Talk:ππ π
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Kutchkutch in topic Alternative forms and descendants trees
Alternative forms and descendants trees
edit- @Bhagadatta Since ππ
(Δa) is an alternative form redirect and the exact pronunciation cannot be inferred from the spelling, should the descendants/derived terms be on the primary entry with
{{q|< ππ (Δa)}}
?
- According to
{{R:inc:Pischel}}
, πππ (Δgaa), ππ π (Δaa), ππ¬ (Δya) and ππ (Δa) are Maharastri and πππ¬ (Δgaya) is Ardhamagadhi. Should they move toMaharastri Prakrit:
andArdhamagadhi Prakrit:
lines in the the descendants tree at ΰ€ΰ€ΰ€€ (Δgata)? At{{R:inc:Woolner|11}}
Β§2, the Sauraseni forms are πππ€ (Δgada) and ππ π€ (Δada). Since πππππ (caΓΌαΉαΉha) at ΰ€ΰ€€ΰ₯ΰ€°ΰ₯ΰ€₯ (caturtha) is labeled asPrk.
by{{R:inc:Pischel}}
, that could an example of having terms on both thePrakrit:
line and the lines forArdhamagadhi Prakrit: πππ’ππ£ (caΓΌttha)
[β¦] . Should the bullet pointβ’
be omitted beforeArdhamagadhi Prakrit:
[β¦] ? Kutchkutch (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)- @Kutchkutch: It's true that keeping the descendants on the original/lemma form's entry is the standard but the Konkani and Marathi descendants are in the derived terms section. I don't know how good
{{q|< ππ (Δa)}}
would look under derived terms (if it was under the plain descendants header, it'd look just fine), so I suggest we show Marathi ΰ€ΰ€²ΰ₯ (Δle) and Konkani ΰ€ΰ€―ΰ€Ώΰ€²ΰ₯ΰ€²ΰ₯ (Δyillo) as descended from *Δaa-lla-a and *Δaa-illa-a respectively instead of *Δa-lla-a and *Δa-illa-a as we have it now. - Thanks for the specific Prakrit forms - I did not check Pischel and could not find ΔgaΓ€ and Δgada in Turner so I left those out. I'll make the changes.
- Even the change at the descendants section at ΰ€ΰ€€ΰ₯ΰ€°ΰ₯ΰ€₯ (caturtha) is fine. Does that mean we'll now show πππ’ππ£ (caΓΌttha), πππππ (caΓΌαΉαΉha) and πππ’ππ£ (cottha) as "Prakrit" and then show the language specific forms again? -- ππ±πͺπ°πͺππͺπ½π½πͺ(π½πͺπ΅π΄) 12:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bhagadatta If one or more terms have no lect specification, the
Prakrit:
line could show all the terms to avoid confusion. If all the terms have lect specification, thePrakrit:
line could possibly be left empty, but that may look inconsistent when compared toPrakrit:
lines with terms. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bhagadatta If one or more terms have no lect specification, the
- @Kutchkutch: It's true that keeping the descendants on the original/lemma form's entry is the standard but the Konkani and Marathi descendants are in the derived terms section. I don't know how good