Talk:sujjhati

What's the root?

 * You suggested that the root should be sujjh because of the verbal noun sujjhana. However, it makes more sense to see this verb as a regular class 3 derivative (just as the Sanskrit verb is a class 4 present stem, not a passive, which should not have an active form in Sanskrit) of sudh, which gives Pali the regular related forms of causative sodheti, past participle suddha, verbal noun sodhana, as well as agent noun sodhaka].  Now, I don't recall any other verbal nouns made from the present stem rather than the root, but as aorists and past participles get made from the present stem as well as the root, it doesn't totally surprise me, and I'm not sure that [[sujjhana really argues for the creation of a secondary root sujjh. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @RichardW57 what's the source for the Pali root sudh? And the "passive form" bit was an error, as I had originally stated the etymon as, but after reading Turner, I changed it but forgot to change the "passive form" pos. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 03:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, if the Vedic accent is attested (as opposed to being a reconstruction or a dittograph of the accent on the initial letter), the accent marks it as Sanskrit class 4 as opposed to passive. Your question is ambiguous. Depending on what you mean by source, there are various answers: I hope I've caught your meaning. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) If we ignore the late (Buddhaghosa) form sujjhana, the root is obviously sudh.
 * 2) If you want an authority, Warder p381 gives sudh as the root of sujjhati and the present stem formation as class 3, i.e. by addition of -ya-, which usually assimilates with the root, namely dhy > jjh in this case.
 * 3) I think we'll find the root in the traditional lists - I would expect the Pali name to be sudha.
 * 4) The origin of the root is the same as for Sanskrit śudh; I have delved no further.