Talk:अभवत्

Discussion
Hi, please see the changes I made to this entry. is not a form of, it's a separate verb formed from. Of course, we can discuss this if you think it's wrong, but that's what I've learned. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 20:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is a non-lemma form. The lemma form is भवति, which means "become". अभवत् is its past tense, meaning "became". As you can see even the word became is a non-lemma form. The past tense forms of original verb are all non-lemma forms. JainismWikipedian (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did some research on wikitionary and found that as per Module:category_tree/poscatboiler/data/lemmas, "imperfect verbs" are lemmas, and "imperfect verb forms" are non-lemmas. However, as per Appendix:Glossary, "imperfect" is nothing but "imperfective past" tense and this "imperfective past" is nothing but A "verb form" of imperfective aspect and past tense. And, "aspect" is a property of a "verb form". Thus, I'm confused now as to whether an imperfect is a lemma or a non-lemma. Moreover, but the above examples of "became" or "brought", as we can see the categories on these words' pages are of non-lemma forms. JainismWikipedian (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But imperfect verb forms have ganas and parasmaipada/atmanepada too... And Sanskrit is not the same as English. I know what भवति means, but you're forgetting that अभुवत् also exists in Vedic Sanskrit, with a different gana. And there are three verbs that can mark the past tense in Sanskrit: imperfect, perfect (भूव), and aorist (अभूत् or अभूवन्). I really think this should be a lemma for those reasons. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 22:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)