Talk:ಮರಹಟ್ಠ

Sources

@Kutchkutch Do you have any sources for this term in Kannada script? It isn't giving any results on Google and Google books. See अहुणा and diff at 𑀰𑀼𑀡𑁂𑀤𑀺: since I couldn't find the Devanagari spelling शुणेदि being attested in Google and Google books, I removed it. Is it there on prakrit.info? I think both Kannada and Devanagari spellings should only be given when the term is attested in that script. For Devanagari, since 90 percent (or more) times we have {{R:pra:Sheth}}'s attestation, I've made it so that by default a Devanagari spelling appears on using Prakrit headword-line templates (which can be removed by |nodeva=). 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH: Having the main entries in Brahmi instead of Devanagari is non-standard in and of itself. When Prakrit was a spoken language, it is presumed that Brahmi would have been the script that Prakrit speakers were reading and writing in. However, the terms that are attested in Brahmi from this time would be in Category:Epigraphic Prakrit, and as can be seen from Ashokan Prakrit, the number of such terms must be limited. Therefore, having the main entries in Brahmi is not based on attestation in that script, but was agreed upon. So, similar to Brahmi, shouldn't the Kannada script for Prakrit be based on a convention (such as limiting the Kannada script to Maharastri) rather than attestation?

शुणेदि (śuṇedi) is lemmatised from declined forms that are attested, which AryamanA suggested for Ashokan Prakrit at Module talk:inc-ash/dial:

Kutchkutch: Should words be lemmatised or entered as attested?

AryamanA: I think words should be lemmatized for consistency and the use of the lemma for comparative purposes, but in tables we can always note that the lemma form is not actually attested in a particular dialect.

Would your lemmatise it differently? Kutchkutch (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)