Talk:गच्छ्

RFD discussion: May–September 2021
According to, should this be discussed first or should it be speedily deleted? Kutchkutch (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Should have been discussed first. The thing with this root is, MW does not give it a separate entry but does mention it under the root . The reason is, the verb गच्छति needs to be classified and for reasons unknown, there is no class in Sanskrit for -ccha- formations. It baffles me why Panini would not make a separate class for these verbs when there are a handful of them in Sanskrit. So any dictionarian who wants to classify this verb needs to construct a root gacch and make gacchati its primary (class 1, parasmaipada) derivative.
 * I won't vote either keep or delete because I can see both sides of the argument and am not particularly for or against this root, but I just want to make clear that if this root is to be deleted, then the class parameter should also be removed from the entry because it is not the class 1 formation of ; that one is . -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 08:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I marked it for immediate deletion because if गच्छ् is a root, then so are तिष्ठ्, यच्छ्, and many more. I still vote delete. 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 09:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm just saying that if this root is deleted, then even the part where it says "class 1 P" should be removed. The etymology should be purely from PII and PIE and no synchornic analysis is possible for it in that case. We can mention the root it is associated with (that is, ) at the most. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 08:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then the class should be removed for यच्छति and तिष्ठति too? 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 09:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 09:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way what's your vote, : keep or delete? —Svārtava2 • 04:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, it's not a root, it's a present stem. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As there are several irregular Class 1 formations, I don't see why gam can't have multiple Class 1 stems. Whitney records the root sañj as forming both sajati and sajjati.  Accentually, the formations in -ccha- are a mixture of Class 1 and Class 6, so Panini would have needed two classes for them. As far as I am aware, gacch hasn't really achieved root status in Sanskrit, but apparently similar formations have.  However, quite a lot of material out there refers to 'gacch' as a Sanskrit root.  I think we should treat it as we treat misspellings - say that calling it a root is a misinterpretation, and refer the reader on to gam.  Or is my suggestion invalid because our Sanskrit entries are not meant to be helpful?  Do we perhaps need rather to change the language from Sanskrit to English?  (What is there to stop the English language inventing Sanskrit roots and writing them in the Devanagari script?) --RichardW57m (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever we do with Sanskrit gacchati, we must link it to gam at the Sanskrit level, because other verbal and deverbal forms are formed from the root gam. Treat it as suppletive if you wish, but maintain the link. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 08:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)