![]() | Sanskrit nouns received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Kindly record your observations here.
106.51.22.25 ( talk) 22:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) I'm in India and have any number of Sanskrit grammar books and none use these non-standard diacritic marks like long "a" with and an added accent "ā́." This doesn't bring clarity but rather confusion. It is definitely not standard. Please revert to standard diacritics or better yet use Devanagari lipi along with latin lipi. 49.207.49.59 ( talk) 20:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand that Sanskrit is often written without the Pitch accent if focusing specifically on Classical Sanskrit, and I appreciate your desires to have clarity. However, pitch accent is a very important part of Sanskrit pronunciation in its Vedic stage. The only reason to not include these if if one were focusing very specifically on later Sanskrit. I don't see how keeping an important part of Sanskrit is confusing or would obstruct this article's ability to be informative. In regards to using Devanāgarī,
Jackpaulryan ( talk) 23:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not lazy, I just have no time at the moment to learn the formatting, so this is a call out to anyone and especially myself to put in the correct masculine paradigm someday. Amilah ( talk) 19:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oughtn't the nominative singular kāmas be kāma? Also, nom. sing. agnis be agni?
IOHANNVSVERVS (
talk)
02:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The s in the nominative (kāmas agnis, krishnas) is Vedic Sanskrit. Classical Sanskrit uses the visarga ḥ. In which case the masc. sing. nom. is kāmaḥ, agniḥ, krishnaḥ, etc. - Jainarayan 3/27/18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.161.221 ( talk) 21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has made a change without giving any authority. I do not want to engage in edit warring, so I just cite here Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar, 2nd edition (1889), 14th issue Harvard UP ISBN 0-674-78810-9 Chapter IV section 266a page 268: "The order in which they are here mentioned is that established for them by the Hindu grammarians, and accepted from these by Western scholars. The Hindu names of the cases are founded on this order: the nominative is called prathamā first, the accusative dvitīyā second, the genitive ṣaṣṭhī sixth (sc. vibhakti division, i.e. case), etc. The object sought in the arrangement is simply to set next to one another those cases which are to a greater or less extent, in one or another number, identical in form; and, putting the nominative first, as leading case, there is no other order by which that object could be attained. The vocative is not considered and named by the native grammarians as a case like the rest; in this work, it will be given in the singular (where alone it is ever distinguished from the nominative otherwise than by accent) at the end of the series of cases." Whitney does not here give all of the names of the cases. The other cases have the names: instrumental triya third, dative caturhti fourth, ablative pancami fifth, locative saptami seventh. TomS TDotO ( talk) 20:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The title says it all. After working on the Sanskrit grammar, Sanskrit nouns and related pages lately, I propose:
Rationale:
Please let me know any comments. I stand ready to make these changes in line with standard procedure.
Many thanks, Dyḗwsuh₃nus ( talk) 22:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Sanskrit nouns received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Kindly record your observations here.
106.51.22.25 ( talk) 22:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) I'm in India and have any number of Sanskrit grammar books and none use these non-standard diacritic marks like long "a" with and an added accent "ā́." This doesn't bring clarity but rather confusion. It is definitely not standard. Please revert to standard diacritics or better yet use Devanagari lipi along with latin lipi. 49.207.49.59 ( talk) 20:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand that Sanskrit is often written without the Pitch accent if focusing specifically on Classical Sanskrit, and I appreciate your desires to have clarity. However, pitch accent is a very important part of Sanskrit pronunciation in its Vedic stage. The only reason to not include these if if one were focusing very specifically on later Sanskrit. I don't see how keeping an important part of Sanskrit is confusing or would obstruct this article's ability to be informative. In regards to using Devanāgarī,
Jackpaulryan ( talk) 23:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not lazy, I just have no time at the moment to learn the formatting, so this is a call out to anyone and especially myself to put in the correct masculine paradigm someday. Amilah ( talk) 19:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oughtn't the nominative singular kāmas be kāma? Also, nom. sing. agnis be agni?
IOHANNVSVERVS (
talk)
02:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The s in the nominative (kāmas agnis, krishnas) is Vedic Sanskrit. Classical Sanskrit uses the visarga ḥ. In which case the masc. sing. nom. is kāmaḥ, agniḥ, krishnaḥ, etc. - Jainarayan 3/27/18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.161.221 ( talk) 21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has made a change without giving any authority. I do not want to engage in edit warring, so I just cite here Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar, 2nd edition (1889), 14th issue Harvard UP ISBN 0-674-78810-9 Chapter IV section 266a page 268: "The order in which they are here mentioned is that established for them by the Hindu grammarians, and accepted from these by Western scholars. The Hindu names of the cases are founded on this order: the nominative is called prathamā first, the accusative dvitīyā second, the genitive ṣaṣṭhī sixth (sc. vibhakti division, i.e. case), etc. The object sought in the arrangement is simply to set next to one another those cases which are to a greater or less extent, in one or another number, identical in form; and, putting the nominative first, as leading case, there is no other order by which that object could be attained. The vocative is not considered and named by the native grammarians as a case like the rest; in this work, it will be given in the singular (where alone it is ever distinguished from the nominative otherwise than by accent) at the end of the series of cases." Whitney does not here give all of the names of the cases. The other cases have the names: instrumental triya third, dative caturhti fourth, ablative pancami fifth, locative saptami seventh. TomS TDotO ( talk) 20:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The title says it all. After working on the Sanskrit grammar, Sanskrit nouns and related pages lately, I propose:
Rationale:
Please let me know any comments. I stand ready to make these changes in line with standard procedure.
Many thanks, Dyḗwsuh₃nus ( talk) 22:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)