Talk:𑀆𑀅𑀅

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Kutchkutch in topic Alternative forms and descendants trees

Alternative forms and descendants trees

edit
@Bhagadatta Since 𑀆𑀅 (āa) 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|< 𑀆𑀅 (āa)}}?
According to {{R:inc:Pischel}}, 𑀆𑀕𑀅 (āgaa), 𑀆𑀅𑀅 (āaa), 𑀆𑀬 (āya) and 𑀆𑀅 (āa) are Maharastri and 𑀆𑀕𑀬 (āgaya) is Ardhamagadhi. Should they move to Maharastri Prakrit: and Ardhamagadhi Prakrit: lines in the the descendants tree at ΰ€†ΰ€—ΰ€€ (āgata)? At {{R:inc:Woolner|11}} Β§2, the Sauraseni forms are 𑀆𑀕𑀀 (āgada) and 𑀆𑀅𑀀 (āada). Since π‘€˜π‘€‰π‘€π‘†π‘€ž (caΓΌαΉ­αΉ­ha) at ΰ€šΰ€€ΰ₯ΰ€°ΰ₯ΰ€₯ (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: π‘€˜π‘€‰π‘€’π‘†π‘€£ (caΓΌttha) […] . Should the bullet point β€’ be omitted before Ardhamagadhi Prakrit: […] ? Kutchkutch (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@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|< 𑀆𑀅 (āa)}} 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₯‡ (āle) and Konkani ΰ€†ΰ€―ΰ€Ώΰ€²ΰ₯ΰ€²ΰ₯‹ (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 āgaÀ and āgada in Turner so I left those out. I'll make the changes.
Even the change at the descendants section at ΰ€šΰ€€ΰ₯ΰ€°ΰ₯ΰ€₯ (caturtha) is fine. Does that mean we'll now show π‘€˜π‘€‰π‘€’π‘†π‘€£ (caΓΌttha), π‘€˜π‘€‰π‘€π‘†π‘€ž (caΓΌαΉ­αΉ­ha) and π‘€˜π‘„π‘€’π‘†π‘€£ (cottha) as "Prakrit" and then show the language specific forms again? -- 𝓑𝓱π“ͺ𝓰π“ͺ𝓭π“ͺ𝓽𝓽π“ͺ(𝓽π“ͺ𝓡𝓴) 12:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
Return to "𑀆𑀅𑀅" page.