Template talk:sa-desc

I don't think this template is a good idea. {{desctree}} and {{see desc}} should be used instead. --Victar (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: This is only for Sanskrit learned borrowings that take up a lot of space and are identical to the Sanskrit form... (e.g. like {{Sinoxenic}}). It doesn't replace desctree nor see desc. E.g. see बुद्ध (buddha). —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 12:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: no I understand, but I think if the Sanskrit section on IIR entries gets too large, we should be adding {{see desc}}. This is the standard method across all language descendant trees. I also do not consider 6 entries, as is the case on *pHtā́, enough to even warrant special treatment. --Victar (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: It's not because the section is too big necessarily, just that the status of Indo-Aryan (and Dravidian) descendants from Sanskrit can be ambiguous. The Sanskrit words never fell out of use; they were always a part of the vocabulary of NIA languages, but since they never underwent any sound changes they are regarded as "borrowings". So, it can be difficult to tell whether they are descendants or later borrowings. I can give an example in the "borrowing" Hindi हृदय (hŕday, “heart”), which is used much more frequently than the direct descendant हिया (hiyā). —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 15:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: Yeah, I just don't see any justification for the use of this template. There are plenty of words with large borrowing outside of their language, and plenty are just as unclear to whether they come into the language through inheritance or borrowings. The example comes to mind where we are unsure if the entry is borrowed from French or descended from Vulgar Latin. --Victar (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: Look, if everything is put under a {{see desc}} the Prakrit descendants aren't visible on the IIr page. And this isn't just a specific word, almost every Sanskrit term (except for the verbs) has been borrowed in the whole of the Indo-Aryan language family, and in every language the term is borrowed into the term is just transliterated into the native script. E.g. the word for "theist" in NIA is Gujarati આસ્તિક (āstik), Hindi आस्तिक (āstik), Marathi आस्तिक (āstik), Bengali আস্তিক (astik), Nepali आस्तिक (āstik) and so on... That said, would it be okay to keep a {{see desc}} for only borrowed terms? That way we retain the direct descendants on the IIr page. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 15:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: I don't even see the need for {{see desc}}, at least not in the case of *pHtā́. Just add |bor=1 to those entries and place them to the bottom. --Victar (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've edited the entry's according to current formatting methods, as an example. --Victar (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

When you get a change, please have a look at बुद्ध (buddha). I have no problem only displaying the borrowed terms (tatsamas) exclusively on the Sanskrit entry, if you think that's cleaner. --Victar (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)