Talk:पुरुष
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Yet another Sanskrit L2 with senses that no one has bothered to completely render into English, relying on transcriptions instead of glosses. I added wikilinks for some of the transcriptions, but that isn't good enough. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Those transcriptions are for the most part actual English loanwords, since those terms don't have an English equivalent. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Using explanatory phrases in English would be vastly superior to using untranslated gobbledygook.
- What is pāda supposed to mean? Turns out that it's just the Sanskrit word for a foot in poetry, or by extension, the verse or line.
- What is manu cākṣuṣa supposed to be? The very spelling is so un-English that I don't even have any clear idea how to pronounce this term. I don't see any entry for this compound term, but there are entries for the constituent parts of manu and cākṣuṣa. Extrapolating from those two entries, I'd guess that the whole term is someone's name. An explanation would be a most welcome addition to this sense line.
- What is sāṃkhya supposed to be, in the context of philosophy? Apparently it means rational or discriminative, and is the name of a branch of Hindu philosophy -- which happens to be more commonly spelled as w:Samkhya in English contexts, without the diacritics and with the initial capitalization, as this is treated as a proper noun.
- What is prakṛti supposed to be? The EN WP has an article on this, which describes it as the “primal motive force”. That would be a much more lucid phrase for English readers who are not steeped in Hindu philosophy and terminology.
- And so on and so forth. I'm with DCDuring here -- the पुरुष (puruṣa) entry is frankly sloppy and in need of cleanup. Transcribed Sanskrit does not suffice, especially when there are perfectly serviceable ways of using normal English to express the same things. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 09:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cleaned, IMO. Retag if needed. - -sche (discuss) 03:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)