Source checks[edit]

@Nakashchit: Could you please recheck the first two lines of the source. I am surprised you don't see "put together, joined, attached" there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((|Ms Sarah Welch)) I do see "put together, joined, attached" in the entry for संहित, which is the PP of संधा used as an adjective, expressed in accordance with convention in the masculine form. The article, however, is about the noun संहिता, which is formed from the feminine of संहित. In this latter entry is to be found the definition 'any methodically arranged collection of texts or verses', which is the subject matter of the article. Such a definition is not found in the entry for संहित, so it is absolutely clear that we are talking about संहिता and not संहित. I did try to make this a bit clearer in the article but it was edited out. Nakashchit

Where does the source state, "the past participle of the verbal root dha (धा) 'put'"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pardon me. This is a typing error. I meant to put that after the reference. It is not all necessary, though, so I would happy were it omitted, provided that हित is not described as a root. I only included it to humour whomever wrote in the reference to 'root' in the first instance. I generally do not try to change the content of articles other than to correct bad Sanskrit, and occasionally bad French, bad Spanish, etc. Now I think that I am bored with that article and this exchange, and I do not use a watchlist, so please feel free to correct again the errors that I had corrected and that were later reverted, or not, as you please. Nakashchit
By the way, the root is given in Monier-Williams entry for हित.
And thank you for writing with a degree of civility, which is, unfortunately, in my experience rare among contributors to Wikipedia, even those with only the sketchiest familiarity with the subject matter. This is, no doubt, why there are so few learned Sanskritists who contribute, and it is why I refrain from using my real name. As you seem to be in thick with many of them, perhaps you might wish to use your influence to correct this situation, to the great benefit, I would expect, of Sanskrit in Wikipedia.
Finally, on another matter, saptasindhu is not a dwigu. It is two words in the Vedas, as is evident from the declension, e.g in iRV.I.35.8, which is cited in the Wikipedia article 'Rigvedic rivers'. Nor is it found as a compound word in the dictionaries that I have consulted, so I can only assume that it is not attested. Nakashchit —Preceding undated comment added 23:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nakashchit: No worries. Yes, wikipedia can be harsh and rude at times, but I am glad you are able to see the difference between civil contributors and few others. Now back to this article.... we don't need two articles, one titled Samhita and the other also titled Samhita, do we? Why? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ms Sarah Welch: The article is about संहिता, a category of Sanskrit literature. There is no interest at all in an article on the past participle of the Sanskrit verb meaning 'put together', so references to dictionary entries require correction. Even though the primary entries mean much the same thing, in one case they are adjectival, while in the other they are meanings of a noun. Lexicographers take care to keep the two separate.
The major issue here, and one that arises often in Wikipedia, is to eradicate ambiguity: References to the English word 'samhita' should be in Roman script in the title and elsewhere. The Sanskrit word संहिता, on the other hand, should be so rendered when introduced, but subsquently spelt saṃhitā, using IAST symbols, and in italics, in accordance with long established practice for printing foreign words. Italics should never be used for the anglicised version of any word, e.g. samhita, shastra, etc, but only for the word in IAST. If occasion should later arise to refer to saṃhita, as distinct from saṃhitā, the difference will be clear. Nonetheless, since English phonology does not include a distinction between short and long vowels, I feel that the pronunciation should be made clear with intuitive English spelling whenever possible. Thank you your time and interest. Nakashchit
Nakshchit: The article is actually about "Samhita" which is a transliteration for संहित and संहिता. The best approach in such cases is to explain both, mention the link, similarities and differences. Suppressing information does not eradicate ambiguity. Explanation on the other hand informs and shows the richness of ideas / language / contexts. Similarly, the spelling we should retain here must be what is commonly found in English literature, not what you and I feel is more intuitive or what might set the record straight. We shouldn't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS through wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Ms Welch: I quite agree. The importance of correct understanding of the Sanskrit phrases in understanding the subject matter cannot be overstated. The etymology section should introduce the root verb and the prefix, and relevant remarks about grammar - in the present case explaining the structure of the past participle -, then go on to explain that the noun संहिता is a derivative with a particular meaning, providing the relevant dictionary entries. These should, preferably, be derived from the half-dozen or so recognised dictionaries found on the Koeln website, thus preventing the inclusion of fanciful folk etymologies. The Sanskrit language has been pretty much fixed for 2,500 years. There really is no scope for innovation.

Categories