Talk:Parikshit/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Requested move

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Reason:I conucted extensive research on the dates of mahabharata and found that Maharshi Aryabhatta calculated the end of Dwapar Yuga and start of Kaliyuga to about midnight of 18 February 3102 BCE and Mahabharata mentions that Yudhishthira ruled for 36 years after the war and renounced the throne made parikshit the next king of hastinapur when Kaliyuga started so 3102 BCE+36 =3138 BCE (the date of mahabharata war) and parikshit was born after the wars conclusion i.e. 3138 BCE or 3139 BCE also the mahabharata mentions he ruled for 60 years so his reign can be calculated as 3102-60 = 3042 BCE so he and also proof has been found that he existed in 31st century BCE his son King Janamejaya was great-grandson of Arjuna (3rd among Pandavas) and copper plate inscriptions dating back to 3012-3013 BC have been found about his donations to Hampi and Kedarnath temples.Both the inscriptions written in Sanskrit on copper plates are about the gift of land given by Emperor Janamejaya on the same day when the Solar eclipse was on. But the gifts were made at two different places, one at Kishkindha and another at Kedarnath.User:Batmanxxx1234<ref>https://www.booksfact.com/archeology/archaeological-excavations-prove-veracity-mahabharata-war-around-3100-bce.htmlCite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). <ref>https://www.booksfact.com/archeology/proof-king-janamejaya-donated-lands-temples-3013-bc.htmlCite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).
Reason: Parikshita (Parīkṣita, from the verb pari-īkṣ) and Parikshit (Parikṣit, variant Parīkṣit with fugal lengthening <NOT Parikṣita or Parīkṣita>, from the verb pari-kṣi) are quite different words, and only the latter is the name of the grandson of Arjuna (son of Abhimanyu and father of Janamejaya), whereas the former is not. It is a sad reflection upon the state of knowledge of Sanskrit that someone who actually did move Parikshita to its rightful place under Parikshit was accused of mischief, and the correct move undone. To someone who knows Sanskrit, this must seem barbarous. Anuragi 20:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The first line of the article also requires editing, but since my computer cannot handle Indic scripts, I request someone to add a virāma sign under the end ta of the Nagari version of the name. Anuragi 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not use the IAST form and move the article to Parīkṣit? — AjaxSmack 05:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose unless it can be shown that this is not the relevant English usage. Strongly oppose IATA because English usage exists, but somebody ought to be smart enough to take the hint from AjaxSmack's comment to fix the missing redlink with a redirect. Gene Nygaard 16:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In Sanskrit, parikşita- is a vowel-stemmed noun and forms its cases like (e.g.) Rāma-; but parikşit- is a consonant-stemmed noun and forms its cases otherwise: it is like the difference between Latin/Ancient Greek second and third declensions. However, in modern usage, the final short "a" is often omitted, following modern Indian language spoken usage, e.g. "Ram" for "Rama". (I have put the virāma in.) Anthony Appleyard 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since "Parikshit" does indeed reproduce the correct Sanskrit form, whereas "Parikshita" is simply an ignorant mistake (even the link at the bottom to "Story of the great Parikshita" actually leads to a page on Parikshit [sic]!), my suggestion is to move the whole article to "Parikshit", and to put a link under "Parikshita" for those who wrongly think that, because the end a is often dropped in New Indo-Aryan words, this must have happened here too. 84.144.69.80 21:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did the move. (I know Sanskrit.) Anthony Appleyard 21:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Who or what, then, is genuinely called Parīkṣita? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer: Parīkṣita is a past participle meaning "scrutinised", "examined" and the like, and is not the name of any major (or, to my knowledge, even minor) mythological character. Why this word crops up is seemingly because of a wrong back-formation by speakers of some New Indo-Aryan languages (including Hindi), in which the 'a' of Sanskrit words is routinely dropped at the end of a word. Parīkṣita as a loan-word is common (in the meaning above) in New Indo-Aryan languages, and has obviously been confused with the mythological name, because the pronunciation is similar. Also, shoddiness in the differentiation between i and ī is also very common in New Indo-Aryan. Anuragi (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

at anuragi:but does not every sanskrit word/name end w/ a vowel? and Indo-Aryan? u mean Indo-European, no? (unknown contributor)

No, many Sanskrit words do not end on a vowel. And no, I mean New Indo-Aryan, as written. We are talking of Sanskrit loanwords in later Indic languages; Indo-European is quite pre-Sanskrit and not Indic. Anuragi (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The article says nothing about Parikshit being a mythological figure even though it is classified as mythology. Conversely, if he was a historical figure, why is the article included in Hinduism project ? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danishctc (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

He was a historical king, but many legends later arose about him. His genealogy and the stories of his life and death in the Mahabharata are considered mythology. All characters in the Mahabharata have this classification here. Avantiputra7 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Parikshit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)