Talk:घोट

Sanskrit घोट (ghoṭa)

@AryamanA Should घोटक (ghoṭaka) be in the Derived Terms section or in the Descendants section? कटुक (kaṭuka) is also in the Descendants section of कटु (kaṭú).

Where did you find ? The only non-Wiktionary source that appears to mention ghoḍaga is this line:

GOṆE GHOḌAGA-PAḌAṆAṂ ca RUKKHĀO 165

on page 9 of https://www.soas.ac.uk/ijjs/file25127.pdf Kutchkutch (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: I think derived terms as it is a diminutive form from {{suf|sa|घोट|क}}. That's where I would use it. By the way, congrats on completing 10,000 edits! -- शब्दशोधक (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Thanks for responding even though I didn't ping you. ( + Middle Indo-Aryan -𑀓- (-ka-)) seems fine, but having Sanskrit descendants for a Sanskrit entries doesn't seem to make sense.

And, thanks for noticing the 10,000+ edits. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Haha! Even I completed 10,000 now. I couldn't fail to notice that when you were pinging me on edit summaries, you were getting closer and closer to that and I thought it is better if another editor congratulates you rather than the simple bot message... -- शब्दशोधक (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: I didn't even notice the was a bot message until you said so in the message above, but I finally found it:

You just made your ten thousandth edit; thank you so very much!

The bot message is very simple. I'll get back to pinging [you] on edit summaries ASAP to get to the next milestone. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

𑀖𑀼𑀝𑁆𑀝𑁆- (ghuṭṭ-)

@AryamanA Shouldn't roots only be for Ashokan Prakrit rather than Maharastri/Sauraseni Prakrit? Having roots for Maharastri/Sauraseni doesn't seem to be a widespread practice. There does seem to be a tradition of having CAT:Pali roots.

Shouldn't the roots in CAT:Ashokan Prakrit roots either all have or not have hyphens for consistency? Regarding *𑀘𑀸𑀳𑁆 (*cāh), there is a च़ाहणे (ċāhṇe) (Berntsen: cāhaṇē v.t. to like, CDIAL: M. ċāhṇẽ ʻ to love, likeʼ) alongside पाहणे (pāhṇe) from *𑀧𑁆𑀭-𑀘𑀸𑀳𑀢𑀺 (*pra-cāhati). Kutchkutch (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Also @Bhagadatta Kutchkutch (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: I agree. I haven't come across people referring to Maharashtri or any other Prakrit roots. Ashokan Prakrit roots are tolerated because *we* consider the unattested terms in Turner's dictionary to be Ashokan; Turner himself considered them to be Sanskrit or late Sanskrit. The DSAL dictionary for Pali refers to Pali roots which means ancient grammarians when working on Pali borrowed the system from Panini.

The trailing dash issue is an interesting one; Sanskrit root entries do not have them nor do the Pali ones. The IE and IIR roots have the trailing dash. The convention here is to give a trailing dash when the root is transliterated into the Latin script - so many papers give the trailing dash to Skt roots because they write these roots in the Latin script. Turner does the same because he gives them in the Latin script. Note that a good number of Ashokan lemmas here were originally PIA lemmas which carried the dash; they were later converted to Ashokan where they changed the script but retained the dash. But then again Pali does not have the dash even though Pali roots are in the Latin script - so I think we should decide on whether or not the Ashokan lemmas should carry the dash and then apply it uniformly. One thing to consider would be the number of root entries with and without the dash. I do not have a preference either way. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 15:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Thanks for the detailed explanation! I don't have a preference about the trailing hypen as well, but whatever the convention is, it should be consistent.

Despite saying:

Shouldn't roots only be for Ashokan Prakrit rather than Maharastri/Sauraseni Prakrit? Having roots for Maharastri/Sauraseni doesn't seem to be a widespread practice.

earlier, here are a few Maharashtri roots that have a more certain etymology compared to CAT:Ashokan Prakrit roots. Does this list demonstrate to the need for Maharastri roots in addition to Ashokan roots even though there doesn't seem to be a widespread practice?

/ , from जि (ji), from *gʷey-

Verb:

Participle: /

Noun: /

/ , from नी (nī), from *neyH-

Verb:

Participle: /

Noun: /

/ , from श्रु (śru), from *ḱlew-

Verb:

Participle: /

Noun:

/ , from भू (bhū), from *bʰuH-

Verb:

Participle: /

Noun:

/ , from कृ (kṛ), from *kʷer-

Verb: /

Participle: /

Noun:

/ , from तॄ (tṝ), from *terh₂-

Verb: (with )

Participle: (with )

Noun: / (with )

/ , from खन् (khan), from *kan-

Verb:

Participle: /

Noun:

/ , from जन् (jan), from *ǵenh₁-

Verb: /

Participle:

Noun:

/ , from नम् (nam), from *nem-

Verb:

Participle: /

Noun:

/ , from स्था (sthā), from *steh₂-

Verbs: ,

Participle: /

Noun:

/ , from ज्ञा (jñā), from *ǵneh₃-

Verbs:

Participle: /

Noun: Kutchkutch (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Whether or not we should consider (Maharashtri) Prakrit roots depend on how you see the formation of verbs in Prakrit. Do you suppose them to be inherited from Old Indo Aryan or do you think they synchronically formed these terms, being aware of the rules? If they were inherited then there really is no need for root entries. The current understanding is that all those Prakrit forms you gave were inherited from the corresponding Skt. forms.

Now the question is why then have Skt. roots? The answer is, Sanskrit roots have historically been considered and referred to by grammarians. (This does not mean that if tomorrow Skt roots on wiktionary were to be done away with, I'd mind it. I hardly ever created any Skt. root entries).

Then why IIR roots, one might ask. IIR has also inherited verb forms from PIE. So it makes no sense to have IIR roots then, right? Wrong. I have in the past defended Wiktionary's policy of having root entries for IIR. This I have done considering something called "verb class". There existed several verb classes in PIE, PIIR and Skt. Often, for a PIE root, there would be derived terms like full grade + -e- + -ti (like *bhéreti), then there was zero grade + néh2 + -ti (nasal inflix), then there was zero grade + full grade + -ti (reduplicated), also o grade + -éye- + -ti (causative) and these forms percolated into IIR. Now what are we to do if a verb in Skt. derives from an IIR full grade + -a- + -ti (AKA a class 1 derivation) but an Avestan verb derives from zero grade + náH + -ti (nasal inflix)? What will you do when there are additional derivations like participles, nouns etc? What if Skt. additionaly possessed the causative and a form derived from zero grade + -a- + -ti (this is called a "tudati type formation")? One solution would be to create separate PII entries for all these formations, with just one descendant. Or a better and a more aesthetically pleasing method would be to have a root entry and then have these different formations in the descendants derived from different formations in the parent. This also helps to show the cognacy of the Skt and Avestan terms in a simpler and a more compact way; someone could click on the entry and get all the descendants.

This system becomes even more important when you consider the fact that there are IIR verb paradigms that do not go back to PIE; otherwise you could simply put a "IIR terms derived from PIE root x" template in there.

Hence, considering the fact that the descendants of PIIR (viz. Sanskrit and Old Iranian) preserved the distinction between verb classes comparatively well and that there are instances of the two branches deriving from different verb classes, it's justified to have root entries for IIR even though they may appear to incorrectly suggest a synchronic derivation from the root as opposed to an inheritance from an earlier form.

So now, does this apply to the Prakrits? Do the descendants of the Prakrits preserve a distinction between verb classes? They do not, as per my knowledge. The Prakrits barely manage to do so. For instance: Sanskrit derivative of the root भू, class 1 is भवति. If there was a class 2 derivation it would be *भौति (*bháuti). The Prakrit descendant in either case would be hoi.

So this concept of verb class is marginally present in Prakrit and only fossils of it remain in New Indo Aryan. If you wanted to group together all NIA derivations of a "Prakrit root" you could just as easily create a Sanskrit root entry and show the descendants. If you want to list all Prakrit terms derives from a root that could be achieved by using the template which lists these derivations. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 13:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Wow 😮! Thanks for that analysis, especially with the comparisons to IIR roots!

𐬨𐬄𐬚𐬭𐬀 (mąθra) was my first Avestan entry, I've added T:R:inc:Goto:2013 and T:R:ine:HCHIEL to a few PIIR entries and tried explaining reconstructed languages at User_talk:Kutchkutch#User:शब्दशोधक.

It's true that you:

hardly ever create any Skt. root entries

have in the past defended Wiktionary's policy of having root entries for IIR

Although I couldn't contribute to Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/garȷ́ʰ-, I was following it.

Regarding:

Whether or not we should consider (Maharashtri) Prakrit roots depend on how you see the formation of verbs in Prakrit. Do you suppose them to be inherited from Old Indo Aryan or do you think they synchronically formed these terms, being aware of the rules? If they were inherited then there really is no need for root entries. The current understanding is that all those Prakrit forms you gave were inherited from the corresponding Skt. forms.

I wasn't the one who compiled that list, so I'll defer to your expertise about:

all those Prakrit forms were inherited from the corresponding Skt. forms, so

there really is no need for Maharashtri root entries

Regarding:

If you wanted to group together all NIA derivations of a "Prakrit root" you could just as easily create a Sanskrit root entry and show the descendants.

I asked User:Benwing2 if {{PIE root see}} works for other languages at:

WT:Beer_parlour#Planning_to_rename_'terms_derived_from_the_PIE_root_FOO'_->_'terms_derived_from_the_Proto-Indo-European_root_FOO'

And they said:

I'll have to look into it.

Regarding:

If you want to list all Prakrit terms derive[d] from a root that could be achieved by using the template which lists these derivations.

Do you mean {{root}} and CAT:Terms by etymology subcategories by language? I started CAT:Terms by Ashokan Prakrit root by language Kutchkutch (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Yes, that and {{root|pmh|sa}} for all Maharashtri terms derived from a particular Old IA root. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 01:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch: Nice work, agree with all that you have settled on (including no hyphen for roots, and no root entries for Dramatic Prakrits). —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 21:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)