Talk:देवभाषा

RFV discussion: December 2020–January 2021
Doesn't seem to be a Sanskrit word. Also, this word doesn't give any results on sanskritdictionary.com which gives results from Monier Williams dictionary and some others also as explained by User:Bhagadatta earlier. Probably, the Hindi word was formed with influence from 🇨🇬. - द्विशकारःवार्त्ता • योगदानानि • संरक्षितावलयः • विद्युत्पत्त्रम् 03:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No mention in the dictionaries and no attestations found at the Digital Corpus of Sanskrit. This term was coined in Hindi & did not exist in Sanskrit. -- Bhagadatta(talk) 06:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So, can we remove the entry immediately, or wait for a month? - द्विशकारःवार्त्ता • योगदानानि • संरक्षितावलयः • विद्युत्पत्त्रम् 13:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As much as I'd like to remove the entry straight away, I think it's better to let it sit for a month - it's very unlikely but if someone manages to find references to the word from Sanskrit school textbooks, it could be kept under the New Sanskrit label. -- Bhagadatta(talk) 13:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are considering Sanskrit textbooks, I'm pretty sure I saw that word in more than one textbooks. Searching Google for Sanskrit words in their nominative singular form generally filters out any results from Hindi dictionaries, but unfortunately, देवभाषा remains देवभाषा in its nominative singular form, so can't use this trick. The word returns not some, but many results, which are of both Hindi and Sanskrit, combined. I think that, even if the word was coined in Hindi, many people started using it as if it was Sanskrit because it looks so - देव and भाषा, both are Sanskrit words. In textbooks, Sanskritic compounds in Hindi (वातावरण, for example) are used commonly as if they were Sanskrit words only, and I don't know if that's right or wrong. If that's right, then it's RFV Passed. - द्विशकारःवार्त्ता • योगदानानि • संरक्षितावलयः • विद्युत्पत्त्रम् 16:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Sanskrit textbook attestations can work. It worked for and there are entries for many other words too like  as well as Sanskrit words for every day things which are coined and commonly used in textbooks but they don't appear in MW or Apte. -- Bhagadatta(talk)  03:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * https://spokensanskrit.org also has it, meaning "language of god". --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * RFV Passed, detagged the entry. - द्विशकारःवार्त्ता • योगदानानि • संरक्षितावलयः • विद्युत्पत्त्रम् 09:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why was this passed? I see no references or quotations in the entry. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The word is attested here in this Sanskrit journal and also here in what appears to be a Sanskrit grammar textbook and in this work. -- Bhagadatta(talk) 01:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that looks good. Could you please add those cites to the entry? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Took me a bit of time to translate those quotes as no translations were provided. The implied meanings are in the square brackets. -- Bhagadatta(talk) 05:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sanskritic compounds

 * Since the bigger Indo-Aryan languages use many compound words whose elements are tatsamas, with the compound words themselves not attested‡ in Sanskrit; therefor I always favour writing out the full etymological statement: ‘Sanskritic compound of ELEMENT 1 + ELEMENT 2’. Now, I propose that we have a language-specific templet that would automatically generate this etymological text. What about sa-com which would function like com but with the aforesaid wording? I would also like to have a category dedicated to Sanskritic compounds by (IA) languages, which will be created when this templet is used in the etymology section. I believe Sanskritic compounds deserve to be both a separate etymology and a category, owing to their sheer number in modern languages, and also because it would be wrong to categorize them using und— on the grounds that these are native formations with tatsama elements in the respective languages, and not derived from Sanskrit itself. Language-specific templets are a common thing here (for example CJK languages use them a lot), so there should otherwise be no problem therewith. [‡ Note, however, that there are also compounds that are learned borrowings from attested Sanskrit compounds: in those cases, the surface analysis could still be written using the new templet with notext.] - ⸘ - dictātor · mundī  23:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A category of "LANG Sanskritic compounds" and a new template for better categorisation & wording would be very good indeed! I remember thinking about specific categorisation when I created गलतुंडिका but then discarded that as unnecessary. 🔥 ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ 🔥 03:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I too agree. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 01:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ 🔥 ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ 🔥 08:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * : ’Twas agreed upon that learned loans from Sanskrit would also be categorized as Sanskritic compounds (whenever application). Often you cannot tell if the NIA Sanskritic compound in question was in fact from Neo-Sanskrit or Contemporary Sanskrit. And even for learned loans from Classical Sanskrit, the native speaker of a particular NIA language sees them as Sanskritic compounds— and this is especially true for heavily Sanskritised languages such as Bengali and Malayalam. Therefor please do not uncategorize such entries. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  20:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * --SodhakSH (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the last part of my May statement above. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  10:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A compromise can definitely be reached between both your stances here. While it certainly is true that determining the direction of the etymology becomes really difficult in the case of words found commonly in in NIA languages AND New Sanskrit, thus justifying the usage of "Sanskritic compound" even for terms attested in "Sanskrit", this label should not be used for terms borrowed from Classical Sanskrit. This is because it can be ascertained that the whole term entered NIA via borrowing and the fact that NIA speakers see such terms as them as Sanskritic compounds reflect the speakers' etymological awareness and nothing more. The speaker is aware of how these compounds break into components that carry a meaning, but know that such terms are compounds coined in Sanskrit. On the other hand, is a good example of a Sanskritic compound. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  03:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a good rule of thumb to not consider learned loans from Classical Sanskrit as Sanskritic compounds in NIA languages. However, this would also imply that the same category of learned borrowings should also not be treated as compounds through surface analysis (which is commonly done). The only difference would be that these would be categorized as compounds instead of Sanskritic compounds. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  21:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  10:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, personally, I always interpreted the phrase "Synchronically analysable" in an etymology to imply that were the term not inherited/borrowed as a whole, it could still hypothetically be formed by compounding the constituent components. For instance, Indo-Aryan aṣṭamá could be aṣṭá- + -ma or it could be inherited from Indo-Iranian *aštamá; thus, it would be appropriate to write that the term is synchronically analysable as so and so. Now Sanskritic compound could of course mean the same thing but I just thought it would be preferable to reserve the label of Sanskritic compounds for terms that don't have a Sanskrit etymon and instead were formed by compounding terms borrowed from Sanskrit. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 04:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would it be then okay to not synchronically analyze tatsamas in our etymologies? I am really convinced with the idea that sa-com should be used only for native formations. has used the wording ‘equivalent to’ for many Hindi tatsamas, but I would welcome a change in our practice.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  13:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, we can avoid synchronic analysis from tatsamas. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 00:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Why? Surface analysis does really no harm. And in Hindi they are often given so. For example as a bahuvrihi compound in (referring to Shiva) is one of the most common examples;  is attested. It is given as ; it is analysed on the surface as 🇰🇲. Hence “equivalent to [...]”, “surface analysis [...]”, “synchronically analysable as [...]” should stay. —Svārtava2 • 04:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're confusing etymological awareness on the part of the lexicographer/speaker with synchronic derivation of a particular term. That नीलकण्ठ is explained as "नील है जिसका कंठ" is comparable to an English definition of the term  which looks like a definition Monier-Williams would write. That does not mean one can argue for the synchronic derivation of a term. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The solution to the dispute is easy. For tatsama entries, we can state the components, if attested in the language concerned, in the Related terms section, as I did at হিমাচল.
 * , try to assume good faith. I was reverting your disruptive edits because you did not have the courtesy to heed consensus. This is not the first time I asked you to refrain from editwarring regardless of whether you are right or wrong. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  12:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bhagadatta Yeah ok but i'm of the opinion that even if there is no chance of synchronic derivation it does no good to not categorise it as a compound. Such terms would be expected to be in Cat:Hindi compound words. “Surface analysis [...]” in my opinion is nothing wrong. Could we wait to take such a decision to not categorise tatsamas as compounds or so until other editors could step in? One more thing: this would affect a lot of prefix and suffix cats as well. I for one find cats like Cat:Hindi words prefixed with प्रति- etc. quite useful for readers. I wouldn't want a terms like प्रसिद्धि removed from it. Svārtava2 • 13:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyways, may I ask what is the problem with surface analysis? Svārtava2 • 13:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī this doesn't have any consensus as such currently. You shouldn't go removing surface analysis of tatsamas Svārtava2 • 09:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī You are knowingly ignoring objection to this. And then you pretend as if this has consensus Svārtava2 • 09:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī Very bad, you seem uninterested in discussing and cooperating Svārtava2 • 09:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * seems too busy to reply, but you should consider the fact that he used to surface-analyse terms like this. Pinging —Svārtava2 • 10:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī I do not want any war. Pls be peaceful and don't do this until there is consensus Svārtava2 • 10:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why this is an either-or situation. Linguistically, both diachronic and synchronic analyses are valid depending on the perspective you are analysing the language. Having both is beneficial to readers, as svartava says, since one can easily find e.g. all words prefixed with प्रति- in Hindi. Having both analysis is good, standardising the wording might be nice. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 18:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming here. For tatsamas, synchronic analysis looks artificial: some or all of the components may not be naturalised, thus defeating the very purpose of surface analysis. Treating tatsamas as compounds would be fallacious, so using com for them would be a misuse of the template. Regarding the readers’ aspect, I would say the solution is to categorize the entry with CAT:LANG terms prefixed/suffixed with XYZ, and to list the tatsama components (if attested in the modern language) in the Related terms section. The reader can see the actual etymology in the Sanskrit entry itself, rather than having to see an unrealistic etymology. For the same reason, I also believe tatsamas should not be categorized by their Sanskrit root, as we are not a database site— we categorize things as long as the categorization is linguistically meaningful. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  19:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī:  How? It's not unrealistic but that's how it is analysed in Hindi grammar etc. works. Your solution is too tedious Svārtava2 • 02:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I already said we should avoid the surface analysis of tatsamas; and instead show the tatsama components in the Related terms section. On Wiktionary, we do not follow what traditional grammarians do— because they erroneously treat the whole of the Indo-Aryan family as one language, with the tatsamas being considered by them to be the correct form of a ‘pure’ modern IA language, so no wonder they have no hesitation to do an artificial surface analysis. Note that AryamanA had created many Hindi tatsama entries at a time when the Sanskrit entries themselves were nonexistent; so in the past that might have made a little sense, however now it makes no sense when we have the Sanskrit entries. Yet another problem with the surface analysis of tatsamas is that the tatsamas are getting wrongly categorized as compounds; and there is no need to show the components when we have the etymology for the Sanskrit. By the way, if you are really interested in the discussion, you should make sure your ping works. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  10:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * According to me it makes sense to put such terms into categories as compounds. For example even English backbone us put into the category. @Inqilābī if you're really interested in the discussion then you should follow it. I can not tell if a ping didn't work. Svartava2 (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think that the synchronic analysis of (which is an inherited term) justifies the same treatment for tatsamas, that suggests you are ignorant about linguistics. Read my above comment once more, if that helps. By the way, nice to see you have learnt how to ping someone.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  15:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī manbote. And keep your sarcastic comment out of this page. Svartava2 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s a shame I did not completely fix that entry when I edited it last time . But anyway, your idea is totally wrong. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  15:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī There are actually many languages doing so: Yesus Kristus, homologue, etc. Also pinging Svartava2 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Surface analysis is valid for the examples you showed. But for a tatsama or a learned loan from OE, surface analysis is not possible, given that the loan happens to be from an ancestor language. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  16:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī Why is it not possible? Not convinced by your rationale. Svartava2 (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We are back to the same argument again and again. Surface analysis is not possible for terms that are not naturalised; and a tatsama is just a tatsama and cannot be a compound. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  04:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī: and  aren't naturalised either, but they make, an anatomy coinage. We don't agree on this, hence it would be better if you avoid that for Bengali and let me do it for Hindi. Svartava2 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sanskritic formations in modern languages are composed of non-naturalised terms; we were dealing with tatsamas. The former are native formations, and latter are nothing beyond what they are called. You have not shown a single argument why your idea has to be accepted; hence my solution should be adhered to (at least until other editors have some convincing argument against it). ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  04:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

you are trying to dictate. I think it is helpful to put these into compound cats even if these are by no chance native formations. See for example in terms are given below their first component, implying the 2 terms from which is is formed, not completely separately in another entry. Svartava2 (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * McGregor was a philologist and lexicographer, not a historical linguist (like Chatterji or Turner). Also, that lexicographical treatment as you stated (‘not completely separately in another entry’) is done for convenience: it’s tiresome to look up the Monier-Williams dictionary to check if the term existed in Classical/Late Sanskrit. As Bhagadatta said above, we may treat New Sanskrit terms as Sanskritic formations, if necessary. On Wiktionary, we should not be careless like traditional lexicographers. We are not a database site, and our categorization has to be legitimate. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  21:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī If tatsamas derive from Sanskrit compounds, when the components in Hindi are attested, how does it make the compound categorisation illegitimate? Svartava2 (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If is a compound, then so is . Categorization of tatsamas is illegitimate inasmuch as the compound was formed in Sanskrit, and the Sanskrit term was merely loaned into a modern language as a learned word (even naturalised tatsama words were originally learned words, by the way). Even if you are talking of naturalised tatsamas, these have a pronunciation that is much diverging, according to the phonology of the modern language:  is really himālaʼe /ɦɪmɑːlɛ/, even tho’ you attempted to ignore it. So both non-naturalised and naturalised tatsamas cannot be given a treatment of synchronic analysis.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  12:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī: First o' all, upādhyāya isn't a compound, it has the prefix upa-. I already pointed out that categorisation by prefix/suffix/interfix is useful. Next, it is wrong to categorise ojhā by the prefix upa- and adhyāya because we know for sure it would result in upādhyāya; if o- and jhā would exist then no problem in categorisation by them. Per : “[l]inguistically, both diachronic and synchronic analyses are valid”. Re: “[c]ategorization of tatsamas is illegitimate inasmuch as the compound was formed in Sanskrit, and the Sanskrit term was merely loaned ”: I'm not doubting that the word is a borrowing and is not formed in Hindi; but on the surface it can be explained/analysed as A + B (and hence categorisation is legitimate) if the components are attested. Svartava2 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See also WT:ETY: “Analyses of surface forms are of value, but do not replace and should not be confused with an account of historical development. For example, the entry for astrology should not read “From astro- + -logy”, but should instead read “From Latin astrologia (“astronomy”), …. Surface analysis astro- + -logy.” Svartava2 (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Affixes are nothing but morphemes formed literally by adding a hyphen to a word. I still regard as a compound.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  14:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This discussion was initially about sa-af. Isn't this template to indicate that there is no corresponding Classical Sanskrit term for a term with Sanskritic elements?

However, this discussion has changed into one about whether the synchronic analysis should be mentioned in etymology sections. At, it says synchrony and diachrony are complementary viewpoints in linguistic analysis. So, as AryamanA said, text. Users of a language are frequently not aware of the history of words that they use, so when they analyse words the synchronic analysis may be the only possible analysis.

The issue that is often pointed out with synchronic analyses that is that they may be misleading, controversial or incorrect. For example, since सौराष्ट्र could be decomposed as सौ + राष्ट्र, this could lead to the understanding that Saurashtra means hundred kingdoms instead of being the vriddhi form of सु- + राष्ट्र. Another potential issue could be that the morphemes used in the decomposition are unproductive such as अभि- and बहु-. Even if such decompositions are misleading, they are still of value according to WT:ETY. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Surface analysis is not possible if the etymon happens to be the ancestor of the modern language. astrology is equivalent to astro- + -logy because Graeco-Latin is not the ancestor of English. Hence the surface analysis of tatsamas or English learned loans from Anglo-Saxon is illegitimate. As already said above, we could show the attested tatsama components in the Related terms section, instead; and manually add categories if categorization by affix really seems worthwhile. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  14:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Surface analysis is not possible if the etymon happens to be the ancestor of the modern language" I would really want to see from where this is; where is this rule documented and where is it formally approved? I debate the legitimacy of this because IF, for example, we take OIA or PIA as the ancestor of IA$^{[ by no chance supporting/proposing it ]}$ (including Hindi and Bengali), then by the same above statement, surface analysis would become legitimate. We should definitely avoid misleading, controversial or incorrect surface analysis, but not the ones 100% correct (like हिमालय, गर्भधारण, and countless others). Also, bahu- and abhi- are productive — see अभियोजक, बहुमंज़िला. Svartava2 (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When I say ‘ancestor’, you should note that Sanskrit is an OIA dialect, so my point stands. Even Modern Standard English is not descended from the standard Old English dialect (West Saxon), for that matter. Synchronic analysis of tatsamas do not look productive; looking at your examples: हिमालय is a Classical Sanskrit formation meaning ‘snow-abode’ and figuratively refers to the Himalayas, thus a synchronic analysis of the tatsama is illegitimate; further, it’s really /ɦɪmɑːlɛ/ and hardly seen as a compound. On the other hand कार्यालय is really ‘workstead’— and irrespective of whether it’s used in New Sanskrit, surface analysis is fitting for this term (it could just be a native formation, anyway). गर्भधारण likewise is nothing beyond a tatsama, because धारण is not productive in forming compounds in modern languages, at least for the sense under consideration (’womb-bearing’). The affixes abhi-, bahu- are productive only in native formations, of course. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  20:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī why does synchronic analysis of tatsamas do not look productive? How does हिमालय being a Classical Sanskrit formation literally meaning ‘snow-abode’ make surface analysis for Hindi illegitimate? I have never heard anyone say /ɦɪmɑːlɛ/, but only /ɦɪmɑːləj/. Also धारण करना is quite common phrase, so you can't say that धारण is unproductive. Svartava2 (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the Hindi does not (literally) mean ‘snow-abode’, unlike, say, कार्यालय. is just a learned loan from Sanskrit meaning ‘Himalayas’, and a surface analysis is impossible. The whole idea of the surface analysis of tatsamas is controversial, we should definitely avoid them.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  18:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)