Wiktionary talk:About Sanskrit

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Transliterations[edit]

Why don't transliterations get wikified & get their own entries? Also, if that is the decision, then this page sould be a little clearer that they must not be wikified. Lastly, it isn't clear to me (not speaking any language that uses Sanskrit script) that transliterations are transliterations, in the current format recommended...is this something that can be changed? --Connel MacKenzie 22:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

there are lots of Sanskrit dictionaries in IAST, so I don't see why Wiktionary should discriminate against IAST (the de-facto standard in western editions). 83.78.31.94 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to edit a policy or draft policy page on the wikt, at least create a user account and log in. Also: deletion of content is seriously discouraged. Reverted. Robert Ullmann 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

it is completely bizarre to keep Sanskrit entries in Devanagari in en-wiktionary. Devanagari entries can be a nice-to-have extra, but they are useless for

  • marking accentuation using diacritics
  • marking morphology using hyphens

IAST should clearly be recommended. --Dbachmann 16:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Accents and hyphens are supposed to be used in transliterations (the usual tr= parameter to {{infl}}, {{t}} etc.). We ignore them in Devanagari (which does have Unicode support for Vedic accents) because they're not a part of "regular orthography". (we do so for many other languages, e.g. with vowel lengths macrons for Latin which are displayed only in the inflection line). I understand your case for Latin script and the problem of associating Sanskrit with Devanagari implying Hindu connections, but I really wonder is it worth all the trouble, with the Western scholarship using prevalently Devanagari for Sanskrit for more than a century... Unlike e.t. Tocharian which we add in Latin transcription because its script is note available in Unicode (and it won't for a long time to come), the problem of Sanskrit is that there are so many scripts to choose from. --Ivan Štambuk 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Hindi Wiktionary will naturally use Devanagari for Sanskrit entries, just like the Bengali or Tamil Wiktionaries will use Bengali or Tamil scripts for the same Sanskrit words. There is no reason why English Wiktionary shouldn't use the most widespread script used for Sanskrit in English speaking contexts, which is IAST. I do not think that Western scholarship uses prevalently Devanagari for Sanskrit. If it uses any Indic script, that script will be Devanagari, but IAST used as least as often, already because of its objective advantages such as hyphenation, accentuation etc. --Dbachmann 11:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Visarga (ः)[edit]

What is the consensus about visarga ? Do we include it in entry names, or should we show it in the headword, or is this something for an alternate-spelling entry? I realize it alternates with म् स् depending on what follows, but if people are going to see it in texts, we should at least acknowledge that it exists in a great many terms. Chuck Entz (talk)

It's anusvara (ं) that alternates with म्. Visarga alternates with स् and sometimes र्. But it's wider than just visarga or just visarga and anusvara: the question is, what do we do with sandhi forms in general? They aren't exactly alternative spellings. Maybe we need a template {{sandhi form of}}, the way the mutated forms of the Celtic languages are marked with {{mutation of}}. —Angr 18:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Oops! I thought I put स्, but I copied-and-pasted it to save time and grabbed the wrong character.
My reason for asking was that a new user did an inappropriate move to the visarga form (the page had entries in Hindi and a couple of other languages, so reverting was a no-brainer), but when I went to point out our standards for which forms to use as the lemma, I couldn't find anything.
We should at the very least specify the preferred form (even if it's the root without endings) for the lemma of each inflected POS.
It wouldn't hurt to have sandhi tables here- or at least links to them on WP or elsewhere. It would be nice if we could have enough information accessible from WT:ASA so someone could start with a random word from a text and figure out the lemma form in order to look it up. At least we should show the main sandhi variants for the usual alternating final consonants like स्/(ः) and म्/(ं). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
For nouns, I think the lemma form should be (and as far as I know this is already the general practice here) the stem without any ending, same as is given in well-respected reference works like Whitney and Monier-Williams. Thus, the main entry for the word meaning "horse" should be at [[अश्व]]. But, just as we have "form-of" entries for each non-nominative case form in Latin ([[eque]], [[equum]], [[equi]], [[equo]], [[equos], [[equis]]), we should have "form-of" entries for all the cases in Sanskrit. So while the main entry—the one containing the etymology, the gloss, synonyms, categories, and so forth—is at [[अश्व]], we should also have [[अश्वस्]] with the gloss "nominative singular of अश्व (aśva)". And for s-stems, of course, the lemma form itself ends in -स्, so the main entry of the word for "race" would be [[जनस्]]. Then sandhi variants like [[जनः]] and [[जनो]] would be glossed as "sandhi variant of जनस् (janas)" or the like, and [[अश्वः]] and [[अश्वो]] would also be glossed as "sandhi variant of अश्वस् (aśvas)" even though that's only a "form-of" entry itself. Does that make sense? I know what I mean, but I'm not sure I'm explaining it clearly. —Angr 20:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
For attested sandhi (re)spellings, entries using a template like {{sandhi form of}} seems appropriate. After all, we include attested pronunciation (re)spellings, etc, in other languages. - -sche (discuss) 16:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sanskrit pronunciation module[edit]

@Aryamanarora and whoever else may be interested: I've created a new and currently very naïve pronunciation module for Sanskrit at mod:sa-pronunc. I'd like to add many more features such as Vedic vs. Classical pronunciations and syllabification. I'd love and feedback or help people would like to provide! For instance, I'm not sure exactly what should be done about anusvara and visarga yet. Also, I'm not sure what the best way to mark vowel accentuation is. There's a test area set up at User:JohnC5/Sandbox2 which all are free to edit. —JohnC5 06:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm out of town without computer access, so I can't do much to help until I return in two weeks. However, I'll look at it and help if I can. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 21:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: FYI: the primary discussion is now going on at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/July#Advice for a Sanskrit pronunciation module. —JohnC5 22:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hyphens in Devanagari?[edit]

In Category:Sanskrit prefixes and Category:Sanskrit suffixes, some entries have hyphens and some do not. What's right? By the way, do we even have non-Devanagari entries?__Gamren (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never known the answer to this. —JohnC5 14:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I think affixes should be marked with hyphens, if only because {{affix}} doesn't work properly otherwise. We've had a few discussions over the years about admitting Sanskrit entries in the Latin alphabet, but so far we've never reached consensus one way or the other. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
What about all the scripts associated with various Dravidian languages? Many of them have been used to write Sanskrit for a number of centuries. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I oppose using hyphens in the transliterations, even if it makes the etymologies better understood. Devanagari doesn't employ it or any other symbol to show compounds, e.g. Persian uses ZWNJ, which may have a visual effect of non-connected Arabic letters. Besides, I don't think hyphens are part of the standard IAST. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I know nothing of Sanskrit, but I generally support the idea that the described language should be as close to the actual language as possible, also orthographically. I suspect that to add a hyphen out of pedagogical reasons may be to do learners a bjørnetjeneste. {af} may not work, but then we can use {prefix} and suffer the slightly more typing that ensues. This latter recognizes that Japanese doesn't have hyphens, so presumably we can do the same for Devanagari. This would have been easier if whoever made those templates initially had demanded users to provide hyphens when they are there.__Gamren (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I see no difference between using hyphens to mark affixes in Devanagari Sanskrit and using them in English. We have entries like un- and -ness, even though we write uncleanness and not *un-clean-ness. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. In English, Danish, German and probably other European languages, there is a tradition of marking affixes with a hyphen. Devanagari apparently doesn't have that tradition. What does *un-clean-ness have to do with anything? I am genuinely bewildered.__Gamren (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with hyphens in Devanagari. Benwing2 (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Benwing2 Hyphens or other symbols that represent hyphens are not used in Sanskrit Devanagari. When they ar , then they can be transliterated, of course, as in Hindi शादी-शुदा (śādī-śudā). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)