Talk:मशक


 * Hi! According to CDIAL (matsara 9757) and McGregor, मच्छर is from . The Sanskrit etymon of is also indicated as . (However, Dāsa has [सं० मशक].)
 * Also, the entry in CDIAL that contains is mákṣā 9696 and the corresponding Sanskrit etymon would be . This agrees with Molesworth (मक्षिका S), Date ([सं. मक्षिका; प्रा. मख्खिआ) and Tulpule  ([Sk. makṣikā]).
 * So should the entries be changed accordingly, or do you still believe and  are both from ?
 * The CDIAL entry for (maśáka 9917) agrees with the etymologies indicated at  and . Kutchkutch (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. This edit was made by me when I used to go by Shabdasagara alone. Some of their etymologies and defs are wrong. Old Indo-Aryan śa cannot be ccha in New IA. मत्सर obviously is the likelier term: the second syllable is an affricate in Sanskrit and so it is in Hindi. The tsa -> ccha shift is also seen in matsya -> macchī. As for Marathi, I cannot be sure about मक्षिका being the word; though the -->  shift has happened with  -->, M. Prakrit generally goes by ccha for . The etymology of  may need to be reanalyzed. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanations. Regarding, if you're not sure about being the Sanskrit etymon, then we could just put this for now:
 * From . Compare,.
 * There is a Prakrit word macchiā that is a descendant of that has the shift क्ष → cch. There are several sources on Google Books and this Shodhganga file on page 21, that show   > macchiā > . The Shodhganga file and this archive.org source at §485 1 2 say that besides the expected (k)kh, (c)ch is another outcome of  that is "not infrequent". The archive.org source groups  > riccha, rikkha >  and  > chetta [> ] with  > macchiā. Kutchkutch (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)