Talk:Sanskrit nouns

Peer Review Discussions

Kindly record your observations here.

• Why is the pitch accent indicated in the transcription? I've never seen the pitch accent marked in Western works discussing the grammar of classical Sanskrit. -- 144.32.126.11 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

At the least Whitney's grammar, which is the one i have at hand, does indicate the accent, and it is not unimportant information. For historical linguistics it is crucial. On a side note, I see now that the i-stem paradigm for masculine is absent and included in feminine. I'm changing it. Amilah (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a text about historical linguistics but about Sanskrit nouns and to be informative should use standard diactritics as in https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/International_Alphabet_of_Sanskrit_Transliteration

106.51.22.25 (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) I'm in India and have any number of Sanskrit grammar books and none use these non-standard diacritic marks like long "a" with and an added accent "ā́." This doesn't bring clarity but rather confusion. It is definitely not standard. Please revert to standard diacritics or better yet use Devanagari lipi along with latin lipi.49.207.49.59 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand that Sanskrit is often written without the Pitch accent if focusing specifically on Classical Sanskrit, and I appreciate your desires to have clarity. However, pitch accent is a very important part of Sanskrit pronunciation in its Vedic stage. The only reason to not include these if if one were focusing very specifically on later Sanskrit. I don't see how keeping an important part of Sanskrit is confusing or would obstruct this article's ability to be informative. In regards to using Devanāgarī,

1) Most computers won't render the pitch accent in this script. Go to: http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/vedic-extensions.html and see if your computer can.

2) If you want to start including Indian Scripts on Wikipedia, you're going to have to reopen some old arguments on the Wikipedia manual of style: WP:INDICSCRIPTS.

Jackpaulryan (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

i-stem masculine paradigm

I'm not lazy, I just have no time at the moment to learn the formatting, so this is a call out to anyone and especially myself to put in the correct masculine paradigm someday. Amilah (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is done. Amilah (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominative '-s' ending

Oughtn't the nominative singular kāmas be kāma? Also, nom. sing. agnis be agni?
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The s in the nominative (kāmas agnis, krishnas) is Vedic Sanskrit. Classical Sanskrit uses the visarga ḥ. In which case the masc. sing. nom. is kāmaḥ, agniḥ, krishnaḥ, etc. - Jainarayan 3/27/18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.161.221 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The -s is the standard part of several inflectional endings in Sanskrit, classic or otherwise, and is how it appears in the theoretical / standalone forms of words. It's only when a word is practically used, eg, in a sentence, that sandhi rules apply and the -s may change to -ḥ or -r etc. Dyḗwsuh₃nus (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Order of cases

An anonymous editor has made a change without giving any authority. I do not want to engage in edit warring, so I just cite here Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar, 2nd edition (1889), 14th issue Harvard UP ISBN 0-674-78810-9 Chapter IV section 266a page 268: "The order in which they are here mentioned is that established for them by the Hindu grammarians, and accepted from these by Western scholars. The Hindu names of the cases are founded on this order: the nominative is called prathamā first, the accusative dvitīyā second, the genitive ṣaṣṭhī sixth (sc. vibhakti division, i.e. case), etc. The object sought in the arrangement is simply to set next to one another those cases which are to a greater or less extent, in one or another number, identical in form; and, putting the nominative first, as leading case, there is no other order by which that object could be attained. The vocative is not considered and named by the native grammarians as a case like the rest; in this work, it will be given in the singular (where alone it is ever distinguished from the nominative otherwise than by accent) at the end of the series of cases." Whitney does not here give all of the names of the cases. The other cases have the names: instrumental triya third, dative caturhti fourth, ablative pancami fifth, locative saptami seventh. TomS TDotO (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

There original text has been unchanged since the beginning of this article, some ten years ago, standard Sanskrit grammars agree, and there has been no citation for the change. Therefore, there seems to be no choice but to restore the original text. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

A single page for all Sanskrit nominals (nouns, adjectives, numerals, pronouns and determiners)

The title says it all. After working on the Sanskrit grammar, Sanskrit nouns and related pages lately, I propose:

• Moving the content of the Sanskrit pronouns and determiners to the current Sanskrit nouns page and removing the former (by simple redirect to the latter as standard.)
• Renaming Sanskrit nouns to 'Sanskrit nominals' (with the older link/page redirecting to the new one.)

Rationale:

• The grammar treatment of all nominals are fairly similar, and are best presented in one place -- it's already the case that adjectives and numerals are in the nouns page.
• There is not much to be added to Sanskrit pronouns and determiners which will remain a stub-class article as it currently is. The content there perhaps doesn't deserve a separate page.

Please let me know any comments. I stand ready to make these changes in line with standard procedure.

Many thanks, Dyḗwsuh₃nus (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dyḗwsuh₃nus: Seems like there are some complaints about the total reworking of this page, which has made it quite complicated: https://twitter.com/KrishnanRP/status/1371424418770120707 Aryaman^{A (talk, contribs)} 14:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Aryaman^A for your response. Dyḗwsuh₃nus (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)