Appendix talk:Hindi doublets

So I copied this idea from AP:French doublets. We ought to do this for all the major Indian languages at least, since doublets are very prevalent. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 00:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I love this =) I was earlier thinking of making a user page for listing the tatsama-tadbhava pairs. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a great idea! Since there could be a large number of तद्भव words, is this intended to just show a few examples or is it supposed to be comprehensive? The distinction between तद्भव and अर्धतत्सम may not be so obvious at first.


 * Also, there could be a few things that might make classification a bit less obvious. For,  is probably still a तत्सम despite the minor spelling change. For the set , , , :  and  both appear to be तत्सम, and  and  are both तद्भव. Since  and  both derive from Sanskrit  and  has not been borrowed into   (   is from ),  and  don't appear to be तत्सम, अर्धतत्सम, or तद्भव but they are still doublets. Kutchkutch (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's only for words for which there are both tadbhava and tatsamas in use in Hindi, so yes, it will be a long list. You raise some good points. However, and  are both tadbhava in my opinion, since they've undergone regular changes from Sanskrit to Prakrit to Old Marathi to Marathi. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 14:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for clarifying! After looking at it again, I agree that and  are तद्भव, but they do not have a corresponding तत्सम. As mentioned earlier, classification is not immediately obvious. Even though the cases I mentioned are , there might be similar cases for   if this Appendix is to as thorough as Appendix:French doublets (User_talk:Per_utramque_cavernam appeared to be WF at first but might actually be an acquaintance of User:Metaknowledge).


 * I was actually wondering what the Appendix namespace could be used for, and this appears to be a good use for it. The Appendix namespace appears to have a different objectives compared to the mainspace. Kutchkutch (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

--Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * : does have a tadbhava (?)? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, whatever Hindi cites I can find online from are quote of Pali scriptures. There is no tadbhava pair, not even in regional Hindi; I can only find the metrical variants, ,  (also a common pronunciation variant). —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 00:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sad! I love what Pali does to consonant clusters, it looks a bit like Italian :p --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * lol, it's only the first step. The Prakrits simplify them even more, and they just drop stray consonants. Hindi eventually lost all the simplfiied clusters due to . —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 00:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * – ? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 22:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

To add



 * – (the morphology is not the same though)


 * गार्जर, گزر, गाजर, गज़र > does it go back to PIIR? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)