Talk:बछड़ा

ŕ What do you think about a template that can be used to denote + categorize nominal suffixes that were added to words across NIA languages? In this case, between MIA and Hindi a -ḍa was added to the bare noun, probably to disambiguate from other words that collapsed into bacch(ā) in Hindi. Also note Turner lists these suffixations under "ext.". We haven't really standardized this before but it would be nice I think. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 03:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the behaviour should be like:
 * From, from.
 * From +, from.
 * With a category CAT:Hindi terms extended with Indo-Aryan -ḍa-. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 03:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea. In this specific case the extension applies also to Dardic and I had a hard time deciding how to show that on the descendants list of . I then ended up putting Dardic under Ashokan Prakrit. With a template like this, it'll be easier to define the etymology! -- Bhagadatta (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll make it. I think we can stick with inheritance for words with extensions then, since these were just added to disambiguate without changing meaning significantly (sort of like how was already functioning in Sanskrit). —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 04:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Standardising this phenomenon and having corresponding categories is an excellent idea. Like Bhagadatta, I've encountered difficulties when trying to do etymologies that involve this phenomenon because there has been no standardised treatment yet. However, it requires some additional considerations about the phenomenon itself and how to show it.
 * First, there are various names for the phenomenon. While Turner uses extension, pleonastic affix is another term that used.
 * Extension emphasises the function (e.g. -𑀟- (-ḍa-) extends/stretches/enlarges the stem).
 * Pleonastic affix attempts to define the phenomenon (e.g. -𑀟- (-ḍa-) is an affix with little or no meaning).
 * Second, the Sanskrit phenomenon that started with affixes such as -क became so productive that there are at least 50 of these MIA affixes discussed in pages 180-187 of . The coverage of these MIA affixes so far on en.wiki only scratches the surface. Since is merely an introduction to the phenomenon, it doesn't even reach the -𑀟- (-ḍa-) of  or . Here a few other instances that may need :
 * (from ):
 * Are Gujarati forms related to this phenomenon?
 * Category:Gujarati words suffixed with -ડી
 * See and 🇨🇬,, , , ,  , , , ,
 * Note how there are two of these affixes in and . Also observe the, ,  and  affixes.
 * "Adding the affixes to disambiguate without changing meaning" is perhaps one of the reasons why this phenomenon occurs.
 * Third, in terms of showing the phenomenon and using the template :
 * How would two or more of these affixes be shown with the template: like this ?
 * For the example you've provided, would automatically display  or  and convert it to -ḍa- in the category name?
 * Would etymology trees show:
 * dashes or no dashes ?
 * a link or no link *𑀓𑀢-𑀇𑀮𑁆𑀮-𑀓?
 * Would these affixes have their own entries? Kutchkutch (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the entry does not exist, then I would not link it in the descendants, but I'd list it there by putting it in the fourth parameter (the parameter where you put the alt text) of desc, leaving the third empty, like inc-ash, which produces . If and when the entry is made (without hyphens), the alt text can be kept intact and the actual word without the hyphens can be entered in the third parameter and this will produce a link while at the same time showing morphological boundaries. Like inc-ash which would produce and link to kataillaka.
 * As for multiple extensions, I believe the template can be so coded as to accommodate a fourth or even a fifth parameter to deal with words with multiple extensions. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made the template at . Let me know if there should be any changes! I'm going to start putting it in entries as I can. And thank you Kutchkutch for the very good overview, it was very useful! Gujarati forms are definitely a more productive development that arose from these. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 17:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making these things clearer.
 * Thanks for making the module and template! Perhaps a parameter might be helpful to mention the phenomenon in passing rather than declaring it to be the etymology.
 * Since 🇨🇬 doesn't seem to be as productive as Gujarati, could be used to derive 🇨🇬 from  (but the Old Marathi term is , ). It's hard to see how 🇨🇬 became  in the later stages of IA. For example, the Sanskrit feminine of  is , and the Marathi and Konkani words are .  would be normally be from  rather than . However, in this instance, CDIAL says saṁkala -- m.n. was affixed with:
 * ˚lā (< )
 * ˚lī (< )
 * ˚liā (< ).
 * So, ignoring the aspiration, +  →  seems to be a way to explain this.
 * If entries were to be made for these extensions, and they are not seen in Ashokan Prakrit would they be reconstructed? doesn't distinguish between attested and unattested extensions. Kutchkutch (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * dashes or no dashes ?
 * a link or no link *𑀓𑀢-𑀇𑀮𑁆𑀮-𑀓?
 * Would these affixes have their own entries? Kutchkutch (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the entry does not exist, then I would not link it in the descendants, but I'd list it there by putting it in the fourth parameter (the parameter where you put the alt text) of desc, leaving the third empty, like inc-ash, which produces . If and when the entry is made (without hyphens), the alt text can be kept intact and the actual word without the hyphens can be entered in the third parameter and this will produce a link while at the same time showing morphological boundaries. Like inc-ash which would produce and link to kataillaka.
 * As for multiple extensions, I believe the template can be so coded as to accommodate a fourth or even a fifth parameter to deal with words with multiple extensions. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made the template at . Let me know if there should be any changes! I'm going to start putting it in entries as I can. And thank you Kutchkutch for the very good overview, it was very useful! Gujarati forms are definitely a more productive development that arose from these. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 17:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making these things clearer.
 * Thanks for making the module and template! Perhaps a parameter might be helpful to mention the phenomenon in passing rather than declaring it to be the etymology.
 * Since 🇨🇬 doesn't seem to be as productive as Gujarati, could be used to derive 🇨🇬 from  (but the Old Marathi term is , ). It's hard to see how 🇨🇬 became  in the later stages of IA. For example, the Sanskrit feminine of  is , and the Marathi and Konkani words are .  would be normally be from  rather than . However, in this instance, CDIAL says saṁkala -- m.n. was affixed with:
 * ˚lā (< )
 * ˚lī (< )
 * ˚liā (< ).
 * So, ignoring the aspiration, +  →  seems to be a way to explain this.
 * If entries were to be made for these extensions, and they are not seen in Ashokan Prakrit would they be reconstructed? doesn't distinguish between attested and unattested extensions. Kutchkutch (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)