Talk:𑀤𑀲𑀫

@Bhagadatta Didn't we say that we'd assume Paisaci/Sauraseni Prakrit and others if we have Punjabi/Hindi, etc. descendants? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH: We did. And what is meant by assumeis that we'll show Hindi, Punjabi and Nepali etc as descendants; not that we will say a particular term is attested in Sauraseni/Maharastri even though there is no mention of it in the literature. I know that'll leave the categories for Prakrits like Khasa practically empty but it's probably for the best: who can really say what is the Khasa ancestor of a Nepali term is? We just show Nepali as a descendant for convenience, unless the word is too different in form. @Kutchkutch If you have any different approach, I'm open to changing my mind. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 02:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta The same approach was mentioned at Category_talk:Prakrit_language#Labels_from_descendants:

These labels should be:

the lects that the sources explicitly indicate or

the lects that can be deduced by reasoning based on known/agreed upon correspondences.

The other parts of an entry could be more liberal

However, SodhakSH has still been adding labels that are not explicitly indicated by sources or justified from known/agreed upon correspondences.

Empty categories for Prakrits like Khasa is probably for the best until someone can outline a scheme for reconstruction or a scheme for extending the application of terms not explicitly indicated as Khasa. Showing Nepali as a descendant for convenience is fine.

@SodhakSH It would help if the justification for labels not explicitly indicated by sources is mentioned:

on a user subpage

Wiktionary:About Prakrit

or in the edit summary (such as for converting Maharastri/Ardhamagadhi verbs ending in 𑀇 (i) to Sauraseni verbs ending in 𑀤𑀺 (di))

Was 𑀮𑀳𑀤𑀺 (lahadi) obtained from 𑀇 (i) → 𑀤𑀺 (di)? Kutchkutch (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

lahadi, yes, similar to 𑀘𑀝𑁆𑀝𑁂𑀤𑀺 (caṭṭedi). I'll probably not do much labelling now except for those I'm sure of by sources, etc. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 11:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH: So you don't have sources for it and reconstructed it yourself? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 12:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

diff and see लहदि. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 14:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. Anyway for future reference, as I said before, an entry can mention any term but to create a separate entry for it, one must be able to back it up with sources/attestations. @Kutchkutch If the above cannot be done for 𑀘𑀝𑁆𑀝𑁂𑀤𑀺 (caṭṭedi) then it should be deleted; its page creation summary states that the entry was "imported" from a Hindi entry. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 14:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't find any results on Google books for चट्टेदि/चट्टदि; so it can be deleted. Btw help me translating the first quote at लहदि. Probably:

भूदो तावदि कालं लहदि सुहं इंदियं विविहं = भूतस् तापयति कालं लभते सुखम् इन्द्रियं विविधम्।

भूद = adj: happened, past; obtained; similar; real, existing, true; noun: sameness of aim; purpose; similarity; evil spirit, ghost; living being; ^[1]

तावदि = heats ^[2]

कालं = darkness; time; death; season; age; delay; motion, suggestion; opportunity ^[3]

लहदि = gets

सुहं = happiness, pleasure

इंदियं = sense, indriya

विविहं = of different sorts

🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta, SodhakSH: In chapter 4, line 273 of Hemachandra's Siddha-Hema-Śabdanuśāśana

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.313208/page/n156/mode/1up

it says:

दिरिचेचोः

दिः + इच् + एचोः

इच् → इ और एच् → ए के स्थान पर दि (की प्राप्ति होती है)।

(There occurs) दि in place of इच् → इ and एच् → ए

इ, ए (वर्तमान काल, अन्य पुरुष, एकवचन के प्रत्यय) के स्थान पर शौरसेनी में दि प्रत्यय की प्राप्ति होती है।

In Sauraseni, the दि suffix occurs in place of इ and ए (Present Tense, Third Person, Singular Number)

line 274

अतो देश्च

अतः + देः + च

After a-ending verbs there occur दे and दि (in place of इ and ए). After ā-ending and o-ending verbs there only occurs दि (in place of इ).

𑀳𑀲𑀇 (hasaï), 𑀳𑀲𑀏 (hasae) = Sauraseni 𑀳𑀲𑀤𑀺 (hasadi), 𑀳𑀲𑀤𑁂 (hasade)

𑀞𑀸𑀇 (ṭhāi), 𑀞𑀸𑀏 (ṭhāe) = Sauraseni 𑀞𑀸𑀤𑀺 (ṭhādi)

𑀳𑁄𑀇 (hoi), 𑀳𑁄𑀏 (hoe) = Sauraseni 𑀳𑁄𑀤𑀺 (hodi) (alongside 𑀪𑁄𑀤𑀺 (bhodi))

If 𑀇 (i) → 𑀤𑀺 (di) is considered to be a known/agreed upon correspondence that is placed at Wiktionary:About Prakrit, then Sauraseni entries obtained from this rule could be considered acceptable. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch: Good, so can probably be kept. Also please edit WT:APRA and add anything I missed. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 10:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: For argument's sake, however, that would still be equal to reconstructing without a source right? Because the source you mentioned lays down the sound correspondence between Maharastri and Sauraseni but we have no way of knowing whether or not a specific term is really attested. For analogy, the sound correspondence between Sanskrit and Avestan has been described in the literature too. So we know that Sanskrit [kṣ], [s] and [e] correspond to Avestan [xš], [h] and [aē] respectively. But we would still not create an entry for an Avestan word by applying these rules to an attested Sanskrit word, would we? Prakrit may be a single language on wiktionary now, but it still means we are creating entries for forms which are reconstructed. So the solution I propose is either:

a) Moving these unattested Sauraseni forms to the reconstruction space.

b) Leaving these unattested/unconfirmed Sauraseni terms (like caṭṭedi or any more that may arise) in the etymology/descendants sections and deleting the ones which have already been created. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta Although such reconstructed entries may not meet the high standards seen in other reconstructed entries, reconstructed entries may be able to address this issue. However, AryamanA never marked these reconstructions with the asterisk such as at diff. Perhaps the analogy to Avestan and Sanskrit is from this quote:

It is quite possible to find verses in the oldest portion of the Avesta, which simply by phonetic substitutions according to established laws can be turned into intelligible Sanskrit.

Kutchkutch (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Yes, if the above source were to be quoted in an appropriate page, say, the About Prakrit page, then the rules for reconstructing Sauraseni can be laid down there. The requirement for sources for such reconstructions could be waived in such cases. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 09:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta: Can you both give a few criterias for Prakrit reconstructions? Prakrit *𑀘𑀝𑁆𑀝𑁂𑀤𑀺 (*caṭṭedi) seems very unnecessary: we can show its descendants on the related Maharastri form caṭṭei, right? caṭṭedi is useful only if it is in the mainspace. AryamanA didn't mention these terms as reconstructions, so I propose that such terms be in mainspace. The case of Avestan—Sanskrit is very different; Śaurasenī and Māhārāṣṭrī are nothing but 2 different lects of a very similar Prakrit. शब्दशोधक—شَبْدَشودَھک—śabdaśodhak 10:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  Wait, now I prefer deleting such which are without sources. After all, we agreed to keep NIA etymologies simple "From {{inh|NIA-LANG|inc-pra|TERM}} [...]" for this only. शब्दशोधक—شَبْدَشودَھک—śabdaśodhak 10:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  @SodhakSH: Chapter 4: lines 260-261

In Sauraseni, 𑀤 (da) occurs in place of 𑀢 (ta) on the condition that 𑀢 (ta) does not occur at the beginning of a word. In a conjunct consonant word, 𑀢 (ta) may become 𑀤 (da) (𑀫𑀳𑀁𑀢 (mahaṃta) → 𑀫𑀳𑀁𑀤 (mahaṃda)). Kutchkutch (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: As Bhagadatta said : “For argument's sake, however, that would still be equal to reconstructing without a source right? Because the source you mentioned lays down the sound correspondence between Maharastri and Sauraseni but we have no way of knowing whether or not a specific term is really attested”. What about "Prakrit *𑀘𑀝𑁆𑀝𑁂𑀤𑀺 (*caṭṭedi) seems very unnecessary: we can show its descendants on the related Maharastri form caṭṭei, right?" शब्दशोधक—شَبْدَشودَھک—śabdaśodhak 11:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @SodhakSH:. The data for the entry was "imported" from another entry which is bad practice. We can do without the entry IMHO. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 12:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch: Ok, I'll clean up the links to it. But we should make sure no such entry is created in future without a good reason. शब्दशोधक—شَبْدَشودَھک—śabdaśodhak 12:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH: You asked for "criterias for Prakrit reconstructions", so another one was provided. Non-Ashokan reconstructed Prakrit doesn't appear to have progressed far enough for creating a large amount of entries in it (ignoring *𑀧𑀜𑁆𑀘𑀻𑀮 (*pañcīla)). "[W]e can show *𑀘𑀝𑁆𑀝𑁂𑀤𑀺's descendants on the related Maharastri form caṭṭeï" since at User_talk:AryamanA/2018#Sauraseni_PrakritAryamanA AryamanA said:

Even McGregor's Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary gives Maharastri Prakrit forms despite Sauraseni being Hindi's actual ancestor

Convert {{rfd}} to {{d}} when you are ready to delete the entry (and keep the link to this discussion). Kutchkutch (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)