested Latin term. I think it's a quite narrow interpretation of Sanskrit that you are taking, and I'm arguing for a slightly more inclusive interpretation. If you take Sanskrit to begin and end with how Panini dictated it be, then certainly it is solely an artificial lect spoken natively by none and removed entirely from OIA. If you take it to be the native language of all those throughout northern India (while it was still spoken, which is before many many works in Sanskrit), then we can say that many Prakrit terms derive from unattested, but still Sanskrit, terms. I see it as a language spoken by the people, but not every dialectal difference was recorded in the literature, when still natively spoken. After it's death it's a liturgical/literary/etc. language and that's irrelevant to this. DerekWinters (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: We ought to be consistent then. All the Prakrits should be listed as direct descendants of Sanskrit or none should be. Either is better than the current status quo where only Shauraseni Prakrit is a descendant of Sanskrit. (btw Vedic Sanskrit also has some innovations while the Prakrits preserve Proto-Indo-Aryan) —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 03:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Agreed that the status quo should be changed. That's for you and MadhavPandit to decide as our main Sanskrit/Prakrit editors. But, from my Gujarati standpoint, I would call it a direct descendant of Sanskrit collection of dialects. Essentially I'm equating OIA with all natively spoken Sanskrit plus all the unattested local forms. DerekWinters (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: I too am in the favor of a more inclusive definition of Sanskrit. We can be justified in treating all OIA as Skt for the sake of convenience. If this really does become a thing, all we'll have to do is put up a disclaimer in the About Sanskrit page that says for the sake of convenience, we consider Sanskrit to be not just what Pāṇini standardized but rather the whole of OIA dialects spoken across northern India and which eventually gave new IA languages. The lay-people who may refer to this website will be unaware of nicities like Old Indo-Aryan ot Proto-Indo-Aryan and this will confuse them. Every other dictionary of any IA language which also deals in their etymology (albeit in two throwaway words between parentheses) uses Sanskrit as an ancestor. ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित: So should we make Sanskrit the ancestor of all the Prakrits in Mod:languages? I would prefer that. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 09:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: I'd prefer that too... It would be less misleading than what we currently have, with only Shauraseni as the descendant. We may also have to update the info on Sanskrit here on wiktionary, as the totality of all OIA dialects, attested or unattested. -- ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Could you update Mod:languages to include all Indo-Aryan languages as descendants of Sanskrit? —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Please propose this in a wider forum. I am definitely not convinced. —JohnC5 03:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply