Talk:खादन




 * 1. The Prakrit lects (under the unified Prakrit header) should be alphabetised
 * (i.e. Ardhamagadhi → Helu → Khasa → Magadhi → Maharastri → Paisaci → Sauraseni, etc)


 * 2. Before the Prakrit merger (and the unified Prakrit header), the convention for the
 * text
 * was to place it under
 * text without any Middle Indo-Aryan extension(s) (see, )
 * In your presentation, you've put
 * text
 * separate from
 * text without Middle Indo-Aryan extension(s).
 * Since there would be a unified Prakrit header with the Prakrit merger, perhaps
 * text
 * and its descendants can go after the forms without any Middle Indo-Aryan extensions:


 * Prakrit:
 * Prakrit: (+ Middle Indo-Aryan -𑀓- (-ka-))
 * (+ Middle Indo-Aryan -𑀓- (-ka-))
 * Prakrit: (+ Middle Indo-Aryan -𑀓- (-ka-))
 * (+ Middle Indo-Aryan -𑀓- (-ka-))
 * Prakrit: (+ Middle Indo-Aryan -𑀓- (-ka-))
 * (+ Middle Indo-Aryan -𑀓- (-ka-))
 * Prakrit: (+ Middle Indo-Aryan -𑀓- (-ka-))
 * (+ Middle Indo-Aryan -𑀓- (-ka-))
 * Prakrit: (+ Middle Indo-Aryan -𑀓- (-ka-))
 * (+ Middle Indo-Aryan -𑀓- (-ka-))


 * 3. If the Hindi term borrowed from text and text separately, then there could be two separate text sections.


 * 4.  is for when there's a need to make a distinction between inherited and borrowed terms, especially when the list of descendants is ʻlongʼ.


 * 5. Since is good with formatting, it will be interesting to see what they have to say.


 * 6. There's descendants at T:R:CDIAL 3867 khādana that are missing. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All that I should say is that  is really an unstandard, useless thing. It was possibly invented by Victar. Do we have stuff like   ? Descendants are descendants, there’s no point in distinguishing between words in this way while we already have nice parameters for that purpose. From a historical linguistic point of view, words are seen as substrate, inherited, adstrate, or superstrate— therefor, employing a separate heading dedicated to “borrowed terms” would be sheer stupidity & possibly discrimination on our part. And we already list non-inherited words at the end anyway. -⸘-  inqilābī  ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 23:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Although I've used  in a few entries as a result of seeing it in other entries, I agree that it's nonstandard since there's no mention of it in WT:Entry layout.  What it does say at WT:Entry_layout is
 * List terms in other languages that have borrowed or inherited the word.


 * So should  not be used anymore for Sanskrit entries? Kutchkutch (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also used it occasionally when I picked it up from other entries. It was primarily done when there was a huge list of borrowings and the descendants section would be cluttered with too many terms with arrows mixed with the actual inherited ones. But it makes more sense to show borrowed terms under the descendants but after all the inherited ones. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 12:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)