Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
Talk:ππ
π
. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
Talk:ππ
π
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
Talk:ππ
π
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
Talk:ππ
π
you have here. The definition of the word
Talk:ππ
π
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
Talk:ππ
π
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
- @Bhagadatta Since ππ
(Δa) is an alternative form redirect and the exact pronunciation cannot be inferred from the spelling, should the descendants/derived terms be on the primary entry with
{{q|< ππ
(Δa)}}
?
- According to
{{R:inc:Pischel}}
, πππ
(Δgaa), ππ
π
(Δaa), ππ¬ (Δya) and ππ
(Δa) are Maharastri and πππ¬ (Δgaya) is Ardhamagadhi. Should they move to Maharastri Prakrit:
and Ardhamagadhi Prakrit:
lines in the the descendants tree at ΰ€ΰ€ΰ€€ (Δgata)? At {{R:inc:Woolner|11}}
Β§2, the Sauraseni forms are πππ€ (Δgada) and ππ
π€ (Δada). Since πππππ (caΓΌαΉαΉha) at ΰ€ΰ€€ΰ₯ΰ€°ΰ₯ΰ€₯ (caturtha) is labeled as Prk.
by {{R:inc:Pischel}}
, that could an example of having terms on both the Prakrit:
line and the lines for Ardhamagadhi Prakrit: πππ’ππ£ (caΓΌttha)
. Should the bullet point β’
be omitted before Ardhamagadhi Prakrit:
? Kutchkutch (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
- @Kutchkutch: It's true that keeping the descendants on the original/lemma form's entry is the standard but the Konkani and Marathi descendants are in the derived terms section. I don't know how good
{{q|< ππ
(Δa)}}
would look under derived terms (if it was under the plain descendants header, it'd look just fine), so I suggest we show Marathi ΰ€ΰ€²ΰ₯ (Δle) and Konkani ΰ€ΰ€―ΰ€Ώΰ€²ΰ₯ΰ€²ΰ₯ (Δyillo) as descended from *Δaa-lla-a and *Δaa-illa-a respectively instead of *Δa-lla-a and *Δa-illa-a as we have it now.
- Thanks for the specific Prakrit forms - I did not check Pischel and could not find ΔgaΓ€ and Δgada in Turner so I left those out. I'll make the changes.
- Even the change at the descendants section at ΰ€ΰ€€ΰ₯ΰ€°ΰ₯ΰ€₯ (caturtha) is fine. Does that mean we'll now show πππ’ππ£ (caΓΌttha), πππππ (caΓΌαΉαΉha) and πππ’ππ£ (cottha) as "Prakrit" and then show the language specific forms again? -- ππ±πͺπ°πͺππͺπ½π½πͺ(π½πͺπ΅π΄) 12:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
- @Bhagadatta If one or more terms have no lect specification, the
Prakrit:
line could show all the terms to avoid confusion. If all the terms have lect specification, the Prakrit:
line could possibly be left empty, but that may look inconsistent when compared to Prakrit:
lines with terms. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply