Talk:𑀆𑀅𑀅
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Kutchkutch in topic Alternative forms and descendants trees
Alternative forms and descendants trees[edit]
- @Bhagadatta Since Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "pmh" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. 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|< Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "pmh" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.}}
?
- According to
{{R:inc:Pischel}}
, Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "pmh" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E., Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "pmh" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E., Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "pmh" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. and Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "pmh" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. are Maharastri and Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "pmh" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. is Ardhamagadhi. Should they move toMaharastri Prakrit:
andArdhamagadhi Prakrit:
lines in the the descendants tree at आगत (āgata)? At{{R:inc:Woolner|11}}
§2, the Sauraseni forms are Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "psu" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. and Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "psu" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.. Since Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "pmh" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. at चतुर्थ (caturtha) is labeled asPrk.
by{{R:inc:Pischel}}
, that could an example of having terms on both thePrakrit:
line and the lines forArdhamagadhi Prakrit: 𑀘𑀉𑀢𑁆𑀣 (caüttha)
[…] . Should the bullet point•
be omitted beforeArdhamagadhi Prakrit:
[…] ? Kutchkutch (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)- @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|< Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "pmh" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.}}
would look under derived terms (if it was under the plain descendants header, it'd look just fine), so I suggest we show Marathi आले (āle) and Konkani आयिल्लो (āyillo) as descended from *āaa-lla-a and *āaa-illa-a respectively instead of *āa-lla-a and *āa-illa-a as we have it now. - Thanks for the specific Prakrit forms - I did not check Pischel and could not find āgaä and āgada in Turner so I left those out. I'll make the changes.
- Even the change at the descendants section at चतुर्थ (caturtha) is fine. Does that mean we'll now show Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "psu" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E., Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "psu" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. and Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "psu" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. as "Prakrit" and then show the language specific forms again? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 12:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @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, thePrakrit:
line could possibly be left empty, but that may look inconsistent when compared toPrakrit:
lines with terms. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bhagadatta If one or more terms have no lect specification, the
- @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