Talk:Sanskrit compound

Simple lead?

This article could use a simple introductory lead paragraph. An encyclopedia should be understood by all, not just experts in a field of knowledge. I can't tell, for example, whether "compounds" means Sandhi rules that cobine words, groupings of devanagari consonants, or something entirely different. David Spector (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For now, I've linked "compound" — in its usual meaning in linguistics, it refers to words made up of multiple words ("lexemes" made of multiple "stems") — like "sunlight" and "redhead", or like the Sanskrit examples on the page. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exploring improvements in structure, content and eliminating content duplication

Hello, this is my first talk attempt, be gentle!

I would like to add general historical information on word-compounding, including possibly some comparative analysis, as well as its evolution within Sanskrit over the course of time. The current template doesn't seem to allow for this. Is it worth recasting the current content under a different template, perhaps just a table, allowing for other sections to be added?

Further, the content around the various the compound types have been laid out on this page as well as Sanskrit_grammar and Vedic_Sanskrit_grammar and possibly elsewhere. Could we consider having all the general content in one place, this page, and simply reference this page (just as Vedic_Sanskrit refs the Vedic_Sanskrit_grammar page from its Grammar section) from those other pages (apart from anything specific in those sections?

I'm happy to work on these based on the consensus. Many thanks. Dyḗwsuh₃nus (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation-Status Update

Hello. I've worked on adding citations for all sections treating the main and relevant compounds and their details. I intend to therefore remove the citations-needed template message presently. Dyḗwsuh₃nus (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for all the improvements you made. The only thing I am not comfortable with are the tables with examples. Not only we should not use tables for such simple tasks, since tables pose specific challenges for accessibility, but the transcription used is non-standard; the examples are not explained; and they are simply too many (one or two will suffice). — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a few mistakes IMO. Vanaspati and Brhaspati are not aluk-tatpurushas, since neither vanas nor brhas are genitive forms. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution.

The examples are based on how many seem best to elucidate each case, I've added explanation for cases where these are not obvious or self-explanatory.

Re Vanaspati & Bṛhaspati, these examples were derived from the sources I had referenced along with them. As I understand, it is possible demonstrate these formations, but to keep things simple and more verifiable, I have replaced them with possibly more conventional examples and referenced accordingly.

Many thanks - Dyḗwsuh₃nus (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to "amredita" (iterative)?

Amredita redirects here but is not mentioned in article at all. 80.235.236.18 (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your query. I've now made some changes to address this. Dyḗwsuh₃nus (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related languages also do this kind of thing

What about Pali, for instance? There is an equivalent terminology (see, e.g, https://www.digitalpalireader.online/docs/pali/compound.htm). I don’t know enough about Prakrit or perhaps Gandhari to know whether the same compounding practices exist, but this article implies that _only_ Sanskrit has compounds of this kind. babbage (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realize, by the way, that this article is explicitly about _Sanskrit_ compounds, but should we be talking about compounding in Middle Indo-Aryan, say? babbage (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Babbage for discussing this point.

Why would you say this article implies only Sanskrit does these sorts of compounding?

The introduction itself starts off by stating that this is to a good extent an inherited trait, which implies Sanskrit's daughter languages could have further inherited some of these. Furthermore, wherever possible, there are English examples which should also suggest their presence in other languages.

As you say, Middle Indo-Aryan or perhaps Prakrit could be enhanced with a discussion of compounding.

Let us know your thoughts.

Dyḗwsuh₃nus (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your response. I guess it could come down to slightly modifying the phrasing of However, Sanskrit, especially in the later stages of the language, significantly expands on this both in terms of the number of elements making up a single compound and the volume of compound-usage in the literature, a development which has no parallels elsewhere. I’ll just be bold and make what I hope are reasonable modifications to the phrasing in the intro, with the expectation that you and others may modify it further.

babbage (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]