Talk:पुस्तक
There is a confusion about word's Etymology.
The Existing text on the word Pustak's Etymology writes:
Borrowed from some Middle Iranian language. Compare Sogdian (deprecated template usage) pwst'k, Parthian (deprecated template usage) pwstg and Persian پوست (pust, “skin, hide”) (< *pōst < Old Persian 𐎱𐎠𐎺𐎿𐎫𐎠 (pavastā); compare पवस्त (pavásta)).
But when I checked the reference, it doesn't mention anything about "skin". Plz refer to the below section:
Pusta, m.n. working in clay, modelling, Kathaas.; a manuscript, book, Var. (cf. below); Hcat.; mfn. covered, filled, W. - karman, n. plastering, painting, W. - maya, mf(i)n. formed of metal or wood, wrought in clay, modelled, Susr. - vaartta, m. one who loves by books or makes books, VarBrS.
Pustaka, m. or n. a protuberant ornament, boss (see below); mf(ikaa)n. a manuscript, book, booklet, Hariv.; Kaav.; Var.&c. - kara, m. an embosser, VarBrS., Sch. Pustakagara,n. 'book-room', a library, MW. Pustakastarana,n. the wrapper of a manuscript,Hcat.
Sir Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English dictionary etymologically and philologically arranged with special reference to cognate Indo-European languages, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898, page 0640
Therefore, we are removing the etymology part because no credible reference is provided which can be cited to prove that the word has come from "some Middle Iranian" word. The above reference tells that the words "pusta" and "pustaka" are very much within Sanskrit and has nothing to do with the words provided from Persian etc.
(168.87.3.33 05:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC))
- That's not the reference for etymology, but the word's meanings. Had you checked the article's history, you would've seen that in this edit the respective reference for etymology was mentioned, namely "Turner and Mayrhofer", which are more than sufficiently credible, specific (etymological dictionaries) and chronologically more recent sources than the obsolete general-purpose MW. The reason why they weren't specifically listed in the ====References==== section was due to the fact that at that time no specific reference templates for them were created (and unfortunately, neither there exist ones now). Please refrain from removing valuable content on the basis of your amateurish "hunches" and (mis)interpretations of material you lack appropriate knowledge for assessing the credibility of. --Ivan Štambuk 20:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, you're not a linguist, you're an amateur as well, so don't judge other people like that, Ivan.
I still have serious objections because still no reference is provided on the page of the article. Please provide the clear reference with a weblink. Also, you say "Turner and Mayrhofer" is the reference for this, but I searched on google and I get no reference for the same.
The term "Borrowed from some Middle Iranian language" itself looks highly not-credible. What is "some" here? Until one is specific and sure, there is no need to put it on a Wikipedia article.
So the opinion is - until a clear reference is provided for the statement, it can't be put on this article. Please provide reference and then we can go ahead.
(168.87.3.33 05:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC))
- Not hearing of the venerable etymologists Manfred Mayrhofer and Ralph Lilley Turner, and furthermore - the inability to effectively use search engines so as to look up credible sources on the matter, not only demonstrates that you have no clue what you're talking about, but that you also lack necessary computing skills that are required in the information age to properly defend one's arguments. The article is now protected by an administrative action. Go find some other Internet sinkhole to vandalize. --Ivan Štambuk 20:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)