Talk:أين

Order of consonants in root
I changed to  and then noticed that you'd done the opposite before me. Wehr lists this word as coming from and lists rather different meanings for the derivatives of. — Eru·tuon 01:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wehr’s dictionary does not list anything as coming from any root, but where one would search for it; no way it aspires to display etymological relation. This here is about the etymological relation. There is no such root as, whereas there is . originally wrote  on  but I then noticed it must be  since this is what he has later given for  and  does not have anything else. Anyway  has the verbs and you have changed the whole page content and invented verbs by moving … Fay Freak (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've messed things up. (Fortunately you've fixed it. I'm surprised an admin didn't have to move the page...) Wehr lists the verb under the heading, but if he isn't asserting that everything under the heading belongs to a root, I guess that belongs somewhere else? — Eru·tuon 02:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the conflicting page only consists in a redirect then one can move back, this has been fixed apparently already years ago, as I look on meta:Help:Moving a page and its edit history. I don’t surely understand what you mean with “that” which “belongs”. The roots are supposed to have a kind of conceptual reality with the speakers where they “derives” the roots, and their essence is being an index, a link to related terms. Hence when you see the word you can see for yourself in  whereto this word fits or “why” these consonants are used. When you see  the glosses on  give you an idea what the relation of all the terms with the consonants l-w-ṯ are. Whereas if you say  is from  you don’t say anything, it is a null-statement because there isn’t anything else in it; except maybe you create the entry  stating it is an alternative form of  – but here I just said it is from, no need for the “intro page”. Expressed in different words: “Roots” with one word only have no epistemological value but look like bad web design or bot content. In Hans Wehr’s dictionary they are a useful fiction since the learner does not likely think about  being grouped with  but searches the order of the consonants . The same way foreign words are often grouped by their consonants even if they patently aren’t of Arabic derivation. You can also see that the paper dictionary follows the alphabet in grouping nouns with a consonant augment.  is from  where we have  and a few other words relating to a subsuming idea. Is there a root  according to Wehr? This is an inane question, there is no general rule that roots are posited by counting the exposed elements, the question in an etymology section is what we explain with positing a root, and hence by looking at the semantics of various forms we find things like augmented forms (there are a lot of examples, I now can name , , , ) and irregular shapes, which isn’t even surprising for often used words like , , or  (from !). Similarly, if we have some rare verbs deriving from a borrowed noun we say on the page of each verb that it derives from this noun, is formed from this noun’s consonants. Hence  puts the origin as from the  where the path of this noun is stated;  on the page of the noun does not even get this separate statement. When the article  was created it said it was “from the root ” but this was a deadend and unnecessary. Unless of course you deem the people many who use Wiktionary like a paper dictionary and find the words by typing in all kinds of ficticious roots instead of querying the words themselves like internet dictionaries work for every language. With this consideration we can perhaps keep the redirect , but the general recommendation is that “roots” should be dismissed if they do not represent a clue. No , no , no , no . I would have avoided  nowadays, which has 0 pageviews in the past 30 days just by the way. Fay Freak (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have the energy to follow everything you're saying right now. Some of what you are saying about roots I am already familiar with. To restate my question, since you take issue with the language "belong to a root": is the verb considered to have a root associated with it? I see the entry for  says it belongs to this same root. Okay. — Eru·tuon 03:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)