Talk:paccuppanna

Etymology
Discussed at Etymology_scriptorium/2020/August. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Productivity of pacc-
What is the evidence for "pacc-" functioning as a productive suffix? It is akin to creating an entry for and claiming that this suffix just happened to be attached to those words starting with a, e, o or u. That entry should be deleted (but it is for another discussion). Also the primary Pali reflex of Sanskrit prati is paṭi - this form, with the retroflex, is even more unlikely to synchronically give rise to "pacc-". Also pinging:. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬) 11:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you look at, you will see it described as an alternative form of and .  For livish alternation, you'll find at least the aorists  and  of  and .  The augment doesn't seem very common after prefixes.  However, if  was dead, I would expect  and  to also be dead.  If we keep the latter two, we ought to keep.
 * Note that these two verbs are preserved with the retroflex prefix. Does anyone know a rule for choosing between  and ?  The suggestions I've seen for the twofold development imply L1 interference.  Retroflexion in this environment appears to be a minority development.  The allomorphy may well have been learned, like the choice between 'a' and 'an' in English, which I do remember being taught by a workbook in primary school.  Remember that the alternation was kept active by the augment in verbal inflection. --RichardW57m (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Norman's additions to Geiger §55, not only retroflex nasals but retroflex oral stops may affricate with . We actually have a 3-way development (affrication/assimilation/epenthesis) as with nasals:
 * From vikuraṇḍa we get *vaikuraṇḍya which then yields.
 * From we get both  and, unmentioned by Norman,.
 * Thus could quite well have given rise to.
 * I also found a remarkable double of, namely . I'm not sure where the vowel lengthening comes from - it might be part of the cluster resolution, though it's the opposite to the resolution of -ry- and Geiger has a different suggestion.
 * Geiger §42 gives a neat partial explanation of v. .  A following retroflex consonant forces the use of the dental in the prefix. --RichardW57 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @RichardW57 or @RichardW57m But we don't give words like as praty- + eka but rather prati + eka. It is similarly reasonable for Pali as well. IMO pacc- should at best be mentioned in usage notes of the main entry instead of a separate entry. Svartava (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are two Latin precedents -, which is a term, but words containing in it are analysed as containing , though for English, words visibly containing are categorised as containing it and not.
 * The opposite approach is taken with, which was originally a highly predictable allomorph of . Words with the former are analysed as containing it.
 * If you are proposing using only one of and  in (surface) etymologies, then  can likewise be removed from them.  Either way, the three remain as terms.  I've just demoted  and  to prefix forms.   is also a non-lemma. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)