Talk:चाँपो

Do the descendants of inflected forms belong at the inflected form, at the lemma form or both? Kutchkutch (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I think they should be here unless it can be ascertained that चाँपो itself was derived from चाँपना which I believe is not the case. Hindi verb forms form a cognate paradigm where each inflected form can go back to a predecessor and not always derived from each other. But that is not how it is done currently, as I see many entries doing the exact opposite - especially the entries for Sanskrit numerals. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true that Indo-Aryan inflected forms can go back to an Early NIA, MIA or OIA predecessor. If it can be ascertained that the inflected form has a different etymology from the lemma form, then the differing etymology (and any descendants) are placed there (such as at and ). It appears that the purpose of an inflected form entry is to be a redirect to the citation form. Since the lemma form entry usually contains all the information about a word in one place, perhaps something like this could appear at  with the "<" format seen on reconstructed entries:
 * See also:
 * /  <  /, from the ablative singular of  < . Kutchkutch (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's reasonable. I agree. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This all looks good to me! —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 15:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This all looks good to me! —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 15:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)