User talk:Pulimaiyi/2023

Hi Pulimaiyi, hope you are well. You do a lot of great work filling out the Indo-Iranian entries on Wiktionary. I was wondering the reason that my edit to the page for गृञ्जन was reverted. Thank you. Agamemenon (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reaching out, @Agamemenon:; I reverted your edit because the derivation of गृञ्जन from the root garj was semantically not very likely; plus even the form was not a good fit due to the fact that a nasal has been inserted within this word. It's not semantically likely because the root and the verb you gave mean "to sound, to rumble, to thunder" and this does not have a lot to do with a turnip or a root vegetable. To me it looks more related to gārjara (carrot) but I want to do a bit more digging around instead of just guessing. Also the revert was done by the click of a single button which caused the auto-generated edit summary which might come across as a bit aggressively worded; I use that button because 99% of the time I'm on Wiktionary through a mobile device and it is much more convenient to do that than to manually undo edits. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 07:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response, @Pulimaiyi. The putative semantic leap from "to rumble" to "turnip" is definitely a bit large, and the addition of is a bit phonetically tricky. That said, Monier-Williams did believe in that etymology, enough to list गृञ्जन as a derivative of गृज् (itself from गर्ज्) in his Sanskrit dictionary https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/MWScan/2014/web/webtc/servepdf.php?page=361. Would it be possible to add the गर्ज् derivation back, with caveats describing the semantic and phonetic difficulties? Something along the lines of:

"Monier-Williams proposes a derivation from गृज् "to rumble, sound", itself from गर्ज् and thus PIE gerh₂-, but this presents semantic difficulties. There is also the phonetic problem of the extra . Compare, however, गार्जर "carrot"."

Quite a few entries on Wiktionary have etymologies similar to the above that are qualified as such. At least, the citation to Monier-Williams should be added back in, even if the etymology isn't. Thank you for your explanation and understanding. Agamemenon (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Agamemenon: Okay, it can be added, but the wording has to be clear that it is Monier-Williams' conjecture, not Wiktionary's. I want to say, however, Monier-Williams was a Sanskritist and while he was certainly aware of the existence of the Indo-European family, the cognates that he gives must be taken with a grain of salt as he was not an Indo-European scholar. Many Latin & Greek cognates he provides for certain words are wrong/dubious; one example in my mind is when he related the Sanskrit root ruṣ (to be angry, to be vexed) with the Greek term λύσσᾰ (lússa); the connection appears attractive at the first glance but there are problems (due to the double -s- in Greek, AND Beekes gives a different etymology if I am not mistaken). There are many more examples.

Anyway, the content I removed can be re-added in the format you proposed here. Have a good day. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 08:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

All right, added an etymology with explanation of caveats - which are very warranted given that Monier-Williams wasn't an Indo-Europeanologist. Thank you very much, and likewise, have a good day! Agamemenon (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious about your reversion of my edits to सत् and the content you added to it. Do you believe all Sanskrit entries should have an etymology string back to PIE, despite a PII entry existing, and further, are you against the use of {{dercat}}? Do you also hold that entries should list all cognates of a term back to PIE? Additionally, what is your objection to me including "Equivalent to अस् (as, “to be”) +‎ -अत् (-at)" in the etymology? Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 04:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: It was not a reversion. Etymology strings can get long but for Sanskrit, it is just two or three steps at most, so I do not like making the user click the PII page to see the PIE etymon. I know overburdening an etymology with cognates is unproductive (which is why my edit had fewer cognates than what was originally there). But there certainly is no harm in showing a few as it helps to show the sound-correspondence between languages. Even the PIE etymon is shown for that very reason. My lengthened etymology takes up just two full lines on desktop mode so the etymology section is definitely not cluttered. As for dercat, I employ it everywhere, both in entries of modern languages and of Sanskrit too. I clean up and truncate the lengthy etymology sections of languages like Hindi, Marathi etc and use dercat.

As for सत् being analyzed as अस् + -अत् I feel that in this particular case it is not as straightforward as the root + -अत्, the way it is, for instance, in धावत् (dhāvat, “running”) or स्वपत् (svapat, “sleeping”) because then the term would have been *असत् (asat). -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 04:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Victar After thinking some more, I found examples of present participles using reduplicated or zero-grade forms so I re-added your surface analysis (which uses the zero grade of अस्). -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 05:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear {{dercat}} is getting use, and thanks for adding back the surface analysis. Pushing a Sanskrit etymology to nearest PIE entry sounds reasonable, but I think any further, is over-duplication -- leave the intra-PIE derivation to the PIE entry. I see you also removed the PIA reconstruction from the etymology. Not so much in this case, but including the PIA sometimes helps explain archaic features lost in the Sanskrit, even just as a blacklink.

I can also see an argument for listing Iranian and Nuristani cognates for extra comparison, but I don't find any added value beyond that. Including Latin praesēns doesn't really tell the reader anything other than it has a cognate in Latin.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I don't edit many Sanskrit entries, but at least when I do, you can know where I'm coming from. --{{victar|talk}} 04:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I've pinged you in this question about what counts as a "lemma" for verbs in Sanskrit, since you seem to edit a lot of Sanskrit entries! Dragonoid76 (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Dragonoid76: Sorry for the delay. I'll read the whole discussion when I have more time but for now, I'll say this: on Wiktionary, the third person singular indicative seems to have been arbitrarily chosen as the lemma-form and this continues for Middle Indo-Aryan lemmas too. But the Sanskrit dictionary and other Indo-European sources more properly treat the root form as the lemma and that makes more sense given the root form is the true unifying factor for the diverse group of verb and noun formations. So I would say, both the third person singular indicative and the root form deserve lemma status on this project, the former out of convention and the latter out of propriety. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 11:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes your rollback is in error Word0151 (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Word0151: You removed the meanings from both Persian and Arabic terms. The meanings of the original words are significant to the etymology. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 12:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Pulimaiyi i suggest to remove the meaning from the persian term, as it would falsely imply that the word meant only genitals in classical persian. Steingass supports my claim Word0151 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Word0151: Rather than removing content, adding the meaning would be more appropriate. I added it. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 13:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply