Category talk:Prakrit terms by script

@Kutchkutch: since this isn't yet discussed and decided, should CAT: Sauraseni Prakrit and others have terms in Non Brahmi scripts? Or should categorisation by lect be reserved for Brahmi only. Svartava2 (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava2: There doesn't seem to be anything wrong about having lect labels for non-Brahmi terms and terms in CAT: Sauraseni Prakrit etc. that are not in the Brahmi script. Kutchkutch (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: ok. Also regarding scripts, what is the argument for keeping these in Brahmi apart from the assumption that prakrit speakers used it. It is way less convenient than devanagari. Plus it was implemented based on a really small discussion by 2 editors (Derek Winters and AryamanA) with no broad consensus. Most citations are also in devanagari. (Not asking for changing the script, just for why Brahmi) Svartava2 (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava2: Although most of the Prakrit texts that are available today are in a form of Nāgarī script (not necessarily Devanagari), it is presumed that they are reproductions of original texts that were in the Brahmi script. Sometime around 500 CE, the ability to read the Brahmi script was lost, so the Prakrit texts were preserved by reproducing them in other scripts such as Nagari. When the Brahmi script was rediscovered in the 1800s, it probably wasn't revived for writing Prakrit literature because of the inconvenience of learning and using the original script. The situation could be compared with:

DerekWinters' observation that Gujarati news articles that quote Hindi, or even just produce Hindi statements, in the Gujarati script

Marathi texts originally in the Modi script that are reproduced in Devanagari

Kutchkutch (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch exactly. Per w:Sanskrit: "Sanskrit does not have an attested native script: from around the turn of the 1st-millennium CE, it has been written in various Brahmic scripts, and in the modern era most commonly in Devanagari." We use Devanagari for Sanskrit, so I think same should be for Prakrit. Plus “Prakrit's relation to Devanagari is more or less the same as Sanskrit's relation to Devanagari.” Re: Marathi texts originally in the Modi script that are reproduced in Devanagari — this actually supports my point. We have Devanagari for Marathi instead of Modi. Same should be done for Prakrit. I understand that changing script now would be another headache, but really no problem in discussing and gaining consensus. Svartava2 (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re-pinging @Kutchkutch Svartava2 (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava2: In your second comment you wrote:

Not asking for changing the script

And in your third comment you wrote:

I understand that changing script now would be another headache, but really no problem in discussing and gaining consensus.

So it seems like you've changed your mind between the second and the third comments.

If you intend to change the primary script for Prakrit to Devanagari, the first step would be to ping the other Prakrit/Pali/Sanskrit editors listed at Module:workgroup ping/data. It would be wise to wait until there are responses from Bhagadatta and/or AryamanA before proceeding to any sort of implementation. Kutchkutch (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch I meant Not asking for changing the script because changing script now would be another headache, but really no problem in discussing and gaining consensus. I fail to see sufficient reasons for Prakrit in Brahmi. (Notifying AryamanA, Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, Inqilābī, Msasag, RichardW57, AryamanA, Bhagadatta, JohnC5, Kutchkutch, Inqilābī, Getsnoopy): Svartava2 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps such a switch should be opposed on the basis that it would make the Prakrit entries more useful. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57 so you agree with the switch because it would make the Prakrit entries more useful? (just clarifying) Svartava2 (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava2: It seems the right thing to do, if Wiktionary is supposed to be useful. There are policies that are inconsistent with being useful. Perhaps we should move Sanskrit to an older script, in which case Brahmi might be the right primary script for Prakrit. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57 I'm strongly opposed to moving Sanskrit to Brahmi. It would make the Sanskrit entries difficult to search and read and would decrease their usefulness, that too just for the sake of justifying Prakrit in Brahmi. I would probably soon create a vote for changing Prakrit's script to Devanagari. Svartava2 (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd support having Prakrit entries primarily in Devanagari, with Brahmi entries as the alt script forms. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 10:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Svartava2 diff: Please add a link to the Brahmi spelling to entry for लच्छी (and पडिअ), and make 𑀮𑀘𑁆𑀙𑀻 a soft redirect. Kutchkutch (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava2: Would it be okay have the headword in Brahmi on Devanagari script entries as a compromise between convenience and displaying the original script? The headword could be a link to the Brahmi redirect entry.

Shouldn’t the page titles for Category:Epigraphic Prakrit attested Brahmi and Ashokan Prakrit remain in Brahmi? Kutchkutch (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Kutchkutch I oppose a compromise between convenience and displaying the original script. Category:Epigraphic Prakrit in Brahmi would mean Category:Epigraphic Sanskrit also in Brahmi. Now the headword links to the Brahmi entry, which IMO is more than enough for a dead script. —Svārtava 02:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved to User_talk:Benwing2#Changing_Prakrit's_script.

@Kutchkutch: As I understand, the discussion on Benwing's page is regarding running a bot to change the Brahmi script to Devanagari in {{m}}, {{l}} etc. What's the status of the discussion regarding the script itself? Can moving of the pages start now? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 04:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bhagadatta: Assuming DerekWinters has retired and AryamanA's position hasn't changed at User_talk:AryamanA/2017#Devanagari_for_Prakrits?:

Every Prakrit grammar and description I've seen uses Devanagari (although you might argue Brahmi would be too difficult to typeset in the 20th century). Th eother main reason is ease of access; if somebody wants to look up a Prakrit word, they won't look up the Brahmi, they'll look up the Sanskrit

Anybody who learns or studies Prakrit today invariably uses the Devanagari script or the Latin script (often both), but never the Brahmi script. Brahmi is a dead script, and so nobody (or very few people) learns it or is able to type in it reliably. Since we're an online dictionary, it hardly makes sense for use to make the reader deal with redirects or a weird script they don't know; it should just work. For the same reason we keep Pali at the Latin script form (it's the most used), we should keep Prakrit at the Devanagari form.

I agree Brahmi was undoubtedly the Prakrit script, but since so much literature exists in Devanagari and Latin, it would be more convenient to have all the information at the Devanagari or even Latin form. Brahmi is just such a pain to work with; browsers don't render the matras well and typing is difficult.

the consensus does appear to change the main script to Devanagari. The issues that still remain on Benwing's talk page are:

1. whether |sclb= can be used in descendants trees
2. enabling link_tr = true, at Module:languages/datax (supported by RichardW57)
3. showing the Kannada script for Jain Maharastri

Although Svartava2 has not responded yet, since these are not directly related to moving pages, the moving of the pages could start. There is also the unresolved issue of the hiatus-filler at Template_talk:pmh-decl-adj#Hiatus filler. Kutchkutch (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: Okay, cool. Since the script is changing, I expect {{pra-noun}} etc will likewise undergo changes. Is that why it no longer gives the Devanagari equivalent now? If yes, then the moving can start right now as well (Because Devanagari entries link to Brahmi but not vice versa, which is exactly how we want it). -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 05:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, {{pra-noun}} and others don't show the Devanagari form, instead it shows the Brahmi form when the page title is in Devanagari. Many of the Devanagari entries need to be mass-deleted, to make way for moves. —Svārtava 05:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Such as? What do these pages have that can't be simply overwritten instead of moving? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 06:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The page history. In most cases it should be preserved. Alternatively the page history can be merged. —Svārtava 06:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• @Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, Benwing2: Wait, there’s no hurry. I do not think Devanagari is preferable. Firstly, we have reconstructed Prakrit terms, and changing those to Devanagari would be counterproductive. (Incidentally, I think reconstructed entries for dead languages can be in Latin script, because that is how linguistics present them in their works— however I have no problem with Brahmi.) Secondly, Epigraphic Sanskrit and Prakrit terms must be in Brahmi, because that’s how they are attested. Thirdly, I do not think Devanagari is ever used for any study of Magadhi Prakrit. Thus, we are left with only attested, literary terms, and some dialects, that may be shown in Devanagari. I am against this proposal if all Prakrit entries are moved to their Devanagari forms; I abstain if the move is selective (as a compromise). It is worth noting that on Wiktionary, we use the original script as the primary one for dead languages, whenever possible. Having Brahmi entries is just fine. If necessary, maybe we can switch over to Latin, if we want to be user-friendly. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  I think Devanagari is the best script for attested entries, but I'm on the fence for Latin for reconstructions. Oppose Latin script for main entries, see WT:Votes/pl-2018-12/Allowing attested romanizations of Sanskrit. I have no problem for keeping main entries in Brahmi, for epigraphic Sanskrit/Prakrit. Regarding Magadhi Prakrit, Devanagari is indeed used for it.^{, ,} Simple google and books hits for the terms in category:Magadhi Prakrit will be enough to show that Devanagari is infact quite prominent for Magadhi. Regarding the use the original script as the primary one for dead languages: is there any such policy? —Svārtava 10:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Inqilābī, Svartava2: I agree with:

we should use the original script as the primary one for dead languages, whenever possible. Having Brahmi entries is just fine

Using the original script as the primary one for dead languages may not be a policy, but it is a widespread practice that is used for many languages such as:

Old Tamil, Gandhari, Niya Prakrit, Ahom, Gothic, Pictish, Primitive Irish, Avestan, Old Persian, Middle Persian, Hittite, Sumerian, Hurrian, Elamite, Luwian, Old Turkic, Etruscan, Oscan, Umbrian, Venetic, Old South Arabian, Minoan, Mycenaean Greek, Khitan, Lydian, Coptic, etc

The problem with switching to Latin, is that the Latin script may become so convenient that the importance other scripts would be greatly diminished.

There was a Beer Parlour discussion regarding reconstructions not in the Latin script: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2021/March#Reconstructions_in_Latin_script

Mahāgaja:

Having reconstructed Sanskrit terms in Devanagari seems perfectly natural to me, reconstructed Gothic terms in Gothic script somewhat pedantic, and reconstructed Primitive Irish terms in Ogham downright perverse. I guess it depends on the extent to which the native script is actually used in the historical linguistics literature: Sanskrit is very often given in Devanagari, Gothic rarely in Gothic script, and Primitive Irish absolutely never in Ogham.

Mnemosientje:

I suppose that's a broader discussion that can be had. But as long as the regular, attested Gothic entries are at the Gothic script spelling, using the Latin script for the handful of reconstructions we have seems odd.

Victar:

If we're going by academia, reconstructions will always usually be in Latin script, which does also go for Sanskrit and Avestan. Seeing *लुट्टति (luṭṭati) is rather weird to my eyes. I probably have the most sympathy for Old Armenian, since it isn't too different from modern standard Armenian. I however have no sympathy for the dead language Gothic because you would be hard-pressed to find any work that reconstructs Gothic in Gothic script.

Mnemosientje:

Beyond just reconstructions you'd be hard-pressed to find a work that reproduces any actually attested Gothic in Gothic script. Yet we use Gothic script for the entries. Whether that's desirable or not is a larger discussion but again, imo it's odd to make an exception for reconstructions on that basis as the same reasoning also applies to regular, attested terms where we so far have opted to use the Gothic script and not the Latin script for entry titles.

Fay Freak:

Just do the natural: If a script is successful, a script that is continued to be used because being able to represent languages well at least with expansion, then use that. Hence don’t reconstruct in cuneiform or any of those scripts Middle Persian actually used because that is generelly fanciful and arbitrary and as difficult and ambiguous does not get to the point to the extent that we desire. But Devanagari and Cyrillic works very well. Like one can read and and write languages in it like natively, without understanding why there would be a different script. Aye, I like this dictionary because its aim of everything being in the script it should be written....writing them in Latin would add something and make a statement that is not desired to be reconstructed. See, knowledge is not by default in Latin script....using the reconstruction namespaces in foreign scripts is consistent with our former votes of not letting encroach Latin transcriptions too much. It’s actually writing in Latin that needs a justification, not the other way round, that’s the point. With cuneiform you have that justification obviously but as we have recognized not that much when there are attestations you can encode, so here lies the difference. Ashokan Prakrit is always in native script—whether found by attestation or conjecture—, this makes senses in isolation, and if it makes sense in isolation it can’t be wrong. And of this can’t-be-wrong we have in total, proceeding so, more than if we always reconstruct in Latin script, because if we always reconstruct in Latin script then only those languages natively written in Latin have this consistency.

See AryamanA's comment at Talk:बद्ध:

As Ashokan Prakrit is being used as a general Proto-Early-MIA label, we should stick with representing geminates etc. as they would have been phonologically. It is not useful to reconstruct with the idiosyncracies of Ashokan Brahmi being applied, in comparative linguistics we care about the phonology not orthography.

Kutchkutch (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Kutchkutch, Inqilābī I disagree. Taking the example of Niya Prakrit: It's obvious that Prakrit isn't as dead as Niya Prakrit. The attestation, quotations, etc. for Niya Prakrit are in the Latin script, for example in {{R:pra-niy:Burrow:1937}}, but these are just Romanisations, because the Kharoshthi script cannot be read as easily. This isn't the case with Prakrit in Devanagari, because there are actual texts written in Devanagari after Brahmi became dead. —Svārtava 06:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava2: Kindly undo all your moves from Brahmi to Devanagari. You cannot unilaterally decide to implement such a drastic change. Prakrit and Sanskrit are not the same thing. Sanskrit was an unwritten language initially, and hence lacks a native script, while Brahmi is the original script for the Prakrits. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava2: After Inqilābī entered the discussion, the initial consensus was lost. Therefore, a compromise may be needed to resolve this issue.

For example, could you suggest which terms could stay in Brahmi? Magadhi and Epigraphic Prakrit/Sanskrit?

Until a consensus is reached, would it be possible for you not to change the script of existing entries to prevent further escalation? Kutchkutch (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: The end of this proposal was to make searching Prakrit terms easier for our readers. However, if you put an asterisk before the romanisation, then you easily find the term: e.g. duggā, kamhīra— and you make it to the entry irrespective of whether you use diacritics in the search. What makes Wiktionary unique is that we have got the chance to use the original script for languages; and even then we have modern script spellings as alternative forms. This proposal is wholly unnecessarily. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Kutchkutch, Inqilābī Please source “Brahmi = original Prakrit script”. It's just a Wiktionary-based assumption, AFAICT, Prakrit (not Ashokan Prakrit) might as well be an unwritten language until much later. I'm stopping the moves for now, but even Magadhi Prakrit is mostly in Devanagari, I believe. You just need to search for the Magadhi words in Devanagari and see for yourself the proof: google books:"मणुश्श", google books:"णल" "नर", google books:"पुलिश" "पुरुष"; and even T:R:pra:Sheth gives Magadhi forms as मा, for example, भुश्का. —Svārtava 03:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• @Kutchkutch: Since this has been no-consensus for a while now, I've added some Devanagari forms as the main and you have created Brahmi entries as the main entry, how about retiring {{pra-sc}} and letting both scripts have the main entries? This is done for example with Punjabi, so maybe follow that? I'll try to make {{pra-noun}} show Brahmi and Kannada when in Devanagari and vice versa. —Svārtava 08:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  @Svartava2: This is fine in principle. However, it there could be difficulties in maintaining two (or more) versions of the same content. When one version is updated, it is possible that other version will not be updated accordingly.

  It makes sense for Hindi/Urdu & Punjabi since they are modern languages with one script being Brahmic and the other script being Perso-Arabic, and there is no coverage of Hindi/Urdu & Punjabi in historical scripts such as Kaithi & Mahajani. Also, those who are natively familiar with one script may not be proficient in the other.

  For Old Marathi, the Modi script is derived from Nagari/Devanagari. This is comparable to how the Nagari/Devanagari and Kannada scripts are derived from Brahmi for Prakrit. However, since Modi is just a cursive form of Devanagari, there is no need for both scripts to have main entries for Old Marathi.

  Kutchkutch (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  @Kutchkutch: You're right; I too thought on this, particularly the descendants (since Prakrit has much more descendants than Punjabi or Hindustani) and managing them on all two/three pages. The comparison with Old Marathi is quite appropriate and logical. One script for main entry would be undoubtedly the best option, but which one is the big question. I would suggest letting Devanagari be that one script, given that there is already 3/5 consensus (RichardW57, Bhagadatta and me) + the major convenience, usefulness, attestation etc. against the original script argument and Brahmi is just SO inconvenient, in my old mobile, it wasn't even visible, it would show just squares. What do you say? —Svārtava 15:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Addendum: Epigraphic Prakrit terms will be in Brahmi only even if we change the main script to Devanagari and Inqilabi's argument against this using Magadhi Prakrit has been answered. The only argument left for Brahmi is the original script one. —Svārtava 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  @Svartava2: Sorry for the late response. Dictionaries and other philological works do not determine the attestabilty of a language in a particular script. The Devanagari script was not yet developed when Magadhi Prakrit was spoken, and unlike other dialects such as Jain Prakrit, Magadhi Prakrit was not continued as a literary language. Therefore, if we are to have Devanagari-script entries, we would have to avoid Magadhi-only entries. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Inqilābī: There are Magadhi quotes in Devanagari too, e.g. this. I'm saying that Magadhi is presently most commonly written in Devanagari, unless you can bring up similar evidence for some other script like e.g. Eastern Nagari. Also, would you oppose this proposal, if we were to continue using Brahmi or some other script for Magadhi and Epigraphic terms and move the rest to Devanagari? —Svārtava 03:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Svartava2: Those quotes are not attestations. Magadhi Prakrit is dead as dodo, and not comparable to other lects (like Jain Prakrit) which may still be used as a liturgical language. Also, see my statement at the bottom of this talkpage, where I said it’s counterproductive to have (near-)fullfledged Devanagari entries. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Inqilābī, Svartava2 According to following, Brahmi was a pan-Indian script for Prakrit before the rise of its descendants such as Nagari/Devanagari:

http://www.du.ac.in/du/uploads/departments/BuddhistStudies/Study%20Material/21052020_Origin%20and%20development%20of%20Brahmi%20Script.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/38890801/origin_of_brahmi_script

Unlike other scripts such as Kharosthi, which was always geographically limited and died out at a relatively early, the Brahmi script was a fully developed pan-Indian national script (sometimes used as a second script even within the proper territory of Kharosthi in the northwest) and continued to play this role until the appearance of its descendants.

The Chinese encyclopaedia Fǎyuàn Zhūlín (法苑珠林) compiled in 668 CE states that there were two important scripts of ancient India:

1. left-to-right Brahmi script

2. right-to-left Kharosthi script

The tenth chapter of the Buddhist text Lalitavistara Sūtra (lipisala samdarshana parivarta):

lists 64 Indian scripts such as Brahmi, Kharosthi, Puskarasari, Angalipi, Vangalipi and Magadhalipi.

states that the Buddha mastered philology, Brahmi and other scripts from the Brahmin Lipikāra and Deva Vidyāiṃha at a school.

The name of the script ‘Brahmi’ was also recorded in the Jain texts Pannavana Sutta (2nd century BCE) and Samavayanga Sutta (3rd century BCE) among a list of 18 Indian scripts. Brahmi is at number 1, and Kharosthi is at number 4.

Kutchkutch (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: Thanks for giving these sources! There's no doubt that Brahmi was the original script, but my above question remains: which script should have the main entries, the convenient + attested + more useful/readable one or the original one. Like I said, since there are 3 in support among 5, let this case be decided by this much majority. —Svārtava 03:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Svartava2 Since this is a drastic change, and Inqilābī has raised objections such as:

The end of this proposal was to make searching Prakrit terms easier for our readers. However, if you put an asterisk before the romanisation, then you easily find the term…on Wiktionary, we use the original script as the primary one for dead languages, whenever possible…What makes Wiktionary unique is that we have got the chance to use the original script for languages.

these objections should ideally be addressed before proceeding. Regarding:

The attestation, quotations, etc. for Niya Prakrit are in the Latin script,…but these are just Romanisations, because the Kharoshthi script cannot be read as easily. This isn't the case with Prakrit in Devanagari, because there are actual texts written in Devanagari after Brahmi became dead

The same could be said for Devanagari being used as transliteration for Brahmi because Devanagari (or any Brahmic script) cannot be read as easily by users of English, who are the primary readers of English Wiktionary. If I were to support the Latin script for the sake of convenience, there would also be 3 in support of it. Kutchkutch (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: What about granting full lemma status to all scripts, except with respect to descendants? So the descendants will always go in one of the script-entries (ideally either Brahmi or Devanagari) and the entries in other scripts will not have descendants. Except for that, the entries in other scripts will contain all the other details contained in full lemmas. I know it could lead to some confusion (it would make it appear as though a Prakrit term has no descendants and may also cause a new editor unfamiliar with the conventions to add descendants at the wrong entry) but it will prevent the problem you mmentioned and will also not require any large scale edits because the descendants are already in the Brahmi entries. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 04:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Svartava2 Regarding:

The comparison with Old Marathi is quite appropriate and logical

The Devanagari and Kannada scripts have evolved to such an extent that they are not merely cursive forms of Brahmi. The Devanagari and Kannada scripts are the result of several significant intermediate stages of evolution that entirely superseded Brahmi. There are no significant intermediate stages of evolution between from Devanagari to Modi, and in its role as a cursive script, the Modi script did not entirely replace Devanagari.

Regarding:

I think there is no need to show so many scripts in etym: how messy it would if we showed all or even 10 scripts for Sanskrit in which it was written? It can be chosen on relevance and appropriateness

See above:

Prakrit and Sanskrit are not the same thing. Sanskrit was an unwritten language initially, and hence lacks a native script, while Brahmi is the original script for the Prakrits

See Template_talk:pra-noun#Scripts:

I was under the misapprehension that Kannada was one of the many scripts intended for Prakrit and only Kannada (along with Devanagari) was being shown by the system currently; but that does not seem to be the case, there seem to be only three. Going by prakrit.info/prakrit/ and Category talk:Prakrit language Kannada does seem to be one of the only(?) 3 scripts for Prakrit so this does change things

Perhaps the Kannada script could be omitted, but omitting the Brahmi script could lead to a bias towards Devanagari. See Category_talk:Prakrit_language:

what about Magadhi Prakrit then? … It would be biased to have Devanagari

See User_talk:Msasag#Eastern_Nagari_script_for_Sanskrit:

generally and traditionally Eastern Nagari script has been used to write Sanskrit in Assam (and Bengal). So it helps Assamese speakers and learners to understand the links. Sanskrit is written in many scripts (probably more than Pali) and many variations of the same script, so Assamese alphabet based Sanskrit is slightly different from Bengali alphabet based Sanskrit.

Bhagadatta Regarding granting full lemma status to all scripts: That seems fine as a comprise if Inqilābī agrees. If Hindi vs Urdu and Gurmukhi vs Shahmukhi entries are compared, they are often not mirror images of one another with the sole difference being the script. The corresponding entries are usually not created at the same time. When a Hindi or Gurmukhi entry is created, the corresponding Urdu or Shahmukhi entry is not created immediately and vice versa. Also, the entries usually have different layouts, styles and content (such as usage examples, quotations, -nyms, definitions, references, alternative forms, etc). Kutchkutch (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta: It should be noted that on Wiktionary, Serbo-Croatian is our model for multiple-script languages. Despite being a pluricentric language, our community has managed to unify the language — both Latin and Cyrillic entries are duplicates of each other. Our Punjab, Kashmiri, etc. entries are also supposed to be like that, it’s just that we have been lazy to not conform to that standard (Hindi and Urdu are different languages for now). We can certainly have Devanagari entries for Prakrit (barring reconstructed, Epigraphical, and Magadhi-only entries), but it makes more sense to have those Devanagari entries as alt-script entries: because Devanagari entries are meant only for user-friendliness, and our readers can have the link to the corresponding Brahmi entry. Compare our Gothic romanisations. The problem with having fullfledged Devanagari entries is that the proposal achieves nothing: it’s very easy to search a term when the script is ‘exotic’ (see above), and on top of that, Devanagari is already there as a link to the main entry. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I do not see why this proposal is necessary. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA, Kutchkutch, Pulimaiyi: I think it is a good idea right now to consider changing Prakrit's script from Brahmi to Devanagari as we had discussed last on this page. I will try to address the counterpoints here:

• It might be easy to be able to search and find a Prakrit entry by it's Devanagari equivalent but Prakrit entries being in Brahmi script primarily also generates a lot of inconvenience like:
  • Prakrit synonyms, related/derived terms, alternative forms, etc. are all in Brahmi
  • Specialized category pages are lists of Brahmi terms
  • Brahmi has normalized importance over other scripts and is generally the first choice of what to show in any general entry's descendants, etymology, etc. sections
• Although Brahmi is structurally similar to Devanagari, it is fact that nearly zero people are very familiar with Brahmi script and reading Prakrit terms written in Brahmi usually just involves figuring the term out by the IAST translation. So effectively, Brahmi entries for Prakrit are equivalent to IAST entries with Brahmi equivalents of each mentioned term give beside. Thus, Brahmi is not just useless here but it also takes up extra space without adding any meaning.
• Brahmi reading and typing are both inconvenient. Generating Brahmi script from the editor's end requires {{subst:chars}} which often results in lengthy code and causes inconvenience, which can also end up creating mistakes or errors which are less likely and more observable in Devanagari. So Prakrit in Devanagari would be way more easier for both the reader and the editor and can result in a higher quality, more error-free and more number of entries with less wasted effort.
• Regarding the original script point: the most persuasive argument in my opinion is comparison with Sanskrit, which was unwritten initially but the first script to write it down was unlikely to be modern Devanagari as today. Still we unquestioningly keep Sanskrit with Devanagari as primary script, so same could be applied to Prakrit as most Prakrit dictionaries like {{R:pra:Sheth}}, etc. are mostly in Devanagari (or Roman transliterations).
• Magadhi Prakrit was a point raised last time but I don't think Magadhi in Devanagari is a problem per the above points that there are lots of published books and sources too that give it in Devanagari, and even readers who use Eastern Nagari derivatives more in daily life have much higher chance of knowing Devanagari rather than Brahmi (which is also true, for majority of speakers on Indic languages).
• Finally, even if Prakrit with Devanagari as the primary script causes some inconsistencies, I want to say that it is still the best possible option and the positive points dominate the inconsistencies because Prakrit overall feels more like Sanskrit rather than the other languages like Gandhari, etc.
  • Prakrit is less dead than Gandhari, Niya Prakrit, etc. and the number of Prakrit texts is considerably higher than for these.
  • Prakrit terms have much more mentions throughout our entries and Prakrit is an influential link language than the other languages. It is the ancestor of a much larger number of NIA languages. So there is arguably a difference between Prakrit and languages like Old Awadhi/Marathi which can potentially be used for having different rules and conventions for these.
• So I am convinced that the gains in having Prakrit with Devanagari as the primary script are considerably more than the gains in having e.g. Gandhari in Roman script.

This proposal would also solve confusions like Talk:𑀧𑀡𑀢𑀻𑀲 as if a Prakrit entry is in Devanagari then keeping the Sanskrit etymon in accented Devanagari would be fully consistent. Svārtava (tɕ) 18:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava: At this point, I'm inclined to strongly support this proposal. Although Brahmi has been around for longer than Devanagari, I am still seeing zero hits on Google for several Prakrit terms in the Brahmi script, many terms which were in widespread use as well. Once a Wiktionary entry is created and has been around for a while, then the Wiktionary entry is the only hit. On the other hand, those same terms in Devanagari gets you hits every time. Also, as Svartava pointed out, it is much easier to search for and look up terms in Devanagari. I know that as a practice every Prakrit entry should have altscript entries created side by side, but this is not strictly followed. What I would suggest is that we keep the Brahmi script entries as the altscript forms and move the main lemma to the Devanagari page. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 00:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava, Pulimaiyi:

• I am inclined to oppose this change because it is motivated by convenience, readability and greater familiarity with Devanagari.
• I do not see how the inconsistency between the primary script of Sanskrit and Prakrit as pointed out at Talk:𑀧𑀡𑀢𑀻𑀲 has necessitated this change.
• This change essentially eliminates Brahmi as a Prakrit script, because there will almost never be Brahmi alternative script redirects.
• This is a much larger change than just showing Sanskrit in Brahmi script in Prakrit etymologies.
• However, it seems that this proposal has not considered some of its other implications, which would definitely alter the presentation of Prakrit.

Kutchkutch (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch:

Regarding: This change essentially eliminates Brahmi as a Prakrit script, because there will almost never be Brahmi alternative script redirects.

Why? Of course there will be Brahmi alternative script entries. That practice will be actively followed by me (and, I'm sure, User:Svartava as well) and will be encouraged as well. As I mentioned before, the same approach is being followed for Pali. Sure, the coverage of Pali terms in Brahmi script is a bit wanting, but RichardW57 has been very active in that area. If the Brahmi coverage is wanting, it is much better to implement a solution wherein we adopt a policy of creating Brahmi alt-script entries than to adopt a policy where the Brahmi is the official script, thus compromising upon the readability. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 04:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Pulimaiyi:

• it is much better to implement a solution wherein we adopt a policy of creating Brahmi alt-script entries than to adopt a policy where the Brahmi is the official script
• That practice will be actively followed by me (and, I'm sure, User:Svartava as well) and will be encouraged as well
  • Since this proposal (like the previous one) is motivated by the difficulties of using Brahmi, it is hard to support.
    • Brahmi entries for Prakrit are equivalent to IAST entries with Brahmi equivalents of each mentioned term give beside. Thus, Brahmi is not just useless here but it also takes up extra space without adding any meaning. Brahmi reading and typing are both inconvenient
  • If we unquestioningly keep Sanskrit with Devanagari as primary script, the same can be done for Prakrit in Brahmi script.
  • I was not even involved in the initial decision to use Brahmi as the main script for Prakrit, and just accepted the status quo.
• Why?
• every Prakrit entry should have altscript entries created side by side, but this is not strictly followed.
  • If this has not been followed for Devanagari alternative script redirects, then it is even more unlikely that Brahmi alternative script redirects would be created.
  • Despite Prakrit having an association with Brahmi, there an issue with finding unique online and printed attestations of Brahmi because Brahmi was only rediscovered in the 1800s.
  • So, Brahmi would primarily appear on the headword line of the main entry in Devanagari.
  • Creating alternative script redirects is a bot-like process without much thought.
  • There is not much information on such redirect entries other than the headword line, links to other scripts and declension.
  • The only incoming link would be from the main entry in Devanagari.
• the same approach is being followed for Pali.
  • The situation is not comparable with Pali because
    • Pali is more prevalent outside South Asia.
    • Pali is written in Southeast Asian scripts like Sanskrit.
    • Pali is liturgical language of a more geographically dispersed religion.
    • Pali has no inherited descendants.
  • So, treating Brahmi as one among many scripts for Pali is just as understandable as it is for Sanskrit.
• RichardW57 has been very active in that area
  • There are relatively few entries in
    • CAT:Pali_terms_in_Brahmi_script
• To be clear, this is a proposal to essentially eliminate Brahmi as a script for Prakrit. It would only be a Prakrit script in name only. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
• @Svartava If changing the primary script to Devanagari would be beneficial, it should be done for more objective reasons.
  • The concern is that when a user comes along and asks “Why was this done?”, there has to be a convincing answer.
  • However, the proposal focuses on subjective issues. Subjective issues such as the inability to read and type in the script can be addressed through editing tools and more practice.
  • If Brahmi were unreadable, the historical writings in it would have never been deciphered.
• Kutchkutch (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)Reply