Talk:Pāṇini

Now that this page is semiprotected, would it still make sense to add a reference to Backus–Naur Form (BNF) as that page refers to this Pāṇini page? According to the history section of that page, the connection is so strong, BNF could as easily have been called Pāṇini Backus form. I (yes, just another drive by IP) was thinking about the See Also section here.

Rajpopat's framework of DOI (Different Operand Interaction) and SOI (Same Operand Interaction), along with its associated LHS and RHS rules, has been found to apply only to a limited set of examples rather than to Pāṇini's grammar as a whole. Several Indian grammarians have critically examined his rules and provided numerous counter-examples demonstrating their inadequacy.

Sanskrit grammarian Neelesh Bodas, in a detailed critique of Rishi Rajpopat's thesis , acknowledged that while Rajpopat's new interpretation of the word para (relevant for his DOI cases) has "some potential for further research," he explicitly enumerated "a few cases" where both the DOI (Different Operand Interaction) and SOI (Same Operand Interaction) frameworks "does not work," further noting that the treatment of SOI appears "ad-hoc" since Rajpopat himself mentions it is not directly based on Pāṇini's system . Bodas also provided numerous examples to demonstrate what he considers Rajpopat's "pretty weak" understanding of the Pāṇinian tradition and pointed out several sutra interpretations that he believes are "flawed" . The critique ultimately concludes that while the thesis contains "brilliant techniques" worthy of investigation, it has "lacunas / shortcomings / loopholes," and the popular media claims of solving a "2500 year old puzzle" are "fake, baseless".

Distinguished Sanskrit grammarian Pushpa Dixit has also expressed criticism of Rajpopat's work, specifically objecting to his assertion that the ancient scholars Kātyāyana and Patañjali were unable to properly interpret Pāṇini's sutras, a problem that Rajpopat claimed to have solved.

I propose removing the section on Rajpopat's theory, as it appears to present a framework that has not gained broad scholarly acceptance. The claims made in this section may give readers a misleading impression of the theory's standing within the field of Sanskrit grammar. VerdictByLogic (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Asteramellus

I noticed you reverted my edits that changed repeated instances of "Pāṇini" (with diacritics) to the simplified "Panini" form, keeping the IAST version only in the first occurrence within brackets.  

I made this change following Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines and standard practices:

The Manual of Style specifies that unrecognized characters may be "pronounced as a question mark or omitted entirely from the speech output". Based on the guideline,  "Provide a transliteration for all text in a non-Latin writing system where the non-Latin character is important in the original context such as names, places, things etc."  

The common practice across Wikipedia is to provide the full IAST form (with diacritics) on the first mention (typically in the lead section), and use the simplified English form without diacritics for subsequent occurrences. This balances scholarly accuracy with readability and accessibility.

Excessive diacritics can make text harder to read for a general audience and may cause technical issues for users with certain browsers or assistive technologies.

My intention is to follow the accessibility guidelines while maintaining the article's scholarly integrity by keeping the IAST form in the lead section where it properly introduces the subject.

Looking forward to your thoughts. VerdictByLogic (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@VerdictByLogic Thanks. I have seen both with diacritics and without diacritics on articles, so don't think there is a strict policy either way. I think what matters most is consistency (at least within a section) and scholarly usage. My revert was for repeated alternate spelling and I see that you have changed it to use "Panini" - I agree that "Panini" is more readable, but using the diacritic form would also be fine here. Asteramellus (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Asteramellus

Thank you for your response. I understand your point, but I'd like to share my perspective on this.

The diacritic form is primarily meant to indicate correct pronunciation, which is certainly valuable for scholarly accuracy. However, in practical terms, most users do not search for articles using diacritics. For example, I searched for "Panini" (without diacritics) and wasn't able to reach the page directly. If the article title or repeated instances use only the IAST form, it becomes much harder for the average reader to find or recognize the page.

My intention was to balance accessibility with accuracy by keeping the full IAST form in the lead section (within brackets) while using the simplified "Panini" throughout the rest of the article. VerdictByLogic (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This is interesting. I did try searching for "Panini" in the search bar and the autocomplete dropdown does not show "Pāṇini", but selecting "Search for pages containing Panini" does return Pāṇini article.

For your point for usage in the body, it is on an article by article basis - see MOS:DIACRITICS. As I mentioned, I have seen both with diacritics and without diacritics on articles and agree that without diacritics is easier for readers. Asteramellus (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)