Talk:परिणीत

Etymology (also applies to the etymologies of many other entries)

 * What's your preference for the etymology of this word - sa, sa or sa ? At , you changed confix to prefix and I reverted it , for the same reason above. For categorisation by root, I prefer to do so for both roots - परिणी and नी. I'd like to know what you think. 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 07:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sanskrit roots are generally a single syllable. Ones that are more than a syllable and especially ones with prefixes like these (परि, सम्, उद्, प्र etc) are always constructed backwards from the verbs and nouns. No Sanskrit grammarian will tell you that is a true root; it is constructed in order to accommodate the derivations which have the prefix सम् attached. I mean of course for that matter one can also say that every Sanskrit root is back formed from verbs and asjectives but at least there is an actual need for constructing the regular Sanskrit roots unlike ones like these where it can be effectively explained as सम् + लग्न. You can of course mention the compounded root in the etymology but please don't make it a primary derivation. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  03:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bhagadatta Thanks for explaining. Is a category like Category:Sanskrit terms belonging to the root संलग् fine, which contains संलग्न and keeping संलग्न as a derived term in संलग्? 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 03:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It'd also have to be shown as a derived term of लग्न. It's gotta work both ways. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 11:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is a category like Category:Sanskrit terms belonging to the root संलग् fine? Now after this explanation of yours, I think this style of etymology is better -  - we'll not categorise by suffix, but by both the roots - लग् and संलग् - by sa. It'll be optional to add text (while linking the prefix and the root individually). Do you agree? 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 12:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, go for it. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 15:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)