Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Pulimaiyi. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Pulimaiyi, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Pulimaiyi in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Pulimaiyi you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Pulimaiyi will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Pulimaiyi, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Latest comment: 6 months ago14 comments3 people in discussion
What is your objection to showing the structure of āhacca as being composed of the Pali root har (soon to appear) plus the suffix cca?. (The suffix is listed as 'tya' in Duroiselle's Practical Grammar of the Pali Language.) --RichardW57 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57: The analysis har + -cca is considered valid if 1) -cca is a productive suffix occuring in cases where the word is fully synchronic and non-inherited; and 2) har + -cca can convincingly give hacca in any other synchronic non-inherited formations. If you have such examples, please bring them. Svārtava (tɕ) 17:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava The solution to that is to use |se=1 with {{pi-root}}, which is much easier for uses of suffixes that were falling out of use but were interpretable. I've put that in the page, after the assertion of inheritance from presumably Vedic Sanskrit, so the reader sees the connection with Sanskrit and then can see how one goes about interpreting it as other than a suppletive memory item. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57 As above, the question is about the validity of the analysis har + -cca giving hacca, which needs to be verified by other examples or innovations within Pali, otherwise there is no convincing reason to believe that har + -cca will become hacca and not anything else. (Pali sources mentioning har + -cca = hacca don't count as they just mean to provide an explanation for the term rather than accurate historic and phonological analysis and Wiktionary is not forced to follow other sources when they are wrong, similar to how Sanskrit पीत(pīta) is not analysed as पा(pā) + -त(-ta).) Svārtava (tɕ) 11:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava: But surface analysis is meant to show how the term is/was understood, not the history of the term! Moreover, in Pali terms -hacca is har + t + ya, but the presence of -t- is now lexically determined. One could also offer a more abstract analysis as har + ya, but that has several possible outcomes. Note that hacca seems to be a different formation. On a phonological level, there is ablaut going on, which the template doesn't handle, and the ablaut causes the final consonant to drop (and sometimes the vowel to change), which is why we get -acca- and not -añca- from the root han. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57: how the term is/was understood is generally not the correct approach if we intend to provide historically and phonologically accurate etymologies unlike Pali-only sources (like PTS, etc.) may be giving. Adding surface analysis of har + -cca for hacca is equivalent to writing kar + -ta for kaṭa and kata < कृत(kṛta), which is agreeably a very bad idea and also finishes the importance of surface analysis: here also one can argue that kar + -ta is how the term kata is/was understood - and that it is, because of it's meaning as the past participle. Svārtava (tɕ) 20:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
But Template:surf is not intended to provide historically accurate etymologies. Now {{pi-root|har|cca|sa=हृ|se=1}} displays By surface analysis, har(root) + -cca and {{surf|pi|har|-cca|pos1=root}} also displays as By surface analysis, har(root) + -cca. The former also categorises. As the latter is valid, I see no reason not to succinctly use a single call to {{pi-root}} rather than invoking both. Or do you repent of the parameter |se=?
@Svartava: For kar + ta, it's a question of how we choose to handle allomorphs and sporadic sound changes. In this formation, retroflexion is a sporadic sound change, and the reduction of the root to zero grade is a suffix-dependent rule, with a rather vague rule for the resultant vowel. The form -cca warns the hearer (or at least, the reader) that a final resonant may have been elided, just as final -tta in a past participle announces an unspecified voiceless stop in the root. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57: The template or display text is not the issue, the issue is the validity of the surface analysis. Retroflexion is not a sporadic sound change, it is due to the ṛ in कृत(kṛta) (similar to how r in प्रति(prati) gives paṭi-) and a result of non-surface-analysable inheritance.
The well defined system of roots in various grades works well in most cases in Sanskrit and even if some aspects of it are inherited into Pali, it may not work in all cases. For example, कृ(kṛ) explains कृत(kṛta) (zero grade using suffix -त(-ta)), कर्तव्य(kartavya) (first grade using suffix -तव्य(-tavya)) but I don't think it can be said that Pali root kar can explain either kata/kaṭa or kattabba, due to language degradation over time, though it continues to explain karaṇa where the surface analysis can be legitimate. Where the surface analysis is not able to adequately explain the word, it should not be given. You can still argue saying that zero grade of kar is ka and -tabba is a suffix that "sporadically" geminates the first t when the original root drops it consonants or so on define rules to fit all known formations, but this is just unuseful fictious stuff. Svārtava (tɕ) 13:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
The retroflexion of dentals to retroflex under the influence of /r/ or /r̩/ in Pali, where not shared with Sanskrit, is 'sporadic', even if common. There seems to be no phonetic rule for it to definitely happen, though there may be some morphological conditions. You may recall that, contrary to the Young Grammarians' belief, a sound change tends to spread through a language word by word. If it stops spreading before affecting most of the vocabulary, it is 'sporadic' by definition.
Much of the Pali verb systems seems to have undergone rapid changes, and a very common verb like karoti seems to have preserved a lot of the stages. The grammarians list many forms not attested in the texts. I'm strongly attracted to the view that Pali is demagadhised Magadhi, which process invites a lot of variants. In the case of kattabba v. kātabba, we're looking at rather an abandonment of zero grading in the first case and I think a change of root in the second. Sanskrit करोति(karoti) is already a bit of a mess. As you point out, the root system was breaking down in Pali, and the present stem increasingly replaces the root as the basis of verb forms outside the present tense system, though for the later material we are no longer looking at native speakers' productions in any sense.
@Svartava: I think {{T:pi-root}} could be carefully enhanced with a note of the 'grade' where different from that of the root, for which we should find a good account of the Pali root rather than invent our own. It doesn't help that only Pali phonemes are used in the Western names of Pali roots, which is why some grammars and dictionaries give up and resort to the equivalent Sanskrit roots. (Pali names are further constrained to follow Pali phonology.) --RichardW57 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am unsure of how to make this clearer to you without practically echoing what @Svartava: has said, but let me try.
Surface analysis may be acceptable, to a degree. For instance, for Pali haraṇa, I would write the etymology as the term being inherited from Sanskrit (Old Indo-Aryan), but then would throw in the surface analysis of har + -ana.
Next, in a term like gata, although by rights, an inheritance from OIA is the only legitimate explanation, I could *still* probably be convinced to include a synchronic analysis as gam- + -ta, as roots with nasals losing them in the zero grade is well understood in Sanskrit, and therefore, I assume, in Pali.
But here, ha is not the zero-grade of har. It exists in that shape because its earlier form was हृत्य. Adding that surface analysis in such situations is misleading. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)07:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Pulimaiyi: Why not? The zero grade in Sanskrit is hṛ, and the regular Pali reflex of that is ha. Now, the correspondence of Sanskrit ṛ to Middle Indic may be disturbed by neighbouring sounds, but this is not such a case. Looking at the table of principal parts in Warder, which has pruned rare alternatives, for roots in -ar, I see this as the general pattern for past participles formed by adjoining -ta to the root. There are some exceptions with labial initials, where the reflex of ṛ is u, and a probably trumping complex process whereby initial 'va(r)' instead yields 'vu', e.g. vuta from var and vuttha from vas. --RichardW57 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see this as the general pattern for past participles formed by adjoining -ta to the root.
There is of course a pattern because of inheritance from neatly patterned formations in Sanskrit. That doesn't merit surface analysis by itself.
Finally, trying to surface-analyse Pali terms when they are clearly not analysable like that is very unfruitful. Sanskrit and Pali are very close once a reader understands the patterns of sound changes (that are generally consistent) that take place. I would say it is nearly impossible to be able to study Pali grammar independently in an effective way without studying/knowing Sanskrit grammar system, at least in the aspect of roots and their derivatives.
Claiming that ha can be said as the zero-grade form of har is a fringe statement. There is observable pattern, and that is because of the Sanskrit connection between zero grade and first grade, not because Pali had a well-developed grammatical understanding of this, as you yourself pointed out, the past participle of var is vuta, a perfectly understandable term when you put it beside Sanskrit वृत(vṛta), but analysed as "exception" within Pali. Svārtava (tɕ) 15:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Not providing a reason when deleting entries
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You seem to delete many entries without providing (or attempting to provide) a deletion reason.
In some cases, such as the recent नर्य, the entry reappears either by restoration or recreation.
Are the issues involved not worth mentioning in the deletion reason?
For comparison, when deleting सवे (before overriding it with a new entry), I put “mass creation of unwanted entries by User:Quadmix77” for anyone looking at that page’s edit history.
Just to be clear, this is being asked without contesting the deletions themselves.
@Kutchkutch: The reason is the same as yours for recreating सवे: these are created by users who have a track record of making problematic edits and I would rather put the effort (that would otherwise be required for fixing the entries or adding new information) into creating the entry from scratch. I do agree that a deletion reason will provide a potential reader the context required, I will ensure to include those in my clean-up activities going forward. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)11:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago15 comments3 people in discussion
The changes the to translation by Ralph T. H. Griffith are extremely minor. For example,
Lieth → Lies
germ → embryo
Agni → He, Agni,
must → ought to
So, for the sake of transparency and to not give excess credit to the editors of the entry, Ralph T. H. Griffith should still be indicated as the translator of the quotation.
The only reason not to mention Ralph T. H. Griffith would be if the editors of the entry have not used any part of the English translation by Ralph T. H. Griffith. However, being based almost entirely on the translation by Ralph T. H. Griffith is enough of a reason to provide Ralph T. H. Griffith as the value of the |transauthor= parameter.
Griffith has at times deliberately used poetic language faithfully reproducing which here will be counter-productive due to compromised readability, to improve which, I am forced to rewrite the translations. Now if it must be attributed to Griffith, I am then forced to use {{quote-qualifier}} which lightens words and again, causes readability problems in my opinion. What constitutes as a 'minor change' is subjective. Also, attributing the translation to Griffith (especially when it has been reworded) is not strictly necessary unless the translation provides some interpretation or additional information that cannot be possibly inferred without Griffith's translation. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)13:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
attributing the translation to Griffith (especially when it has been reworded) is not strictly necessary unless the translation provides some interpretation or additional information that cannot be possibly inferred without Griffith's translation
Yes, the exact wording of a published translation certainly shows some interpretation or additional information that cannot be possibly inferred to Wiktionary readers with varying degrees of familiarity with Sanskrit.
While some details may change when making extremely minor changes to a published translation, much of the underlying interpretation or additional information that cannot be possibly inferred that was present in original quotation still remains.
Acknowledging the original author of a translation with extremely minor changes to a published translation is exactly why using the |transauthor= parameter isstrictly necessary.
deliberately used poetic language … forced to use {{quote-qualifier}} which lightens words and again, causes readability problems in my opinion
The readability problems due to both the poetic language and {{quote-qualifier}} are just as subjective as what constitutes as a 'minor change'.
faithfully reproducing … here will be counter-productive due to compromised readability
This presents the situation as a choice between
1.faithfully reproducing the original translation with the translation author attributed at the cost of compromised readability.
… or
2.rewriting the translations and not attributing the translation author for better readability.
… in which option 2. is preferable.
However, attribution to the translation author and having the extremely minor changes with {{quote-qualifier}} (or the notation without the template) can both coexist at the same time.
In fact, attribution to the translation author and having the extremely minor changes is an approach used for other historical Indo-Aryan languages.
@Kutchkutch: What is the some interpretation or additional information that cannot be possibly inferred without Griffith's translation in this case? I do think such cases are arguably higher for lesser documented and studied languages, like Prakrit or Apabhramsa, where the editor may not have enough knowledge or resources to adequately be able to understand well enough to write a translation himself. But for most of the Sanskrit quotations, the meaning is adequately derivable from the editor's knowledge of Sanskrit grammar and surrounding context, so I don't see why attributing Griffith should be strictly necessary in this case. – Svārtava (tɕ) 16:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava: What is the “some interpretation or additional information that cannot be possibly inferred without Griffith's translation” in this case?
The changes Lieth → Lies and germ → embryo replace antiquated English words with their supposed standard equivalents.
However, these antiquated words were also obsolete during the translation author’s time. Therefore, the translation author intentionally used these antiquated English words to set an archaic tone.
Although using the supposed standard equivalents loses the archaic tone set by the original translation author, these replacements alone still make the edited translation dependent on the original translation for its interpretation.
There are no semantic modifications in the changes Agni → He, Agni, and must → ought to. However, someone (with the ability to translate Sanskrit) who had never seen this particular translation may use an entirely different wording.
Although this particular translation is probably out of copyright, the structure and wording of a translation is potentially subject to copyright due to its interpretation or additional information that cannot be possibly inferred.
the meaning is adequately derivable from the editor's knowledge of Sanskrit grammar and surrounding context
As a tertiary source, Wiktionary editors should not present a translation as novel when it is based on a published translation for the sake of transparency and to not give excess credit to the editors of the entry.
such cases are arguably higher for lesser documented and studied languages, like Prakrit or Apabhramsa, where the editor may not have enough knowledge or resources to adequately be able to understand well enough to write a translation himself
Being lesser documented and studied does not entail that languages, like Prakrit or Apabhramsa should be treated any differently from Sanskrit in this regard.
I still do not see what is the interpretation or additional information that cannot be possibly inferred without mentioning Griffith's translation here, that makes attributing the translation to Griffith necessary even when the words have been changed. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)00:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
even when the words have been changed … I still do not see what is the interpretation or additional information that cannot be possibly inferred
Merely changing the words around does not change the underlying structure and wording of a translation.
Original translation: In the two fire-sticks Jātavedas lieth
Edited translation: Jātavedas (Agni) is present in the two rubbing-sticks
Change 1: lieth has become is present.
Change 2: fire has become rubbing.
Change 3: (Agni) is added as a qualifier for Jātavedas.
Original translation: even as the well-set germ in pregnant women
Edited translation: just like a well-set embryo in pregnant women
Change 1: even as the has become just like a.
Change 2: germ has become embryo.
Original translation: Agni who day by day must be exalted by men who watch and worship with oblations.
Edited translation: He, Agni, worthy of being exalted day by day by men who watch and worship with oblations.
Change 1: Agni has become He, Agni,.
Change 2: must be has become worthy of being.
Other than these changes, the majority of the structure and wording present in original translation still remains even when words have been changed.
Therefore, the edited translation still reflects the interpretation or additional information introduced by the original translation.
Since the edited translation still reflects the interpretation or additional information introduced by the original translation, this makes attributing the translation to Griffith necessary.
@Kutchkutch: I am sorry, I am not at all in agreement that the translation at the page as it is now should be attributed to Griffith. (For the record, it has been rewritten solely to improve understandability). Similarly I don't think that if someone well versed with Sanskrit would read that verse, they would not arrive at the general idea of this translation without needing to refer to Griffith. The basic meanings of words are not specific to Griffith. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)06:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Additionally, attributing the altered translation to Griffith can also lead to other issues like being a false citation, so doing that for the new changed translation given now would be especially counterproductive. – Svārtava (tɕ) 09:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava: attributing the altered translation … to Griffith … would be especially counterproductive
Having a false citation is preferable to plagiarising the original translation.
Choosing between plagiaring the original translation and having a false citation could be avoided altogether if there were a |adaptedfrom= at MOD:Quotations to indicate that the original translation has been altered.
However, my last feature request to MOD:Quotations has not been implemented, so such a feature request is likely to be unsuccessful as well.
Plagiarism, seriously?? I'm not passing off anyone's work as my own: I have rewritten the translation -- again, only for the sake of better readability -- and this differs significantly enough from Griffith's translation that I am of the opinion using the quote-qualifier template ruins the look and readability of the quote and it is misleading in general to attribute something to Griffith when more than half of it is rewritten. FYI: "is present" is NOT based on Griffith's interpretation " lieth". It is the meaning that any learner of Sanskrit would arrive at. Basic meanings of words are not specific to Griffith. That अरणि(araṇi) refers to rubbing sticks used to make fire is not an idea given to us by Griffith. There are cases where I have written translations in my own words after studying translations by Griffith, Renou, Geldner, and Elizarenkova. It would be absolutely absurd to attribute such translations to the four of them. I am against attributing such kinds of translations to authors who never wrote them because of how misleading it is. I'm sorry, but I am still not in agreement to putting the translator's name in such heavily paraphrased material and this discussion seems to be spiralling into unproductive territory and I would rather be creating and/or improving entries rather than continue with this to-and-fro. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)12:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
It would be absolutely absurd to attribute such translations to … because of how misleading it is.
Thanks for the expanded elaboration here.
Regarding Griffith has at times deliberately used poetic language
These archaic sounding words … are quite harmless to have.
However, the archaic sounding words in this quotation such as lieth and germ have been replaced.
So, was the intention in that discussion to tell User:Rau6590 to let the archaic sounding words remain rather than attempting to replace them because they were a problematic editor?
@Kutchkutch: I'm not sure what the concerned Rau6590 edits were, but I think the intention is to have balance between clarity in understanding and giving it archaic or poetic touch as done by some translators like Griffith. I usually like to go for clarity and mostly try to give modernized translations (at least for Classical Sanskrit quotations I add) but sometimes resort to archaic sounding words especially when the translation is otherwise looking bland and when it doesn't cause any loss of clarity. – Svārtava (tɕ) 14:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
With Rau6590, the issue was that the new translations the user was adding were more unclear than the replaced content.
At times, Griffith's sentence structure is unusual for English which has justified the alteration of these translations.
I do see why someone would think it appropriate to give the translator's name and translation year when there is a Sanskrit quote with translation in archaic English (implying these are not Wiktionary's words to the reader, but rather Wiktionary quoting someone). However, I don't think it is strictly necessary to do so even then, and not mentioning the translator is certainly not plagiarism.
At the Old Awadhi entry 𑂔𑂮 (originally at जस), the English translation for the quote from Hanumān Cālīsā was written by me and I deliberately used archaic sounding words, so that could be an example of Wiktionary's own words deviating from the (modern) standard way of writing English.
My opposition to adding Griffith's name to this quote comes from how heavily edited and paraphrased the original text is. It would then be misleading and less readable (with the templated square brackets). -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)01:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
With Rau6590, the issue was …
Thanks for the clarification.
resort to archaic sounding words … when the translation is otherwise looking bland … the quote from Hanumān Cālīsā was written by me and I deliberately used archaic sounding words.
User:Word0151 also uses archaic sounding words in their novel Awadhi translations.
It would be absolutely absurd to attribute such translations to … because of how misleading it is … It would then be misleading
Platts is really outdated. It has some really laughable etymologies.
If a Hindustani entry never had {{R:inc-hnd:Platts}}, it is acceptable not to add {{R:inc-hnd:Platts}} because its information may be outdated.
Perhaps the argument being made here is that attributing edited Griffith translations is like citing etymologies from {{R:inc-hnd:Platts}}.
However, a difference between attributing {{R:inc-hnd:Platts}} and Griffith’s translations is that {{R:inc-hnd:Platts}} can be supplemented with other references.
Moreover, there is no reference template for Griffith’s translations like there are for Apabhramsa translations.
And, MOD:Quotations does not support showing more than one translation of a single quotation.
User:Word0151 reverted a replacement of their novel translation with a published translation using the edit summary to say
We should not copy others translation, and i have tried to keep the translation word for word.
Perhaps User:Word0151’s revert is a corroboration of having novel translations from an editor's knowledge of grammar and surrounding context instead of attributing published translations.
{{quote-qualifier}} … lightens words and … causes readability problems … templated square brackets … less readable
The intention behind using templated square brackets is to improve readability.
So, it is surprising if templated square brackets is the cause of readability problems.
not mentioning the translator is certainly not plagiarism
My opposition to … not mentioning the translator … comes from Wiktionary is intended to be a synthesis of published material rather than being the publisher of original material from an editor's knowledge of grammar and surrounding context.
Nonetheless, thanks for elaborating on why not mentioning the translator is certainly not plagiarism.
And, Wiktionary certainly does have original material despite being intended to be a synthesis of published material. The existence of {{original research}} (for reconstructed entries) is a prominent indicator of this fact.
this discussion seems to be spiralling into unproductive territory
Discussion makes things clearer even if it seems unproductive and takes away time from creating and/or improving entries.
Quotations serve an essential purpose for historical languages, so how they should be presented is worth discussing.
Latest comment: 7 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Changing the name from Sindhi to Sindhic in Module:families/data caused it to be in conflict with the other modules that still had the old name, which caused a module error at Category:Hindi terms derived from Sindhi. I finally had to resort to a search for "inc-snd" in the module namespace, which led me to Module:families/canonical names. Once I changed it there a control popped up that offered to propagate the change to several other modules. Once I clicked on that, everything was back to normal. I was able to create several newly-redlinked categories using {{auto cat}} with no errors.
It's great that you know how to do things with the modules, but the module landscape has changed completely in the past few years- so you need to assume that things may blow up (usually when you least expect it...) and watch CAT:E. Oddly enough, my lack of experience with editing family data helped, because I had to figure out a systematic way to check for places to make changes.
@Kutchkutch: I agree that a separate category for Gujarati(c) languages is required; if a Sanskrit or Prakrit term has Gujarati, Vaghri, and Marwari descendants, then it would be justified to group the former two closer to each other than to Marwari within the Western Indo-Aryan branch. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)16:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply