Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:JainismWikipedian. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:JainismWikipedian, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:JainismWikipedian in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:JainismWikipedian you have here. The definition of the word User talk:JainismWikipedian will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:JainismWikipedian, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
हिंदी
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
आपके योगदान के लिए बहुत धन्यवाद! कृप्या थोड़ा धीरे लेख बनाइए; आपके लेखों में कुछ छोटी फ़ॉर्मेटिंग ग़लतियाँ हैं जो मैं सुधारने कि कोशिश कर रहा हूँ। आप इस संदेश को भी ज़रूर पढ़िए, इसमें कुछ उपयोगी पृष्ठ जुड़े गए हैं:
If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.
You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you so much for adding words to Sanskrit and Hindi. But here are just a few pointers.
You can use the "Show Preview" button at the bottom of the edit box when editing. This makes all your edits a lot cleaner and easier to read, and will not clutter the history section of a page, and also keeps you from having to make several minor edits.
Sanskrit terms for things that didn't exist at the time of the people who spoke it natively (Ram and Sita, etc.), like computers and other modern technology/concepts, should include a {{lb|sa|New Sanskrit}} tag at the front, even if it may seem obvious.
Also, Mewari (code mtr) has not a single word here! Help out your matrbhasha! Add words, noun/adjective declension tables, verb conjugation tables, IPA pronunciation modules. Anything will be welcome!!
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Why are you making so many of these entries? जाना(jānā) is an auxiliary verb that can be added to any verb, it does not make a lexically significant verb phrase. Please stop making these kinds of entries. Also कलर लगना(kalar lagnā) is just कलर(kalar) + लगना(lagnā). —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)20:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hello! Thank you very very much for the conjugation table. But, under imperfective, there are 2 rows labeled 'present'. And under the second one, for the 1st person (मूं) conjugation, the transliteration says bhāgūū̃, which means that it is written as भाग + ूू + ूूँ. Earlier it showed bhāgūūūū̃, which I fixed to the current state, but there is still some error. DerekWinters (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
You're most welcome. It was a much needed template. :) Regarding repetitive transliteration, it may be because while typing on mobile through Google keyboard, there's a bug that causes pressing of half maatra twice; as far asmy knowledge, that only might have caused the issue. It can be easily recitified by anyone. JainismWikipedian (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I tried removing the ending of bhagu hoon, and adding through wikipedia editor's special character. It gets rectified. So, other problematic cells will have to be modified similarly. Thanks for noticing. JainismWikipedian (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
@DerekWinters: Looks like JainismWikipedian fixed it.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Can you please stick to our established protocol (for everything). Ardhamagadhi lemmas are only to be added in Brahmi lipi, the lipi in which they were originally written. Thank you very much. DerekWinters (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Almost all Jain texts I have come across are in Dev script. So I think adding them in Dev script is logical, because no one is going to search in Brahmi script. Nonetheless, I guess entries can be added in multiple scripts, as in the case of Pali. JainismWikipedian (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
poscatboiler module
Latest comment: 6 years ago33 comments6 people in discussion
I didn't know that they broke entire Wiktionary categories. I think my last edit broke it. Please restore other edits and roll back only my last edit which caused the error. I have been checking other categories. It's only because of my last edit, this happened, though don't know why. JainismWikipedian (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Again, you were already reverted once before when adding categories, in which case every single one of the categories you added was removed. Can you show where exactly the consensus was reached for any of the categories you added now? SURJECTION·talk·contr·log·12:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Surjection: Potential mood exists in Sanskrit. So I don't see any reason not to have its verb forms non lemma label in the module. Regarding, the persons and number and voice, I had initiated a thread on beer parlor after the talk on भवामि page with @AryamanA:. The basic crux was that I had added recognition categories to Sanskrit non lemmas. So, it was decided not to manually add them, as it would be nearly impossible to do so for all the entries. So, some new technique was to be devised. Accordingly, I've created some category templates for sanskrit. And regarding the edit which broke everything, I had added mixture of person & number. I don't know why it broke everything. However prior edits are rational, like root forms, verb. potential forms, verb dual forms, etc. which should be kept. JainismWikipedian (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
If verb forms are to be categorised, the module of {{inflection of}} would be the place to add it. However, Sanskrit is not special; if categories should be added for Sanskrit by the template, there should be no reason not to add them for other languages as well. Such a change would require discussion first. —Rua (mew) 12:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
"Potential mood exists in Sanskrit. So I don't see any reason not to have its verb forms non lemma label in the module." There is a reason; the fact that no other language does that. I don't see a thread on the Beer Parlour other than this one, which had a lukewarm response at best and is by no means the "consensus" I am looking for here. SURJECTION·talk·contr·log·12:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
What no other language does that? Optative mood forms label is there. Few languages use it. And just because a mood exists in few languages, shouldn't it not be there on the module? JainismWikipedian (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Rare languages have certain peculiar moods and tenses like aorist and periphrastic future. But there are thousands and thousands of non lemma in those languages with such form. So, such labels should be there. After all, non lemma module is for various types of non lemma, isn't it? JainismWikipedian (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'll note at this point that before readding anything, you must attain consensus, and I alone cannot give you anything like that. And no, I don't think verb forms need categorization by verb mood or tense; that is because I find little reason for anyone to ever try to find such verb forms that way and it seems like categorizing just for the sake of categorizing. SURJECTION·talk·contr·log·12:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Non lemma verbs will be millions in number. And to have just have one category of verb forms with a million entries is not at all useful. It's just a dump. And of course, learners search verbs by tense. That's totally logical. Anyone would want to know which is the future, past or present tense. Just a list of million words isn't helpful. So categorization is needed. That's another matter that whether categories should be added via separate template for languages or via inflection template. I'm not conversant with coding. So that I'm requesting @AryamanA: to do. But, as you did read on beer parlour thread, to have categories is a good idea. Even the last comment by someone was is favour, albeit with automation. JainismWikipedian (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
So, I'm requesting you to delete my last edit on the module which caused havoc. And let the other edits stay. Some are totally logical like root forms which are another Part of speech.
That category is to know all the verbs which one can use while talking to someone. That category will include in it all the ten tenses and moods present in the Sanskrit language. JainismWikipedian (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
But why? Do you think that all these subcategories somehow will be useful? I've yet to see any evidence for that. —Rua (mew) 12:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Here's an example. I hope it will be helpful. It is easier in English to know the non lemma verb forms. Walk will become walked or walking or walks. That's all. So, it seems that to bifurcate non lemma verb forms will be redundant. But in ancient languages, normal verb like सनोति(sanoti) has 3 voices, 10 tenses & moods, 3 persons and 3 numbers. That's mind blowing a number of 270 verb forms that mean the same more or less but with weirdly different spellings and has to be used for specific circumstances. So categorization helps. JainismWikipedian (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
That makes no sense at all. These categories don't help at all in finding the form of a particular verb, that's what an inflection table is for. What do these categories do that an inflection table doesn't already do, and better? —Rua (mew) 12:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Inflection table is helpful only when a person knows a word for certain voice, number, person, and tense/mood. Inflection template don't give a list of all the entries that can be used in similar situations. Like, if I know गच्छति means to go in Sanskrit, but if I want to say "you go" I will be rendered helpless even after knowing गच्छति(gacchati). So if I had a category for second person singular verb forms, I can easily look for word starting with गच्छ and find the word I want: गच्छसि(gacchasi). The issue with inflection template is that, it will prove helpful only if I know the word गच्छसि. JainismWikipedian (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Also, I'm not asking to have all the recognition categories right now. I'm just asking to have at least the basic categories of tenses/moods, voice, number and person. That's just 19 categories. And I think bifurcation of a million verb forms into 19 will help. JainismWikipedian (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, that's because I created that conjugation table. Anyway, only 2 tenses and 2 moods are are on that table. What about the other 6? If a person wants to know the aorist, future, conditionional, benedictive, perfect, periphrastic future verb forms, there is no list to find them. A simple category of Sanskrit verb future forms will be so useful. JainismWikipedian (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yup, nobody thinks the way “I want a verb that I can use in the second person, so I open a category containing second-person verb forms”. Instead what every normal and abnormal person does is to look up lemma forms of words and inflect them. That’s how dictionaries work. Fay Freak (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, then I think the best course of action will be then to create a conjugation table with all the 270 forms in it, and have it on the root entry of the verb. That will be the most useful thing. I'll create it later, like I created the conjugation table on गच्छति. Thanks for the discussion and clarifying things. By the way, if you could add the label "root forms" in the non lemma module. It's not a tense or number or person form. It's a POS, like adjective, noun, etc. JainismWikipedian (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Not the PIE roots. I meant the root in Sanskrit. They are a grammatical part of speech . More about them on Wikipedia . For example, the root of the verb गच्छति(gacchati) is गम्(gam). And the root form is गच्छ्(gacch). And the stem is गच्छ(gaccha). JainismWikipedian (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't see anything about root forms on that page. From a PIE point of view, your "root form" is just a derived verb, and both have the same root. Do you have anything that demonstrates that these "root forms" are standard practice in Sanskrit grammar? —Rua (mew) 14:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
That link was to acquaint you with Sanskrit roots in general, not root forms. These root forms are definitely not verb form. Root is a specific seperate lemma in Sanskrit language Category:Sanskrit roots. And, regarding them being a definite standard practice then, yes, they are the conjugated forms the roots. Of course, not all roots conjugate. Root forms are an irregular, but common feature of Sanskrit language. Highly common examples include भव्(bhav) form for भू(bhū) root, पिब्(pib) form for पा(pā) root, गच्छ्(gacch) form for गम्(gam) root, तिष्ठ्(tiṣṭh) for स्था(sthā) root, etc. These happen due to some grammatical rule. You can find more examples marked with exclamation mark on learnsanskrit website here and here. JainismWikipedian (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have to agree with @Rua, Surjection, Fay Freak here. I already explained why I thought your idea was not logical (no other language does this level of fine categorization) but I don't have the time to fight over this. It's abundantly clear that most editors are against your idea and there are plenty of good arguments against it. Wiktionary is not a database, nor is it meant to be used like one. It stores largely qualitative data on words. There are websites that are much more suited for this kind of thing than Wiktionary. For Sanskrit alone there is the Sanskrit Grammarian inflection engine and there are digitized versions of Panini's grammar too.
And Rua is right, गच्छति(gacchati)is not a root and I am not sure you understand Sanskrit grammar as well as you claim to. It's a present indicative verb declined in the 3rd person singular (the lemma form for verbs) and ideally the conjugation table for all 270 forms of a verb belongs on the root page गम्(gam) or on the respective verbs like गमिष्यति(gamiṣyati, future). So @Rua this isn't "standard practice in Sanskrit grammar". —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)14:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
When did I say गच्छति is a root. Nonsense. Of course it is a verb. The discussion is about गच्छ्. This is a root form. And, yes, category discussion was over. Didn't you read my last comment on it? I think the best course of action will be then to create a conjugation table with all the 270 forms in it, and have it on the root entry of the verb. That will be the most useful thing. I'll create it later, like I created the conjugation table on गच्छति. Thanks for the discussion and clarifying things.JainismWikipedian (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@JainismWikipedian: गच्छ्(gacch) is not a root form. It is just a back-formation from गच्छति(gacchati), it's a variant of the root गम्(gam) that is only used for convenience to account for the verb गच्छति(gacchati) that is seemingly irregular in the Sanskrit verb paradigm but is perfectly regular in Proto-Indo-European. I have no idea what the point of calling it a "root form" is and what that even means. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)17:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
