Template talk:pra-noun

@Kutchkutch, SodhakSH: A few things:

1. Why does the Kannada script show alongside Devanagari and that too under the POS-header? It creates the misunderstanding that Kannada was a very significant script used for writing Prakrit which was actually not the case as Brahmi and Devanagari were the actual predominant scripts. Singling out Devanagari I can understand because of its importance to Prakrit but putting Kannada next to it makes the reader think that Prakrit being written in Kannada was/is much more widespread than is the case.
2. I'm given to understand that more scripts will be added eventually and Kannada will no longer be "singled" out; but then that raises an issue as well because the list of the lemma in different scripts will be definitely undesirable if it is going to be displayed at the POS level. Surely a drop down table like {{sa-alt}} is more desirable. Usually it is appropriate to show the spellings in different scripts at the POS level if the language has, say, 2 or 3 scripts like Konkani or Kalasha and they are all of equal importance. Right now I think Kannada is not of equal importance to Brahmi and Devanagri for Prakrit.
3. Prakrit had the short e and o which always occured before double consonants. No separate letter was provided to it as it was predictable and Devanagari and Brahmi do not distinguish the length of e and o. But Kannada does. So we should also check how the Prakrit's short e and o were written in the Kannada script. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 08:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bhagadatta:

1. & 2.

Yes, the Kannada script should be in {{pra-alt}} instead of the POS-header.

@SodhakSH Where and how should the Kannada script be displayed until the Prakrit equivalent of Module:pra-headword is created?

From Talk:ಮರಹಟ್ಠ:

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.

3.

From http://prakrit.info/prakrit/grammar.html?r=phonology and http://prakrit.info/prakrit/grammar.html?r=morphology

No Gemination:

Independent ए (e): हलिएण (halieṇa) = ಹಲಿಏಣ (haliēṇa)

Independent ओ (o): विओअ (vioa) = ವಿಓಅ (viōa)

Dependent ओ (o): कोरव (korava) = ಕೋರವ (kōrava)

Dependent ए (e): मेह (meha) = ಮೇಹ (mēha)

Gemination:

Note that when the letters ō and ē are shortened in such a context, they are either written with the same letters (i.e., there is no orthographic evidence of shortening), or they are written with a short a. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

A drop down table would be more desirable, but just for displaying one Kannada script? If you ask me, I'm in favour of removing Kannada from here and also all CAT:Prakrit terms in Kannada script. I added Kannada beside headword (only to be displayed when the word is in Maharastri) because of Talk:ಮರಹಟ್ಠ: Kutchkutch said there that "shouldn't the Kannada script for Prakrit be based on a convention (such as limiting the Kannada script to Maharastri) rather than attestation?" but I oppose that because then that opens up the possibility of Prakrit in Gujrati, Eastern Nagari and all of the many Indian scripts which may have been used to write Prakrit. I think the best option is just to have 2 scripts - Brahmi and Devanagari. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 09:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just to add, Prakrit is an extinct language so I think it'd be better to keep things really simple. I can say hardly anyone will search Prakrit here. We may also change Prakrit back to Devanagari and forget about all other scripts but that'll be too messy. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 09:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SodhakSH: http://prakrit.info/prakrit/ can display the Kannada script for any term in the (Maharastri) texts that are used. However, if Bhagadatta says not to have the Kannada script for Prakrit and to delete Category:Prakrit terms in Kannada script, then that should be done. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

now I can't say anything since that website won't open. @Kutchkutch: From what you say, most of the Maharastri should be attested in it and hence current template is ok: Kannada sc. form displayed only for Maharastri. @Bhagadatta: if you want Prakrit in Kannada to be deleted, Support from me. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch, SodhakSH: Sorry for the delay, I was looking at the site. So far, I've seen that clicking the Kannada script option does nothing... maybe it is because I'm on mobile. Also, 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. Plus, I found this; a dictionary for Prakrit in the Kannada script. So I don't think deletion is necessary at this point. What do you think about attestation @Kutchkutch, SodhakSH: ? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 11:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bhagadatta: I can't understand a word of the Prakrit-in-Kannada-script dictionary you mentioned; can you tell me whether it attests all the different Prakrit lects or just Maharashtri? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 12:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bhagadatta: If a (non-epigraphic) term is attested in any script, there doesn't seem to be any harm in having the term in all possible scripts. The same principle has been applied to Old Marathi since the Modi script documents available online are only a small fraction of all the historical Modi script documents that were ever written from c. 1200 - 1950.

@SodhakSH: At http://www.herenow4u.net/index.php?id=77222 it says:

The oldest Jaina Śaurasenī text Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama was found in Mūḍabidrī, Karnāṭaka, with its extensive commentary 'Dhavalā' in 1939. The script was old Kannada and was written on palm-leaves.

So even (Jain) Sauraseni was written in the (old) Kannada script. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SodhakSH: It's supposed to be a translation of our beloved Pāia-Sadda-Mahaṇṇavo in Kannada. But I can't understand why, if that really is the case, searching many Prakrit words in the Kannada script gives no Google search results.

@Kutchkutch: Very interesting; I believe the issue is resolved. Kannada script for Prakrit seems legitimate now. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 13:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta: Kannada script for all Prakrits or only Maharastri or Maharastri and Sauraseni? And I also found a YT video (see at 6:00) saying that Kannada script was the script of Prakrit rock-inscriptions in Karnataka. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 14:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SodhakSH: Nice find! I remember watching that video some time ago but I don't remember seeing the part where he talks about scripts. There is no harm in continuing the current system, as it is. Right now we are unable to determine whether only Jain Sauraseni was written in Kannada or Sauraseni too. So we can leave things as they are. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 14:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply