Talk:कृच्छ्रे

maybe it's too late but I found a tweet using कृच्छ्रे in the locative form: https://mobile.twitter.com/hsraghav/status/1331964293911244805 and this Ramayan shloka: व्यसने वा अर्थ कृच्छ्रे वा भये वा जीवितान्तगे। विमृशन् वै स्वया बुद्ध्या धृतिमान् न अवसीदति ॥ Does it count as a reference? Rishabhbhat (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The tweet does not count as a citation but the quote from the Ramayana can be used to back up the entry.
 * However if you want to embed that shloka in the entry as a quotation, then you have to do it at कृच्छ्र because that is the lemma. This is a non-lemma form.
 * And no, it's not too late, I can restore the deleted page. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 07:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bhagadatta, @Rishabhbhat can the dual form also be attested? if it cant, delete the page. because why have an incomplete entry? it is better if it is shown on the main page, which it already is. each and every sense given here should be attested, or it is better at page कृच्छ्र only. — Svā rt ava  • 13:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why delete a word when a sense of it is there in a - not well known, but not insignificant - Shloka? I don't understand your logic. Not every sense of a word can always be attested. If one definition cannot be attested it doesn't mean we delete the whole page. I haven't been here long enough to know the policies really well, but this is my reasoning. I vote against deletion. Rishabhbhat (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Rishabhbhat what good does this page do, if as it is anyone is taken to कृच्छ्र on searching for its locative form? how is this page gonna help anyone? — Svā rt ava  • 16:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * if one comes across the usage of this word anywhere while reading, IMHO wiktionary should be able to provide information about exactly which form of the word it is, so that they can understand whatever they were reading. My reasoning, as I said. Delete it if you really find it useless. Rishabhbhat (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Rishabhbhat that information is already provided at the inflection table. @Bhagadatta i leave it to you. — Svā rt ava  • 03:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I still stand by my original comment. Each and every inflection of a word should be clearly defined for what it is. Rishabhbhat (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Rishabhbhat the inflection tables do very clearly define that. no need for a separate page. — Svā rt ava  • 05:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

how can you move the page unilaterally? You should at least have waited for to respond or put in his vote. Rishabhbhat (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now moved it back to the main-space. Generally, it's undesirable to create inflected forms for which attestations can't be confirmed but I'm letting this pass because it is attested at least in one inflection. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 17:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August 2021
Rfv-sense, for neuter nominative/accusative/vocative dual, masculine locative singular. — <big style="font-family:Arial;font-variant:small-caps"><u style="color:orange">Svā <u style="color:blue">rt <u style="color:green">ava  • 03:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sanskrit Dictionary lists all these, plus the feminine forms. As for the attestations I can find several hundreds of the locative neuter one, but this is the only adjectival masculine locative singular I could find:

पुनश्च कलुषं कृत्वा कृच्छ्रे लोके भवन्ति ते ।

"they stay in the evil world because of/having done evil/dirty deeds again and again"

This is my own translation. loka is a masculine noun, so my interpretation is "in the evil/difficult/painful world". But I realise there can be more interpretations. Quote from here

I will continue searching for more attestations. But for now, this is it.

Rishabhbhat (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * ok. RFV-Passed — <big style="font-family:Arial;font-variant:small-caps"><u style="color:orange">Svā <u style="color:blue">rt <u style="color:green">ava  • 05:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)