Talk:𑀦𑀸𑀫

Moving the page

@शब्दशोधक There seems to be a Wiktionary convention to treat all Maharastri and Sauraseni Prakrit occurrences of ʻnʼ as ʻṇʼ. In that case, this entry should be moved to 𑀡𑀸𑀫 (ṇāma). However, there is a non-Wiktionary convention that says that word-initial occurrences of ʻnʼ remain as ʻnʼ. Unless you want to have a discussion about whether word-initial occurrences of ʻnʼ should remain as ʻnʼ, this entry should be moved to 𑀡𑀸𑀫 (ṇāma). Kutchkutch (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Kutchkutch : I have moved the page. I don't want another discussion on any topic.

By the way, you should add yourself here.

Thanks and regards, शशकः 13:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक Hi, regarding the Prakrits. Please only create/edit the entries if you are sure about them, ie, you see a source mentioning them. It is important that we maintain the quality of the entries in these languages because they are extinct now. Don't depend on other wiktionary entries to create Prakrit entries as these other entries may have mistakes in them; it is one thing for a slightly wrong term to be mentioned in the etymology/descendants section but it's a completely different thing if someone creates a whole entry based on it. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 01:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: : No problem. Any Shauraseni Prakrit dictionary/source you are aware of? शशकः 03:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta Since User:शब्दशोधक is a relatively new Prakrit editor, it is important to raise these issues with them, so thanks for doing so. 𑀉𑀤𑁆𑀤 (udda), which was also created by User:शब्दशोधक, needs some attention. Isn't there an implicit policy that words in extinct languages that are not FWOTD should not have IPA without adequate justification?

@शब्दशोधक Working on quality often means that the increase in the quantity will be slow. The following point mentioned by User:Bhagadatta is also worth considering:

[I]t is one thing for a slightly wrong term to be mentioned in the etymology/descendants section but it's a completely different thing if someone creates a whole entry based on it

Someone asked User:AryamanA the same question, so read that discussion first:

User_talk:AryamanA/2018#Sauraseni_Prakrit

I got the entries I created while I was reading Woolner, and from research papers I read here and there (that's why I haven't made many Prakrit entries, the sources are quite scattered). In some cases I looked at original texts to find a particular form, but that is a very tedious process.

Quotations are a good way to definitively prove a Prakrit word's existence, especially since there are multiple lects. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Thanks for the ping because I did not get the earlier notification from this talkpage. To answer @शब्दशोधक:'s question about the source, my favorite is Woolner and of course, Turner which is ever-reliable. Now, regarding 𑀉𑀤𑁆𑀤 (udda): this is problematic because: Turner does not explicitly say it is a Sauraseni term; he just says "Prakrit", we all know that most of the times he means Maharashtri Prakrit when he says "Prakrit". Secondly, the meaning given by Turner "merman/a kind of fish" and "otter" as the meaning of "udda" is not mentioned by Turner. The pronunciation part is also complete guesswork; if this word had been used in a hymn that people would read now, they'd probably pronounce it as ud̪.d̪ə. Now, given that the term refers to an otter in both Skt. and Hindi, there's very little doubt that it existed in Sauraseni and that it meant otter but both these points need to be confirmed. If it can be done using other sources viz. Woolner, the problem will be solved but Woolner's work is too large and it definitely is going to be cumbersome to look for this word in there. I explicitly remember that in 2017 I thought of creating 𑀉𑀤𑁆𑀤 (udda) but then abandoned the idea for these very reasons: creating that page was going to take a lot of guesswork. What solution do you propose? @शब्दशोधक All said and done, please don't guess things like that; if you need to use the word "probably" in the edit summary to refer to something as basic as the term's meaning then it's a good indication that you should not create that entry. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 11:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: I won't edit Prakrit. Apologies, शशकः 12:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: reading my previous comment again, I now realized that it can possibly be interpreted as harsh. That was not the intended tone at all as I only wanted you to know that you that when you're creating any entry you need to know what you're doing (when I was new I too added a few Proto-Indo-European entries without full knowledge of it and I remember that other editors had to take the trouble to fix what I had done). You're a quick learner and surely you will be a good Prakrit editor if you try: just consult the aforementioned sources and don't do any guessing. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 16:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch: No, I didn't interpret it as harsh. Actually, for now, I am fine working on Sanskrit only and I don't want more work. I am as it is busy and I am getting addicted (of course, I am trying to fight it) and that's all. That's the reason I drew back so quickly, not because of your message. Thanks for saying that I am a fast learner, that really motivates me. I'll think of Prakrit later on. Regards, शशकः 16:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक, Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch: Agree we should fall back on good sources rather than reconstructing definitions. I don't think any of us are proficient enough in Prakrit to do anything approaching original research yet. I think orthographical preference is always for the retroflex n in Prakrit. Whether that reflects actual pronunciation in every dialect is a bit uncertain from what I know (it does in some, since some NIA languages continue the retroflex). —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 02:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, yes, Wiktionary is extremely addictive... —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 02:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aryaman. I agree with you. For now, I am happy though to not have any Prakrit to work on. Thanks and regards, शशकः 02:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA Thanks for chiming in. I completely agree with:

Let's not do anything that approaches original research yet.

Therefore, the current coverage of Prakrit should almost entirely be based on good sources.

@Bhagadatta Despite this, there are issues need to be resolved eventually. For example:

1. The original etymon of ऐकणे (aikṇe) was indicated as {{inh|mr|pra-mah|𑀆𑀇𑀓𑁆𑀔𑀇}} when User:AryamanA created it. However, Woolner (page 62) and Pischel (page 351) indicate that 𑀆𑀇𑀓𑁆𑀔𑀇 is Ardhamagadhi. Thus, there is currently no attested Maharastri etymon for ऐकणे (aikṇe).
2. 𑀉𑀝𑁆𑀝 (uṭṭa) is indicated as Ardhamagadhi in Pischel (page 213), so that entry would ideally be changed from Maharastri to Ardhamagadhi. A Maharastri term must have existed alongside the Ardhamagadhi term.
3. Sauraseni Prakrit 𑀲𑀸𑀭𑀺𑀓𑁆𑀔 (sārikkha) is a better etymon for सारखे (sārkhe), but in Woolner (page 19) and Pischel (page 73) the Maharastri term is 𑀲𑀸𑀭𑀺𑀘𑁆𑀙 (sāriccha). However, since the literary language is not always equivalent to the spoken language, this may be understandable.
4. Regarding 𑀚𑀳𑀸 (jahā): Pischel has both 𑀚𑀳 (jaha) and 𑀚𑀳𑀸 (jahā). An uncitable source has jaha...taha - as...so instead of 𑀚𑀳𑀸 (jahā), and 𑀚𑀳 (jaha) is the only form given in Woolner (page 201). Perhaps this indicates that 𑀚𑀳 (jaha) should be the primary entry.
5. I haven't found 𑀉𑀤𑁆𑀤 (udda) in any source besides CDIAL.
6. For quotations, is the {{Q|refn=}} parameter really the best way to cite both the Prakrit text and its English translation?
7. New Prakrit: Do you support the inclusion of New Prakrit based on the model of CAT:New Sanskrit? Since there are more gaps in the lexicon of Prakrit compared to Sanskrit, many Prakrit textbooks have to coin new words. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: There's one more: Hindi कोख (kokh), which is from Sanskrit कौक्ष (kaukṣa) is given a Sauraseni ancestor in the form of koccha. But Hindi कोख (kokh), with the hard /kh/ actually points to a form *kokkha which is also comfortably capable of being derived from Sanskrit कौक्ष (kaukṣa).

jahā vs jaha appears to be a spelling issue. Maybe moving it to jaha and giving jahā in the ts parameter is the solution.

Yeah, the idea of New Prakrit seems good because we spoke earlier about a website where they coined a lot of new Prakrit terms, using the Skt to Pkt sound laws which they were aware of. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 13:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta The Prakrit textbooks are here:

https://prakritvidya.com/en/online-resource/

https://pranamyasagar.org/index.php/book-list

http://cart.ebalbharati.in/BalBooks/ebook.aspx

Definition of 𑀉𑀤𑁆𑀤 (udda) from https://books.google.co.in/books?id=8wTGMIRwVZ4C&pg=159

पाइअ-सद्द-महण्णवो (प्राकृत-शब्द-महार्णवः): अर्थात् विविध प्राकृत भाषाओं के शब्दों का संस्कृत प्रतिशब्दों से युक्त, हिन्दी अर्थों से अलंकृत, प्राचीन ग्रन्थों के अनल्प अवतरणों और परिपूर्ण प्रमाणों से विभूषित बृहत्कोष

उद्द न [दे] १ जल-मानुष। २ ककुद, बैल के कंधे का कूबड़ (दे १, १२३)। ३ मत्स्य-विशेष ४ उसके चर्म का बना हुआ वस्त्र (आचा)।

उद्द वि [आर्द्र] गीला, आर्द्र (षड्)। Kutchkutch (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Good find! The definitions are the same as Turner's. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 01:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta पाइअ-सद्द-महण्णवो is now on DSAL!

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/sheth/ Kutchkutch (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: This is great news! So this is Maharashtri Prakrit right? It's definitely going to help our Prakrit coverage here. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 09:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Most Prakrit dictionaries are either hard to find, hard to search, the printing is hard to read or they're still in progress. The focus of {{R:inc:Pischel}} and {{R:inc:Woolner}} is grammar rather than lexicography. The title says विविध प्राकृत भाषाओं के [शब्द] and Sauraseni is marked as शौ, so, perhaps, the appropriate title of the corresponding template would be {{R:pra:Sheth}}. The verbs appear to be organised by stem rather than the lemma form, so even if it automatically converts the Brahmi script of a page title to Devanagari, |1=, |head= or |entry= may need to be used for the links to work. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)