Talk:दूना

*duguṇa
Does


 * 6390 *duguṇa 'double'. [~ dviguṇá-. — *du-², guṇá-]

mean that *duguṇa should be considered as an alternative form of rather than reconstructed Ashokan Prakrit? Kutchkutch (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kutchkutch: Maybe an alternative form only? I straight away wrote inherited from because I don't find it problematic and in some Prakrit words there can be seen similar i ~ u variation (and here we also have dv which can easily cause du). Svartava (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * dv → du does seem reasonable since that is how became . Perhaps R:CDIAL had to use reconstruction so that the outcome of i in the compounding form  does not need to be explained.
 * If this dismissal of R:CDIAL’s reconstruction is retained (in favour of the attested Sanskrit term), it would not be the first instance. Kutchkutch (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)