Reconstruction talk:Ashokan Prakrit/𑀧𑀝𑁆𑀞𑀸𑀦

*paṣṭāna?

Kutchkutch If the form mentioned in CDIAL is *paṣṭāna, so why is this entry at *𑀧𑀝𑁆𑀞𑀸𑀦 (*paṭṭhāna) instead of *𑀧𑀱𑁆𑀝𑀸𑀦 (*paṣṭāna)? Shouldn't it be moved in accordance with the source? —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 10:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Svartava2 Although Turner's reconstructions are the basis of Ashokan Prakrit reconstructions, they are not equal to Ashokan Prakrit. Turner's reconstructions are intended to be Sanskrit while Ashokan Prakrit is intended to be the ancestor of all the Prakrits, so there is a difference between the two. According to Bhagadatta at Reconstruction talk:Ashokan Prakrit/𑀕𑀼𑀧𑁆𑀨𑀸:

Originally all Turner-reconstructions were considered to be Proto-Indo-Aryan until there was a discussion at User_talk:AryamanA/2018#Proto_Indo_Aryan_lemmas which concluded that these actually are Proto-Middle Indic terms and not Proto-Indo-Aryan (As a matter of fact, Turner reconstructs them as unattested Sanskrit terms, not PIA or Proto-MIA). This is because the structure of these words (including *guppha) look a lot like Middle-Indic, with geminated stops and all, whereas actual PIA was very archaic, even older than Vedic Sanskrit.

The existence of a Dardic cognate could suggest that this word existed in late Old Indo-Aryan/early MIA: this is precisely why initially a code for "Proto MIA" was proposed so that Pali and Dardic could be included; but that idea did not garner much support and we had to settle for Ashokan Prakrit instead, which albeit quite pervasive, unfortunately does not extend to Pali and Dardic.

See Talk:𑘖𑘲𑘕𑘜𑘹:

The ambiguity persists due to CDIAL reconstructing terms with /ś/, /ṣ/ and certain consonant clusters (/tr/, /dr/, /ts/, /ty/, /dy/ to name a few) which one would not expect to find in a Prakrit

See User:SodhakSH/पुराचर्चापृष्ठम्#बुभुक्ष्:

Wiktionary editors agreed to treat Turner's reconstructed terms (the ones with a star * symbol before them) as Ashokan Prakrit terms (Ashokan Pkt is the ancestor of all the Prakrits), not Sanskrit.

Therefore, the form of terms such as *paṣṭāna would have to be changed so that they would adhere to the phonology of Prakrit and not Sanskrit. Since reconstructions are a product of the set of descendants that are used, changing the form of a reconstruction given in a reference to match a different set of descendants is justifiable. Kutchkutch (talk)

Kutchkutch Didn't ṣ exist in Ashokan Prakrit? Or is it the ṣṭ that didn't exist? —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 15:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Svartava2 According to {{R:inc:CGMIA}}, ṣṭ does not exist, and ṣ is an orthographic variant or scribal error for s or ś. Since reconstructions are phonological and not orthographic, ṣ should not be used in Ashokan Prakrit reconstructions (unless the reconstruction is for a particular lect such as Kalsi). Kutchkutch (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)