Talk:आढ्य

How is आढ्य -> अड्ढ -> अड़ेवा? Shouldn't it be *आढ / *आढ़ / *आढ़ा? Perhaps it's some Āgama of "व" in MIA. Will this etymology of अड़ेवा be fine -.
 * The derivation of from  is doubtful. The de-aspiration of /ɖʱ/ is tricky. You can add the above etymology but you need to put perhaps before it. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  02:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There appear to be several leaps of faith that would be required for ←  to be true (CDIAL indicates this as  ). An issue with the suggested etymology is that va / व / 𑀯 is considered as secondary hiatus-filler that is less productive than ya / य / 𑀬 (see ) rather than an extension. If this uncertainty needs to be indicated in the tree, perhaps the unc parameter of desc can be used. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅. For Hindi etymology of अड़ेवा, I'll just say - texthi - is that fine? 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * text is very conclusive, so if the uncertainty needs to be indicated, text could be changed to text. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I do so. What about vriddhi derivative of root ऋध्? You only stated earlier that it doesn't make much sense.  🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 12:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I did say that 😅. What was meant by this etymology was that the term is from ārdhya which is a vriddhi derivative of a certain formation of the root ऋध् (like or  plus a -ya extension or maybe an unattested one *अर्ध). We just don't know which one. I'll re-word it. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  14:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)