Talk:लोग

Hey! Not to cast doubt, but where did you see/what is your reasoning behind a borrowing from S. Prakrit? It's just, I've never heard of such a thing happening in the NIA languages. DerekWinters (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought it was really weird. Rupert Snell mentioned it in the start of his Hindi-Urdu reader (that's where I'm getting a lot of archaic words from). He calls it a half-tatsama borrowed from Prakrit. In a sense, it's not that different from 🇨🇬. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 03:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Btw, Turner does not list Hindi log in his etymological dictionary, meaning he thought it was borrowed too. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 03:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, very interesting. The idea of the ardhatatsamas though is that they're borrowings from Sanskrit at various stages that then undergo natural processes of the language and are inherited in the subsequent stages. If anything, I would see लोग as perhaps a borrowing from Sanskrit right before Old Hindi or around that time and then voicing ocurring? Idk but a borrowing from a Prakrit into NIA just sounds so mind-boggling to me. DerekWinters (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Snell specifically says "Middle Indo-Aryan". And the Prakrit weren't totally dead. Buddhist and Jain Canon were in Pali and Maharastri Prakrit, respectively, so there was a possibility. Besides, the natural phonological change in Old Hindi was to excessively drop intervocalic consonants, so "loka" would become "loa", which is attested in Old Hindi. It is really weird though. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 03:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow interesting. Was it borrowed into Old Hindi first? And then passed down to Modern Hindi? That might make sense. I've heard of some Old Gujarati forms borrowing from Prakrit, essentially archaicizing itself. DerekWinters (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's more likely. I'll look for it in some Old Hindi works tomorrow. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 03:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)