Category talk:Konkani inherited terms
Latest comment: 7 years ago by JohnC5
@Aryamanarora @JohnC5 It's funny: this website does not recognize Konkani as a descendant of Sanskrit, so you cannot use the {{inh|kok|sa}} tag. माधवपंडित (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- @माधवपंडित: This kind of data is stored at MOD:languages/data3/k. I think @JohnC5 has editing rights. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 12:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- @माधवपंडित, Aryamanarora: I think I mentioned this before, but we only consider Sauraseni Prakrit and its descendants as deriving directly from Sanskrit. You can see a fairly complete mapping of our language trees at WT:ANC. —JohnC5 18:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: IMO, all the Prakrits (including Maharastri, the ancestor of Konkani) were descended from Vedic Sanskrit. Classical Sanskrit was a mostly artificial creation that occurred later on. Woolner even says in Introduction to Prakrit that Classical Sanskrit supplanted Sauraseni and Maharastri as the language of plays. Since we are counting Vedic and Classical Sanskrit as one language though, we should have all the Prakrits as descendants of it. Just my 2 cents. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Aryamanarora: In the service of full disclosure, I'll point out that the current organization of Indo-Aryan descendant languages is primarily my doing, with some input from @CodeCat. As Benjamin Fortson observes, Pali and several other Middle Indo-Aryan dialects differ from Sanskrit in their realizations of w:thorn clusters. He also mentions that there is some Middle Indo-Aryan admixture into the Rigveda itself, pointing to the fact that other, non-Vedic dialects were already present and developing (remember that "Middle Indo-Aryan" is actually a chronological misnomer). The treatment of PIE *r and *l also differ by dialect. I linked this somewhere else before, but here are some of these phonological differences. It's also mentioned here that scholars think that none of the Prakrits come from Sanskrit. I actually am still not sure that Sauraseni should be listed as a direct descendant. Apparently Woolner's was a minority opinion. I hope this somewhat explains my reasoning. —JohnC5 22:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: IMO, all the Prakrits (including Maharastri, the ancestor of Konkani) were descended from Vedic Sanskrit. Classical Sanskrit was a mostly artificial creation that occurred later on. Woolner even says in Introduction to Prakrit that Classical Sanskrit supplanted Sauraseni and Maharastri as the language of plays. Since we are counting Vedic and Classical Sanskrit as one language though, we should have all the Prakrits as descendants of it. Just my 2 cents. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- @माधवपंडित, Aryamanarora: I think I mentioned this before, but we only consider Sauraseni Prakrit and its descendants as deriving directly from Sanskrit. You can see a fairly complete mapping of our language trees at WT:ANC. —JohnC5 18:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)