Talk:𑀭𑀼𑀧𑁆𑀧

Lect Specification

@Svartava Regarding {{R:inc:Pischel}},

ruppa = rukma is mentioned in section §277 of {{R:inc:Pischel}}. However, there is no lect specified, so {{R:inc:Pischel}} is not very helpful for determining the lects.

Regarding {{R:pra-ard:Maharaj:1923}},

रुप्प is has an entry in volume 4, page 253, column 1 of {{R:pra-ard:Maharaj:1923}}, and the Sanskrit etymon is given as रूप्य. So, the etymology from रूप्य can be considered as Ardhamagadhi.

Regarding {{R:inc:Cowell}},

ruppam is derived from rukma in the third chapter of Varuchi’s Prakrit grammar, and the first nine chapters pertain to Maharastri. So, the etymology from रुक्म can be considered as Maharastri.

Regarding Sauraseni,

Since {{R:inc:Woolner}} does not mention this term and {{R:inc:Pischel}} does not specify the lects, the Sauraseni lect cannot be verified. It seems that the pre-merger Sauraseni entry was made by inferring that

“If there is at least one descendant in a language descended from Sauraseni, then it can be presumed that the Prakrit term is Sauraseni”

Regarding the adjective sense,

None of the sources that I have looked at (so far) for verifying the lect mention the adjective sense in the etymology from रौप्य.

In addition, the reconstruction of the noun *𑀭𑀼𑀧𑁆𑀧-𑀅 ~ *𑀭𑀼𑀧𑁆𑀧-𑀕 (*ruppa-a ~ *ruppa-ga) is attested in the Jain Maharastri text Uttarādhyayana-Vṛtti as 𑀭𑀼𑀧𑁆𑀧𑀬 (ruppaya). So, there is no need to reconstruct the derived term for the noun in the etymology from रूप्य. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)