User talk:Hölderlin2019

RMaung (WMF) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edit of yours is dubious - Monier Williams does not even list "जात्री" as a term. The entry, created by an IP cites a verse from the Atharvaveda allegedly reading jātáṁ jātrī́r yáthā hṛdā́. But that is the wrong reading as all authentic sources hold that the verse actually scans as "jātáṁ janír yáthā hṛdā́", with the lemma in question being जनि (jani, “woman”). This was not the only recent edit of yours that was seriously at odds with the current consensus in literature. Please be careful with your Sanskrit edits. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 07:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

My apologies for the very belated reply; professional matters have kept me from wiktionary for several months. I disagree; further, it seems to me that your stance is almost preposterous. Monier-Williams is an excellent point of departure, but no more, and is known to be deficient in rarer terms, particularly obscure hapaxes, such as 'jātrī́r'. The IP in question is almost certainly me editing without having logged in. Suggesting that it is the wrong reading, as upheld by all authentic courses, is borderline ridiculous, both exegetically, and as a matter of scholarship. 'Jātrī́r' is directly attested in the published editions of the Paippalada manuscripts and is the word actually recited in the Śaunakīya tradition. Visvhabandhu Shastri in his edition of the Śaunakīya manuscript emended jatri to jani, following Whitney, but this was a scholiast's edit, and a departure from the actual tradition, which is transcribed without emendation in S.P. Pandit's edition.

Since jatri is attested in both available recited recensions of the Atharvaveda, the onus is on you to explain why both recensions - which forked in antiquity - happen to feature a hapax that happens to make perfect sense as a zero-grade derivation inherited from IE (and thus a synchronically inconstructible archaism in Vedic), but is impossible as a construction in contemporary Sanskrit. What is your explanation for that? Is your claim actually that both traditions independently innovated a word that happens to look exactly as you would expect a rare archaism of the sort that would be found, if anywhere, in the Atharvaveda, and that is difficult-to-impossible as a contemporary substitution, and replaced an everyday, extremely common word with it?

Bhattacharya's critical edition of the Paippalada AV, which is the most recent bit of scholarship, as it happens, concurs with me, and I invite you to ping Witzel or Jamison to solicit their views. In the interim, however, I rather think you should refrain from lecturing me on the "current consensus in literature", or advising me to be careful with my Sanskrit edits. The last time we clashed was when you mismarked the Vedic accent consistently - did you really think that other edits of mine were cavalier?

Hölderlin2019 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC):Reply