Talk:Anuṣṭubh

Anushtubh or Anushtup?

Which is the correct spelling- अनुष्टुप or अनुष्टुभ ? Or, is it both?--अनुनाद सिंह (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The root is अनुष्टुभ् but the nominative case is अनुष्टुप् (See its declension table in Devanagari or IAST.)

It's a perennial question whether to use the root (प्रातिपदिक) or nominative form for Sanskrit terms. Scholarly literature tends towards the former, and popular sources towards the latter.

For words of the most common type (masculine & neuter nouns ending with -a/i/u, feminine nouns), both use the root form: Rāma, Shiva, Ganesha, Hari, Guru, etc.

For some words, we have articles at the root name: "Atman" (instead of Atma), Dandin instead of Dandi, etc.

For some common words, it would be very weird to use the root form, say "Hanumat" instead of "Hanuman".

This seems a sufficiently technical article to use the scholarly (as in modern English scholarship) form Anuṣṭubh. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Everything here is WRONG WRONG. I also wrote in the shloka article talk section this.

The shloka is NOT a couplet. It was written as a couplet to use up the whole page, because they did not have the luxury of much paper that they had in europe. In REALITY the shloka is a stanza of four line or "pada"'s, the even padas (2 and 4) ending thus: short long short long/short. The last syllable is long/short because in singing even a short vowel becomes long to mark the end of the clause or line. *Poetry is meant to be sung, so having a 32 syllable line is utterly outrageous*. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.144.205 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)