Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Dragonoid76. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Dragonoid76, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Dragonoid76 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Dragonoid76 you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Dragonoid76 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Dragonoid76, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
This is a great idea! It would require modifying the original image (to add mother's parents and father's parents), which will take a while for me to learn to do properly. If you have the skills to update this image, I'd recommend you try it. Dragonoid76 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Siddhant Actually, I just noticed la:kinship (uploaded by @Saumache) uses a modified version of this image (hi:kinship) which includes more terms like father/mother-in-law (thanks for that!). I wonder if an alternative version can be made for Indian languages that has a different title, perhaps a little more padding/space for each term, and differentiation because maternal/paternal grandparents, etc. Dragonoid76 (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Nice to meet you, Dragonoid76. I have some questions and concerns.
Do you have a source for the barytone accent rásā on रसा? Monier Williams p. 869 s.v. Rása s.v. रस् 2. ras mentions it as an alternative form of the masculine रस(rása), but only "ifc." (in fine composition, i.e. at the end of a compound), and this is a separate entry from रसा(rasā́), listed on the following page. I have therefore split रसा into two etymologies on account of the different accent+semantics, but I am not yet familiar enough with how Sanskrit entries are handled to know if this was done in an appropriate way. I would appreciate you reviewing the current state of the page.
Also, why do you assume that the masculine noun comes from the feminine? Though I can imagine a back-formation from the vocative (such as invoking the river goddess?), I cannot see a justification for this as a derivational process, especially one that affected the related noun but not the proper noun itself. It could be analogical leveling of unclear origin, but that would make more sense if the masculine noun were older, for it to serve as the template. Apologies if you do have legitimate reasons, in which case please elaborate, but the following paragraph assumes the choices I have just described were erroneous.
I have had to revert several of your edits and move reconstruction pages you created surrounding the Sanskrit root रस् (“moisture”, etc.). You should not have replaced the etymology at रस; the one you added was incorrect in several ways, most importantly in violating Brugmann's law, as well as inexplicably asserting that the masculine noun comes from the feminine one, and yet without changing {{inh}} to {{der}} accordingly. The two also have incompatible accent patterns. Several things went wrong. It seems that, without closely checking sources, you just copied from रसा, where the bad "*Hroseh₂" etymology—a back-projection from the Balto-Slavic cognates—has persisted for an embarrassing 15 years since the earliest version of the page by Ivan Štambuk (who presumably copied it from some Slavic etymology before hastily spreading it + creating entries for the Sanskrit and Lithuanian cognates), which was subsequently modified over the years by an IP editor (incorrectly) and Rigognos Molinarios, without either of them noticing the problematic root *-o-. But another mistake from the original page's (रसा) inception also went unnoticed: the aforementioned incorrect Sanskrit accent *rásā which should have been rasā́ all along, despite rásā contradicting the Monier Williams reference there, which Ivan himself added! This is the source of the incorrect accent on the unsourced reconstruction *HrásaH from that entry, which, again, went unnoticed even after Hölderlin2019 (partly) corrected the Sanskrit accent on रसा. So, this year you came along and created Proto-Indo-European **h₁róseh₂, then created Proto-Indo-Iranian **HrásaH, based on the incorrect reconstructions on the Sanskrit entry. Therefore I must conclude that you modified the etymology of रस only to appear to fit this half-baked etymology more neatly. This is a shame even aesthetically, because the etymon in question is rather interesting and archaic. The PIE should be a root noun, just as Mayrhofer suggests (“Wurzelnomen”) and de Vaan agrees (neither of whose advice you took) on the basis of Latin, which cannot reflect thematic **h₁róseh₂ anyway; and the consistently short root vowel in Sanskrit, most straightforwardly reflecting an e-grade *h₁res-, turns out to have major implications for this noun's reconstruction.
I find it almost more hilarious than concerning how Ivan's erroneous Sanskrit accent and PIE ablaut both made their way all the up the chain of lazy copy-editing (further enabled by ignorance) until they ended up coalescing in a doubly erroneous PIE reconstruction 15 years later. This is a great lesson on why you should always check sources before adding content, and especially before creating entire new pages. Most of your edits to Sanskrit entries seem fine, but I recommend using more caution when it comes to the reconstructed precursors, maybe triple-checking against etymological sources. — Ganjabarah (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ganjabarah Point taken. I'll be more careful or just leave things as they are in the future. This was a lazy edit based on the original content of the page, which I suppose was incorrect as you're saying. Thanks for the fix. For point (1), the current state of the page matches what is done on other pages like वर(vara).
Lubotsky reconstructs PII *Hrasa- without explaining the accent or splitting the masculine/feminine version. I don't know what the fate of *HrásaH should be based on that, because रस(rása) and रसा(rasā́) are accented differently and so one would need to find a source material on which explains the accentation. One option is that *HrásaH be moved to *HrasáH to align with the Sanskrit accent + removing references to रस(rasa) on that page. Or, we can nuke the Indo-Iranian page and list both Sanskrit रस(rása), रसा(rasā́), and other Indo-Iranian forms like Avestan 𐬭𐬀𐬢𐬵𐬁(raŋhā) as "Unsorted formations" under *h₁rṓs (do you have a source for *h₁res-éh₂ with the -e- vowel specifically?).
Either way, the error has now propagated beyond my changes into the etymology of Persian رگ and this edit on an Old Armenian entry, so these need to be fixed too. I don't think it's referenced anywhere else though. Dragonoid76 (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I hesitated on moving *HrásaH as it is more complicated: the accent pattern there does supposedly have some trace in Sanskrit -रसा(-rásā), but it's hard to separate from रस(rása). I was also unsure whether the sense “dew” was present in Sanskrit at all and therefore possible for the PII level—I've removed it since I can't find it in any reliable source. Either way there should be an entry *HrasáH for the better-evidenced Sanskrit word and possible exact cognates in Iranian matching in shape and meaning; the fact that there are other slightly different possibilities isn't enough reason to delete it, but should be explained on the entry. But because the standard practice for these reconstructions is absolute formal matching, I would not lump the three different Sanskrit words together (the way an etymological dictionary like Maryhofer's might) into one descendants or derived terms section. Unless there is a clear case of derivation of one lemma from another, and I am not aware of one, we would have to back-project all three equally, and so this is the solution I have implemented at *h₁rṓs. At (former) *HrásaH I have moved the terms that don't formally match *HrasáH to a "Related terms" section listing *Hrásas with the corresponding PIA and Sanskrit below each; a downside is that this information is duplicated across there and *h₁rṓs. This is a compromise I've occasionally seen paralleled on other reconstruction entries (e.g. PIE *wérsēn). Now the page can be moved to *HrasáH, which I think is warranted for at least two reasons: (1) the better independent attestation of Sanskrit रसा(rasā́) and (2) the semantic matching between river names, which is a substantial part of the discussion in etymological sources. One could also make a root entry for Proto-Indo-Iranian *Hras- (cf. Category:Proto-Indo-Iranian roots), but for now I don't think it is warranted, as it only "derives" this handful of similar nouns.
… and other Indo-Iranian forms like Avestan 𐬭𐬀𐬢𐬵𐬁(raŋhā) as "Unsorted formations" under *h₁rṓs …
This is totally unnecessary; the Iranian forms are regular reflexes from Proto-Indo-Iranian *HrasaH and Proto-Iranian *HrahaH, the only real uncertainty being where the accent lies. Only some very precise metric analysis might ever determine the accent, or some obscure sound law I'm unaware of, and based on Lubotsky's lack of accent marking I would assume there is no such evidence known.
(do you have a source for *h₁res-éh₂ with the -e- vowel specifically?)
It was the only logical reconstruction based on Brugmann's law, but now that I look, yes, NIL on page 574 explicitly separates *res-áh₂ and *rés-o- for pre-Indo-Iranian and *ros-áh₂ for pre-Balto-Slavic. Their *res-áh₂ confirms my reasoning and that I've perhaps been overthinking it. — Ganjabarah (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply