Talk:वृत्रघ्ने

Retroflexion
Hello. I suppose the module has retroflexed the to  to agree with the  in  (thus yielding ). But the correct nom sg form is in fact Vṛtraghnás, ie, without the retroflexion. Is there any way to deal with this other than entering the older declension template format (thus losing out on pitch accents and other info) or entering all 24 forms manually? -- Bhagadatta (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding. This case is an interesting one since there should be retroflexion according to the standard rules, but it is blocked in this case by the fact that the r is in a different member of the compound from the n. The best way would be to add an override command to prevent retroflexion, but that would be very annoying and fiddly. Since these exception are infrequent, it might make sense to just use this template but override all the forms manually. What do you think? —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 06:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree; these cases are few and far between and thus do not warrant another set of instructions to be coded into the module. Thank you for the pains you took by manually entering the forms to ensure accuracy! -- Bhagadatta (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

वृत्रघ्न vs. वृत्रहन्
, Are you certain that your quotation is correct and वृत्रघ्न is attested in Sanskrit? According to Monier Williams, the Sanskrit term is वृत्रहन् (fem. वृत्रघ्नी) and he doesn’t mention वृत्रघ्न. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The cite is totally correct as the Rig Veda has no variant readings and there are instances where MW has missed a word, for instance and  and these words are mentioned by other Sanskritists and Indo-Europeanists. But in this case it appears you are right. I interpreted  as the nom. sg of the masc. a-stem but I was mistaken. वृत्रघ्नः is supposed to be interpreted as the genitive & ablative of वृत्रहन्. And the term for this quotation is actually, which, because of the following word  beginning with an  sound, dropped its own  sound and became . The Indo-Iranian entry has also been reconstructed in some books and also formally matches Avestan so it can stay. I'll move this entry. -- Bhagadatta(talk)  04:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)