Talk:पंछी

Etymology
According to R:hi:McGregor, this is 'adapted from' or 'adaptation of' Sanskrit, which is another way of saying 'semilearned borrowing'. The Old Hindi form is, in R:inc-ohi:Kabir. Regarding ष it says:
 * [There is] group of tatsamas and semi-tatsamas consists of words in which the written retroflex ṣa stands for the original consonant cluster ... kṣa: Thus for the Sanskrit...वृष we see बिरष or बृष.

Kutchkutch (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. If I were to analyse it, I would posit as inherited from a Prakrit ; the palatal parallel of the attested, and then explain the Old Hindi form(s) as hypercorrection(s). But in the event of a disagreement with a published source and a wiktionary editor, it is always safer to assume that the source is right. Should   be included? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  14:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the etymology in R:hi:McGregor is to be used, then it follows that text. Also, the transliteration of पंषि / पंषी is given as pãṣi / pãṣī in R:inc-ohi:Kabir. Kutchkutch (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It does seem quite likely that this word is inherited rather than being a semi-borrowing as mentioned in R:hi:McGregor. A couple of sources actually support that:, . Likewise, the word being arrived at by inheritance is also perfectly plausible. Should we actually restore the etymology stating it is inherited? —Svārtava (talk) • 11:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I have also found a few attestations of the term पच्छिओ. I'm still trying to figure out its meaning, to see if it actually is the nom. sg. of पच्छिअ. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 06:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)