Talk:कैसा

Is the CDIAL Turner reference preferred over the CDIAL Platts reference for obtaining the Prakrit ancestor of Hindi words? CDIAL Platts says:
 * Prk. केरिसओ, S. कीदृश+कः

CDIAL Turner says:
 * Pa. kīdisa --, kīrisa -- ; NiDoc. kētriśa (after ētriśa ʻ of this kind ʼ with ē -- from ēṣa1 &c.), Pk. kīisa -- , kīsa --

'Prk. केरिसओ', in CDIAL Platts looks closest to 'Pa. kīrisa' in CDIAL Turner with the exception of 'ओ' and ‘ े’ following ‘क’ instead of ‘ī’. So is CDIAL Platts not accurate because it is referring to Pali of CDIAL Turner instead of Prakrit?

Also, can it be assumed that when CDIAL Turner says the Prakrit forms ‘Pk. kīisa --, kīsa --’ that the first one is Sauraseni Prakrit and the second one is Maharashtri Prakrit? And if there were a third one (perhaps on a different entry) it would be Ardhamagadhi/Magadhi Prakrit? Kutchkutch (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Platts is really outdated. It has some really laughable etymologies and always assumes a Sanskrit source. So, I always prefer Turner and McGregor. Also, CDIAL just means "Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages", the title of Turner's reference.
 * To my knowledge Turner always gives Maharastri (Maharastri is the most important and standard Prakrit). If I am unsure and can't guess the Sauraseni, I don't give an actual word. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 23:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I mistakenly wrote 'CDIAL' instead of 'DSAL'.