Talk:𑀆𑀅𑀅

Alternative forms and descendants trees

@Bhagadatta Since 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|< }}?

According to {{R:inc:Pischel}}, , , and are Maharastri and is Ardhamagadhi. Should they move to Maharastri Prakrit: and Ardhamagadhi Prakrit: lines in the the descendants tree at आगत (āgata)? At {{R:inc:Woolner|11}} §2, the Sauraseni forms are and . Since at चतुर्थ (caturtha) is labeled as Prk. by {{R:inc:Pischel}}, that could an example of having terms on both the Prakrit: line and the lines for Ardhamagadhi Prakrit: 𑀘𑀉𑀢𑁆𑀣 (caüttha) […] . Should the bullet point • be omitted before Ardhamagadhi Prakrit: […] ? 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|< }} would look under derived terms (if it was under the plain descendants header, it'd look just fine), so I suggest we show Marathi आले (āle) and Konkani आयिल्लो (āyillo) as descended from *āaa-lla-a and *āaa-illa-a respectively instead of *āa-lla-a and *āa-illa-a as we have it now.

Thanks for the specific Prakrit forms - I did not check Pischel and could not find āgaä and āgada in Turner so I left those out. I'll make the changes.

Even the change at the descendants section at चतुर्थ (caturtha) is fine. Does that mean we'll now show , and as "Prakrit" and then show the language specific forms again? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 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, the Prakrit: line could possibly be left empty, but that may look inconsistent when compared to Prakrit: lines with terms. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)