Dhatus Comparison - Interesting facts

[Shalu411]

Hariom @funderburkjim @drdhaval2785 @gasyoun @mrudani
While comparing no-match-dhatus of VCP-SKD, there are some interesting things-
(Firstly I am comparing VCP against SKD- i.e. It's there in VCP but not in SKD)

1. Some very popular dhatus are missing. Eg. अट्
2. The dhatu might appear in different form of standard in both- Eg. इङ् in VCP is just इ in SKD- with ङ in extended explanation.
3. There is no headword of the dhatu but it is mentioned as dhAtu in the constituent words. Eg. अट् is mentioned as composing inmate in अटनं [ID=556] (as अटनं , क्ली, (अट् + भावे ल्युट्))
4. There is no headword of the dhatu but the first verb-form is found in other words- Eg. इषुध् is missing but - इषुध्यति which is it's first form is found in याच्ञा [ID=28526] (as १३ इषुध्यति in the explanatory text)
5. The issue linked with doubling of letters - VCP उर्द्द 10084 = SKD उर्द 5161

No action required, but just felt like mentioning as a part of study.
-इति शम्

[Shalu411]

Another instance for 3rd issue -
अन्ध dhatu is missing as a headword in SKD - but it is given as a constituent part in the words containing it.
अन्धं , क्ली, (अन्ध + अच् ।) [ID=1295]
अन्धः , त्रि, (अन्ध + अच् ।).... [ID=1296]
अन्धः , [स्] क्ली, (अन्ध + असुन् ।)..... [ID=1297]
I am sure, here in the representation- "अन्ध +.. " अन्ध is not a noun-base but only a verb-base.

Now my doubt is- shall we consider this instance as the mention of the dhatu in the SKD dictionary (where it is actually missed in the headword) or leave it?
OR
Shall we have it as a comment against compared headword of VCP?

[Shalu411]

More on the 5th issue above-
Eg. र्ज्ज ; VCP gives both the doubled-letter and non-doubled-letter but SKD gives only doubled-letter ones. Eg. VCP उर्ज 0081 = SKD ऊर्ज्ज 5291

Though we know that it is same dhatu (depending upon the later details like dhatu-category and first form) still, the VCP has the doubled-letter form also- Hence we might not like to compare both and say it is mentioned in SKD as this. Eg. We cannot declare that non-doubled-letter dhatu is equal to doubled-letter dhatu

[gasyoun]

No action required, but just felt like mentioning as a part of study

Thanks, please continue documenting - it is of utmost interest.

Now my doubt is- shall we consider this instance as the mention of the dhatu in the SKD dictionary (where it is actually missed in the headword) or leave it?

No, never leave! We should document them as not mentioned ones and add markup.

Shall we have it as a comment against compared headword of VCP?

Before Jim proposes a markup for them, commenting against would suffice.

We cannot declare that non-doubled-letter dhatu is equal to doubled-letter dhatu

Why can not we? What if he head headword and alternative headword?