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)