[[anatman|Anatman]] ---------------------------> (आत्म‍|/Ātmā), * IPA: /ˈɑn ˈɑːtman/

I'd appreciate if you would take a look at my entry [anatman] and let me know if I screwed up the etymology by not including the proper tag for inter-wiki search engines, or violating protocol on the etymology.

I am pretty confident with definitions and meanings but not so much so with these other aspects of the format. Thanks.

Etymology looks good, except it's unclear whether the an- prefix comes from English or Sanskrit. If the prefix was added in English, I recommend that you use {{prefix|an|atman}}, and then describe where atman comes from like you have done; if it was added in Sanskrit, you should say that the word comes from the Sanskrit word anatman which is itself composed of an- + Ātmā ("no soul") or some such.

PS. I'm going to go on a wikibreak, and I'll be offline for the weekend.

It is Sanskrit and Anglicized Sanskrit.Geof Bard 19:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you clarify please?

I believe that both atman and anatman, or versions of them, existed in Sanskrit and probably Pali, although the Buddha was famously silent on the issue. Thus, there is a Sanskrit prefix "an" which negates...perhaps that is where we obtained the English prefix "a-" or "an-". We being speakers of an "Indo-Aryan" tongue...But you still haven't commented on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#sunyata where the biased secularists are flaming alreadyGeof Bard 19:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good. If you know what the Sanskrit word anatman with the prefix is, then it would be good to add that to the etymology. If not, it's probably good enough as is.