Reconstruction talk:Proto-Dravidian/poẓal

RFD discussion: December 2023–January 2024
Are there any reasons why it would not make sense to have a reconstruction for this cognate set, or would the form of the reconstruction be uncertain? The corresponding cognate set is on page 403 of Template:R:dra:DED:
 * text

which refers to:
 * Modern
 * Modern ,
 * and perhaps
 * Modern ,
 * and perhaps

There is a suggested Proto-South Dravidian reconstruction *puḻal on page 411 of R:dra-ote:Radhakrishna.

Before the page was deleted, it contained:
 * dra-pro # town, city ===Descendants=== * kn * te}
 * (see https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Reconstruction:Proto-Dravidian/poẓal)

Perhaps the confusion is due to a similar entry in Template:R:dra:DED with the following content:


 * text

If it is appropriate to have an entry for this reconstruction, I would propose the following text:

dra-proR:dra-ote:Radhakrishna4555
 * 1) town, city
 * South-Central Dravidian:
 * dra-ote
 * South Dravidian:
 * dra-okn
 * ta

Kutchkutch (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This reconstruction was pulled of from Southworth's reconstruction *poẓal in the 'Linguistic Archaeology of South Asia'. But then I realized that there are very few descendants of that word. Currently there are codes only for Proto-Dravidian and not Proto South Dravidian, so unless there are separate codes for Proto South Dravidian, the page cannot be created. Illustrious Lock (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't speak any Indian language, and I mostly edit only in English. Maybe you saw me adding historical Anglo-Indian terms. So: I'm flattered but I can't help! Equinox ◑ 06:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)