User talk:Svartava
Archives
I request you to please check the मस्तक page and reason why the Prakrit word above in the heading is derived from it, not मस्त. Also, don't you see that the word your defending as the etymon (मस्त) is actually from Persian and has a very different meaning, and do you think Prakrit (~500 BC) or its lexicon is from New Persian (700 AD - present)? Let me remind you that even the creator of the page for this Prakrit word wrote the exact thing I wrote in the etymology, and please check the reference also because even confirms my edit. Perhaps you are thinking that "मस्त" is a variant of "मस्तक", and that is correct, but the linked page is not with that Sanskrit word, so one way or another, you have to agree with the fact that the word is ultimately from "मस्तक".
If you still disagree after all that, then write "ultimately from Sanskrit मस्तक" so that the etymology remains true and perhaps you remain satisfied. 103.101.199.241 15:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- You are relying on another page for the etymological information. The page मस्त lacks a Sanskrit entry, that's all; Monier Williams' dictionary does list it as a synonym. And also, mattha has to be inherited from masta or else the -ka would be present as -ga, -aa / -ya or rarely -va. (For the record, CDIAL does not say that it is from मस्तक.) —Svārtava (talk) • 15:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- And for the record, it says मस्तक (mástaka) in the entry also, just not in the way you will consider to call it an etymon. But since there is no Sanskrit subheading for "मस्त", I say that even the synonym is enough. Check my last edit about जीवाश्म, where I had to mention that "अश्म" is a contraction of अश्मन्, just because there is no independent page for it, and despite my desire to just list "अश्म" as a link. Similarly, here, in order to have more choices, you need to create the subheading or article for that term and until that, मस्तक is the etymon. Thanks for your agreement and tolerance. 103.101.199.241 17:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's a bad idea to be relying on another Wiktionary entry for sourcing some information on another entry. By the way, Sanskrit मस्त (masta) has been added. —Svārtava (talk) • 07:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- No need to say "bad idea" when you have accepted my suggestion, for which I am thankful to you. Have a nice day. 103.101.199.241 10:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's a bad idea to be relying on another Wiktionary entry for sourcing some information on another entry. By the way, Sanskrit मस्त (masta) has been added. —Svārtava (talk) • 07:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- And for the record, it says मस्तक (mástaka) in the entry also, just not in the way you will consider to call it an etymon. But since there is no Sanskrit subheading for "मस्त", I say that even the synonym is enough. Check my last edit about जीवाश्म, where I had to mention that "अश्म" is a contraction of अश्मन्, just because there is no independent page for it, and despite my desire to just list "अश्म" as a link. Similarly, here, in order to have more choices, you need to create the subheading or article for that term and until that, मस्तक is the etymon. Thanks for your agreement and tolerance. 103.101.199.241 17:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Sanskrit etymologies
Hey. A known problematic editor has been doing a number of Sanskrit-related changes in Japanese etymologies. Are the edits 1, 2, 3, 4 good? Thanks in advance. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Fytcha: Hi. The changes you linked were only edits to the transliteration - minor changes like allowing the automated transliteration instead of manual translation, etc. - they are fine. —Svārtava (talk) • 07:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
pro-shipper
I ask you respectfully to stop reveerting changes on the page that makes the term more accurate. The current page has many missing data and has inaccurate infos. Thank you. Albedon0mn0m (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Subulkheri
The answer to subulkheri is Subahalnuri/Subuhalnuri. AT 201 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)