User talk:Cyrohdn3

Welcome Message
-- Apisite (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

நன்றி!
Thanks for improving காட்டெருது Sriveenkat (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You’re welcome! Cyrohdn3 (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Tulu pronunciations
Hi, tcy-IPA only works with Kannada script. If you use it on Tulu entries written in Malayalam script, you need to add the Kannada spelling as the first parameter, e.g. ಓಡ at. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks @Mahagaja, but I think now there is the tcy-ml-IPA template instead. Cyrohdn3 (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll keep that in mind if I find any others. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

कर्ष is not the source of Dravidian words meaning "money"
You recently made where you claimed that Sanskrit कर्ष is the source of various Dravidian words meaning "money", e.g. கோஸ் and ಕಾಸು. You also made various edits to the etymology sections of the pages for the Dravidian words themselves, making the same claim. All the sources I have consulted derive the etymology of these words to Proto-Dravidian; here is the relevant DEDR entry. I have reverted your edits, since they were unsourced and contradict the sources I have seen, but if you have sources arguing in favor of your view, please provide them here. Also, in the future, please avoid making unsourced edits to Wiktionary. Thank you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, the etymology was originally added by @Gotitbro on the Tamil entry and I added them elsewhere on other entry- I remember vaguely that there was some sort of source for their etymology but it wasn’t very reliable. Cyrohdn3 (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It was sourced to Collins and Webster (for "cash", a coin formerly used in south India) which ultimately sourced the term to Sanskrit via Tamil.
 * The Burrow/DEDR reference given above also compares the Dravidian term to Sanskrit. The Sanskrit term itself came to be used for the cash coins (as in Hindi) from the earlier usage for weight units. Whether the Dravidian term was borrowed or perhaps reinforced by the Sanskrit term, is upto sources and which I leave to better judgment.
 * Though note, DEDR itself states in its intro: "The dictionary does not contain proto-Dravidian (PDr) reconstructions." So a suggestion of PDr derivation is not made. Gotitbro (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The dictionary lacking reconstructions is not the same thing as the dictionary containing loanwords. The frontmatter is quite explicit on avoid[ing] inclusion in the dictionary of words that were certainly borrowed by Dravidian languages from IA languages, whether Sanskrit, Middle Indo-Aryan, or the modern IA vernaculars, and in fact, they explicitly made another book for this purpose (Dravidian Borrowings from Indo-Aryan (1962)), again all of this is mentioned in the front matter. There is a very small number of exceptions to this rule, which are marked as such with the comment "< Skt." followed by the Sanskrit term, which were kept on account of it seem[ing] possible that the words were really Dravidian (e.g. group 5339), or when, as in the case of the words for 'king', It was Jules Bloch who with Gallic clarity said of etymologies: 'either they are selfevident, or they are a matter of probability and to a certain extent, of faith' (BSOS 5. 743 (1928-30)). He was speaking of borrowings from Dravidian into IA, but the dictum is true (though perhaps over-simple) for all etymologies. group 201, the borrowing from Sanskrit is so old and so thoroughly naturalized that the words seem tantalizingly Dravidian-like.
 * This word is not one of that small handful. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * DEDR is only for listing cognates and they may or may not be loanwords. But yes, in this case these words are clearly native and (if) can only be reconstructed back to Proto-South Dravidian I. Illustrious Lock (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Illustrious Lock if you read the DEDR front matter, you will see that they do not intentionally include words which are loanwords. Accidents may exist, but the intention of the dictionary is only to include forms inherited directly from Proto-Dravidian; even forms borrowed from another Dravidian language are excluded, even if they ultimately trace back to PDr. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some are intentional loanwords. Just search for Skt. or CDIAl and you will find many. Illustrious Lock (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Illustrious Lock You should read the front matter more thoroughly, or refer to my recent comment above in reply to Cyrohdn3. There are a very, very small number of entries which are probable loans but they are indicated as such e.g. with "< Skt." followed by the original Sanskrit form. All of these entries were actually originally mistakes in the first edition (the DED); most such mistakes were purged when the DEDR was printed but a very small few were kept, most of which have contentious etymologies, with a note on their Sanskrit origins. Without such a note, the presumption is a Dravidian origin. (The total number of such mistakes was initially 61; of these, they don't say how many were retained in the DEDR, but it can be no more than 61, of course, which is negligibly small.)
 * The entries that reference CDIAL refer to borrowings in the other direction: On the other hand, it has seemed useful to include all items which involve a possibility or probability that similarities between Dravidian and IA material indicate borrowing from Dravidian into IA.
 * If you look at the Appendix starting on page 509 (technically, the title is at the bottom of page 507, but 508 is blank), you can see the list of mistakes (i.e. the loanwords) from previous editions. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A few entries are there without any <Skt. or CDIAL references. Example: DEDR 621 (from some Prakrit) and DEDR 5471 (from Skt वेशन्त again through some Prakrit). DEDR also seems to include loanwords, which are similar in word structures among Dravidian languages but different in the language from which they were borrowed. Illustrious Lock (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"Minor" changes
Hi! First of all thank you for your useful contributions. :) As a little word of advice, I wanted to clarify about what counts as a minor edit, we have a concise explaination at Help:Minor edit. Not a big deal but it's a good habit to get this right. cya! Catonif (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I see, thank you for your recognition and the advice; I've read the info page and I see now - I would just mark certain edits that didn't completely change the page as minor before. Thanks! @Catonif Cyrohdn3 (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)