Talk:𑀲𑁄

Compounding form & Declension

@Svartava2 Pali appears to have merged the demonstrative pronouns into a compounding form 𑀢 and treats 𑀲𑁄 as declined form of the compounding form 𑀢. See {{R:pra:Sheth}}: त स [तत्] वह (ठा ३, १; हे १, ७; कप्प; कुमा)।.

A similar analysis could be done for Prakrit, so should it be done?

Should f=𑀲𑀸 n=𑀢𑀁 appear on the headword line or should that be left for the missing declension table?

Kutchkutch (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Your terminology is confusing, it's not clear which languages you're talking about, and your linguistic history looks wrong.

Nuclear PIE, at least as seen in Indic, Greek and Germanic, had combined the t- and s- pronoun stems into a single thematic declension. For convenience, the combined stem may also be referred to as PIE *to.

The pronoun header line template and module for Pali (see {{pi-pronoun}}) were set up to insist that pronouns (as opposed to forms in particular sentences) had gender, so the pronouns that can show gender have been treated as three independent stems. It doesn't feel right to me, but there is no real community of Pali editors with whom changing it could be agreed.

Note that 𑀲𑁄 (so) is a non-lemma, it is the form of a lemma in a subsidiary script. I think |f= and |n= should be restricted to lemma headlines, and further that they should only be passed in for the primary script.

As 𑀲𑁄 (so) is a non-lemma, and pronouns mostly do not have nested levels of inflection, it does not have an inflection table - there is no missing declension table for this plage. The Pali declension tables are at the lemma, which is 𑀢 (ta). What you would be adding to the masculine demonstrative pronoun is |f=𑀢𑀸 and |n=𑀢. @AryamanA has insisted that for Pali the lemmas are the stems to which the inflections are added, and in case of ambiguity, ascend to Indic.

I'm not keen on setting up |f= and |n= for Pali. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)