mw:112078

[funderburkjim]

date: 11/18/2022 06:54:31
dict: mw
Lnum: 112078
hw: netṛ
old: "(netṛ́)" is omitted as a specification of the stress in the meaning "leader, guide, conductor (with gen. or ifc.)"
new: a
comm: b

[funderburkjim]

This brings forth a point about accents that was confusing to me in the recent accent work (sanskrit-lexicon/MWS#142)
The scan:

The current digitization shows the accent BUT ONLY IN METALINE (since there is no gender change):

<L>112078<pc>568,3<k1>netf<k2>netf/<e>2B
¦ leader, guide, conductor (with <ab>gen.</ab> or <ab>ifc.</ab>), <ls>RV.</ls> &c. &c.<info lex="inh"/>
<LEND>

With this coding, the accent is not visible in the display:

In this case, it seems the word with new accent should also be placed before the vertical bar:

<L>112078<pc>568,3<k1>netf<k2>netf/<e>2B
<s>netf/</s> ¦ leader, guide, conductor (with <ab>gen.</ab> or <ab>ifc.</ab>), <ls>RV.</ls> &c. &c.<info lex="inh"/>
<LEND>

This new accent thus becomes visible in the display:

But with this display, we would likely infer that the accent associated with the NEXT entry '(with daRqasy) rod-applied...`
is also 'netf/'. However, the metaline shows the accent on the 'e': ne/tf.

Under the assumption that the 'f/' accent applies ONLY to the 'leader, guide, conductor' sense, we should change the
coding of the 'rod-applied' to be consistent with metaline:

OLD
<L>112079<pc>568,3<k1>netf<k2>ne/tf<e>2B
¦ (with <s>daRqasya</s>) ‘rod-applier’, inflicter of punishment, <ls>Mn. vii, 25</ls> (<ab>cf.</ab> <s>daRqa-n°</s>)<info lex="inh"/>
<LEND>
NEW
<L>112079<pc>568,3<k1>netf<k2>ne/tf<e>2B
<s>ne/tf</s> ¦ (with <s>daRqasya</s>) ‘rod-applier’, inflicter of punishment, <ls>Mn. vii, 25</ls> (<ab>cf.</ab> <s>daRqa-n°</s>)<info lex="inh"/>
<LEND>

Now the display is:

The inference now is that 'the leader or chief' through 'Azadirachta ' also have the previous accent ('ne/tf').

[funderburkjim]

You can see why this is confusing.
We have the question of 'scope': What is the scope of an accent in MW?

This 'scope' problem seems to arise in discussions of Sanskrit grammar rules. My recollection from many years ago when Peter Scharf was working to understand Panini's rules is that the scope of Paninian rules was a significant point of difficulty.