Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/ménos

Sanskrit *durmanā́s

@JohnC5: It's listed in Pokorny, EIEC:281 and Beekes&de Vaan 2011:184, so I'll rectify the reconstructions accordingly. But I can't find it in the dictionaries (the few I checked). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ivan Štambuk: Yeah, all I could find is दुर्मनस् (durmanas) in MW 486/2, which doesn't list accentation or the final lengthening. Thanks for your help throughout, and do you think the same treatment should be applied to *h₁suménes also under Derived terms? The paroxytone in सुमनस् (sumánas) could be explained by analogy?

Somewhat unrelatedly, I recently created the consonantal s-stem templates {{sa-decl-noun-as-n}}, {{sa-decl-noun-ās-m}}, and {{sa-decl-noun-ās-f}}. Could you look them over? I've been getting my info from a mix of the देववाणीप्रवेशिका and Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar and still need to add the us- and is-stems and whatever others are missing. I also want to go through and spruce up the documentation for the Sanskrit declension templates. Do you have any advice on what other declensions are missing and how we might improve these templates? —JohnC5 17:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No idea and I'm not particularly eager to research right now. The only reason why I edited that in the first place was because the template was incorrectly formatting the letter <m> as if part of the wikilink to *dus-. Then I got interested in the discrepancy between sa and grc accents and decided to investigate, which led to this course of events.

Sanskrit templates were created in pre-Lua days and need to be phased out because they have many redundant parameters, and one can guess a lot from the shape of the word stem itself (almost everything actually). Personally I think that the whole template/module business is too little bang for the buck when you have inflectional databases available (disk space is cheap and users don't care). IIRC consonant-stems are all that was left to make, the rest is done. Just follow Whitney and ignore Vedic exceptions and you'll be fine. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly: you would like the templates migrated to Lua but don't care if they are added to entries in the first place? I personally would love to see a grc- or la-style situation where we have inflections for everything (I'm an inflection-man. I could inflect till the cows come home). I think I have the knowledge to create or aid in the creation of a Luaïzed inflection template which would autogenerate the forms based on the entry title. Could I get your input on that project? I also would like to allow for accent placement within the templates (I'm right in thinking that the non-Vedic sa accent is effectively fixed?). —JohnC5 20:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's fixed (the same rule as in Latin IIRC). Just make sure that the module operates on IAST under the hood and can generate any Indic script as the output, so that we can reuse it for other scripts easily. For nominals autogeneration could work, verbs are problematic because similar to like grc it must be componentized by tense/voice since many roots undergo several inflections (for these there should also be labels of works/authors/period). Also there should be override parameters for every inflected form to manually specify additional or accented forms that occur in Vedic (with accented IAST as input). Just create basic architecture that can be easily extended. You can check inflections for Classical Sanskrit on the Sanskrit Heritage website which also has download links (XML & GoldenDict formats). It would also be good that you split modules for different inflections into subpages so that it's not one giant page that needs to be loaded and edited, and to eliminate SPOF (Lua is dynamic so it shouldn't complain about broken code paths that are not loaded, to encourage editing). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)