Meanings of a wordEdit

How many glosses a word gets is not determined by how many translations into English there are. You are supposed to give people an idea what the term means, by whichever means: “Translating”, circumscribing, defining. Usage varying slightly does not make distinct senses. Most senses have ranges, and if a term has come to be perceived as “offensive” is only a connotation but does not change that the word has basically the same meanings. As I have recently explained:

Those translation-only intentions are cancerous. Apart from being shallow and inaccessible to verification for being underdefined, they are constantly duplicated and triplicated and have definitions spread over five lines what is only one meaning, based on some Anglo-centric version of reality according to which there are different meanings if the translations vary.
For a word that just means “zero, naught”, people “gloss” in five lines:
# zero
# cipher
# dot
# nought
# naught
But there are many such wrong entries especially in Urdu. Now you should see that “zero”, “cipher”, “dot”, “nought”, “naught” are all the same senses. The same goes for “Magians” and “Zoroastrians”. The words “Magians” and “Zoroastrians” aren’t wholly interchangeable in English, but this doesn’t mean that in the gloss of a dictionary entry it isn’t the same thing, or that you can map the English onto the explanation of Arabic. If you want to say that the Arabic, Urdu or whatever term you edited is dated then you have to write it explicitly. By splitting up into two lines nobody understands what you want to say.
I sometimes add {{rfdef}} or {{rfclarify}}, with luck ping editors, because there is nothing but a polysemic “translation” that does not bewray even the rough context. For instance breastplate has four distinct meanings but our Georgian editor gave but “breastplate” for გულსაფარი (gulsapari), and it turned out to have the meaning of four I least expected.
Translation is not all! Fay Freak (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Fay Freak Okay, now explain to me this: Why do (almost all if not) all Quranic translations have the word "Magians" for Majūs and not "Zoroastrians" when the translators, be it Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Muhsin Khan, Asad, Dr. Ghali or Mawdudi, are all from the Modern Age and are off course acquainted with the term "Zoroastrian"? This is because "Magians" is a direct English equivalent of Arabic Majūs and "Magian" still bears the meaning "adherent to the Zoroastrian faith." Translating Majūs as "Magians" is perfect (both are old words) but using the term for Zoroastrians today is dated. In Urdu, for example, we know that the word for "father" is bāp (باپ) or vālid (والد) but how do you translate the informal/familiar word abbū (ابّو)? Yes, "father" would be alright but "dad/daddy" is a better word as a direct English equivalent, even though both mean the same. I understand that people who are not familiar with the word "Magian" may think it means different from "Zoroastrian" but they can always click on the word to know more. I agree with adding a clarification note, however. - Ash wki (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Because dated language is great and imparts pathos.
Now explain me this: Why do you label Arabic the same sense twice “collective” and in the middle of the line? The label “dated” cannot be for the English term there but is for the Arabic term. Hence it was correct when I wrote “(collective, dated) Zoroastrians, Magians”. How is “(collective) Magians, (collective, dated) Zoroastrians” better? Fay Freak (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like you didn't understand what I said at all. Both "Magians" and Majūs are old terms for Zoroastrians just like Urdu "abbū" and English "daddy" are both informal/familiar terms for father. You don't need the label "dated" or "informal/familiar" for direct equivalents. I repeated the label "collective" so that the reader does not think the label is only meant for one of the two words. If you think it's redundant than you can remove the second "collective" label. And I do love Classical Arabic, Classical Persian (one of the reasons I like Urdu) and old register/version of any language and am not much a fan of modern languages. For example, I love Plato's name in Arabic as ʾAflatūn better than coming up with something modern like Balatū. I don't see a problem with terms like Naṣāra and Majūs at all, they should be commonly used. Masīhī and Zarādushtī are bastardizations and reek of Westernization and liberal PC culture (yet people don't have any problem with Hebrew-speakers using the cognate Notsrim for Christians and they don't ask them to use Meshichim instead). But there is nothing that can be done in the face of modernism. - Ash wki (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Fine, so you are redpilled, but you have not understood that the labels aren’t meant for the English words but for the Arabic words. That you don’t have to map Arabic to English but English to Arabic. Whether or not “Magians” is dated is a fact the knowledge of which the dictionary reader can only attain in the English entry, if not outside the dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Church termsEdit

Since you are on a church terminology trip, I tip you on {{R:ar:Graf-Verzeichnis}} Graf, Georg (1929–1934), “Verzeichnis arabischer kirchlicher Termini”, in Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete (in German), volume 7–9, also Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium volume 147, which can be freely read and downloaded as published amongst to the ZDMG volumes on MENAdoc. However it is clear that many there have to be counted as North Levantine Arabic, Egyptian Arabic etc. Fay Freak (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. - Ash wki (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

thukkadi, thukkediEdit

Discussion moved to Special:PermanentLink/64507659#Sauraseni Prakrit verbs formed by analogy.

verbs etymologiesEdit

While we are certain that Hindi थूकना (thūknā) is inherited from *थुक्कनक (which is FTM *𑀣𑀼𑀓𑁆𑀓𑁆 (*thukk) + -अन (-ana) + (pleonastic) ka), its much more simple to show it as a descendant of the related verb. In a lot of cases the etymon isn't attested at all. And the norm is that these should be shown as the descendants of verbs. If you don't want that, go start a discussion at WT:BEER regarding this. Until then do not change such etymologies. Thanks, Svartava2 (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't do the Hindi etymology. I did the Urdu one. Hindi/Urdu has the -na suffix that forms verbs. What is added to the suffix is the stem of the Prakrit/Persian verb, the etymology of the verb being a different matter. Unlike Persian, Wiktionary has no entry yet for Prakrit verb stems, so I have linked all the Prakrit stems to the verbs themselves. Thus it's thukka (stem of thukkai) + -na but the link for thukka is to the page for thukkai. Ash wki (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Notice carefully, its surface etymology is the one with suffix -ना. It would be ok to say that it is inherited from Prakrit. You're trying to change an established practice and trying to analyse terms like Prakrit stem + Hindi/Urdu suffix, which would require prior consensus. Hence I am going to revert that edit. [pinging Kutchkutch] Svartava2 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not surface etymology and your "established practice" doesn't properly explain the origin of the verb. You need to explain where the -nā part of the word comes from. You either use *<root>नक or use the Prakrit/Persian stem + -nā format. Your manner of derivation doesn't explain how Hindi/Urdu verbs have been created from Persian ones, such as farmānā from فرمودن (farmudan) or guzarnā from گذشتن (guzaštan). Ash wki (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
And the surface analysis you included there shouldn't be there either. thūk (تھوک) has nothing to do with the etymology of thūknā (تھوکنا). Just because one is the noun and the other a verb and they are related and derive from the same root doesn't mean such an amateur derivation should be included in the etymology. It's more likely that the noun actually came from the verb instead of the vice versa. It would've made more sense to include the Prakrit stem + -nā in the surface analysis. Ash wki (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
it seems that explaining the general - for each verb isn't as important and can be done without. We do have an entry -ना which explains its origin. The surface analysis is completely valid; there our other verbs formed from noun + -nā, for example महकना. and note that it isn't my "established practice", it is the IA-editing community's to show the -nā form as descendant of -di/-i/-ti. If you want to change it, please this matter post at WT:BP and gain consensus. —Svārtava [tcur] 05:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the case in Hindi but not Urdu. Ash wki (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
FYI, مَہَکنا(mahaknā) and مَہَک(mahak) exist in Urdu as well, per {{R:ur:Rekhta}}. —Svārtava [tcur] 09:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Svartava2 In most cases, Hindi and Urdu should not be treated differently for the etymology of verbs. The etymology section is not just the etymology of the citation form and is also intended encompass regularly inflected/conjugated/declined forms. Even if -nā may not be a descendant of -di/-i/-ti, the intended meaning of थूकना/تھوکنا is inherited from 𑀣𑀼𑀓𑁆𑀓𑀇 is that the term थूकना/تھوکنا is the result of the natural progression of Prakrit 𑀣𑀼𑀓𑁆𑀓𑀇 (thukkaï) over time even though there may changes in the inflectional endings. Prakrit stem + -nā would not be a surface analysis since surface analyses are not diachronic. Since Reconstruction:Ashokan Prakrit/𑀣𑀼𑀓𑁆𑀓𑁆 exists, perhaps थूक/تھوک + ना/نا makes more sense compared to थूकना/تھوکنا + ∅. Verbs with Perso-Arabic elements can be treated differently from inherited verbs since they are not the result of natural progression. आज़माना/آزمانا, तराशना/تراشنا, नवाज़ना/نوازنا, फ़रमाना/فرمانا, etc. have corresponding Persian verbs while बदलना/بدلنا does not. How should the etymologies of verbs with Perso-Arabic elements be done? Kutchkutch (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

But how are we sure mahaknā was formed from mahak? It could be the other way round. The surface analysis might make sense apparently but it's still an amateurish way of deriving. Thanks for bringing into attention the verb badalnā. In this regard I have a Prakrit-derived verb for you: rūṭhnā. What Prakrit verb does it originate from? None. Is there a noun that is structurally similar to it? No. It was formed by considering the Prakrit adjective ruṭṭha ("angry, vexed") as a verb stem and suffixing it with -nā. The short vowel evolved into a long vowel and the gemination disappeared exactly the same way as thūknā (thukka + -nā). Following established practice how are you going to derive it? Similarly, badalnā used the Perso-Arabic noun badal as a verb stem. This happens when necessity arises but no corresponding verb exists in the source languages. Thus there must always be a verb stem be it directly from Prakrit/Persian stems or be it invented by converting a noun or adjective to one. This should point out the flaw of the established practice. With badalnā you yourself pointed out that not all Prakrit-derived verbs may be said to be directly derived from a Prakrit verb. The verb stem must be considered at all times. Ash wki (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
We are indeed sure that mahaknā is derived from mahak and not the other way round. mahak is derived from Sanskrit *maghakka from magha ("kind of flower; *fragrance") + pleonastic -kka- ([1]). [2] says for mahaknā "confer Hindi mahak". For rūṭhnā, we could derive it as रूठ + ना, रूठ being inherited from रुष्टि. Otherwise the format currently at रूठना is also ok in the absence of a directly related Prakrit verb or any related noun/adjective which works as a stem. बदलना again can be analysed as बदल (which is attested) + -ना. BUT where there actually are verbs like Prakrit थुक्कइ, we don't need to extra-complicate things by doing what you did. In cases like रूठना, it seems fine. —Svārtava [tcur] 15:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Wait! Is rūṭh really a word in Hindustani? Shouldn't it be rūṭhā? As for the rest, I don't know. The practice seems flawed. Can a Hindustani verb derive from Maharashtri Prakrit since thukkaï is evidently Maharashtri? It doesn't make any sense. Ash wki (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
रूठ/رُوٹْھ is an attested word in Hindustani.[3], [4], [5] And the practise makes complete sense, see Talk:𑀤𑀲𑀫, especially since McGregor[6] also shows the Maharastri (attested) ancestor instead of the unattested Sauraseni one. —Svārtava [tcur] 03:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay I see but if you would look at the example in Rekhta: in rūṭh jānā the word is still a verb, as in say khā jānā (i.e. to gobble up) khā isn't an adjective, is it? Then how come rūṭh be considered one. Can you say vo rūṭh hai? Sounds unusual. I have always vo rūṭhā/rūṭhī hai. Ash wki (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I can't read the Arabic script. Anyways रूठ is a feminine noun meaning anger, from Sanskrit रुष्टि. —Svārtava [tcur] 06:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, check this out. This is from Platt's dictionary:
H تهوکنا थूकना thūknā [thūk˚ = Prk. थुक्क(इ) or थुक्के(इ) = S. ष्ठेव or स्थेव+कृ], v.n. To spit (at, -meṅ or -par), to...
[ Platts, John T. (1884), “تهوکنا”, in A dictionary of Urdu, classical Hindi, and English, London: W. H. Allen & Co. ]
Even here the Prakrit stems are being considered, not the verb. The suffix is in parenthesis to show what verb it is from. I did the same thing. I linked the stem back to the verb. - Ash wki (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
That is just a different way of saying it. To change the well-established format of showing these NIA verbs which end in -ना (Hindi), -णे (Marathi), etc. as descendants to -i/-di/-ti (which has been for a long time), you need to get consensus from the Indo-Aryan editing community. The best place to go for this would be the Beer parlour. And as an example, this practice goes back to 2016 and perhaps even earlierSvārtava [tcur] 10:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)