Talk:ಸಗಣಿ

Etymology
Any idea on how to better present the etymology than just writing "From Prakrit" ? The structure of this Kannada word is very curious and I find no suitable candidates for the probable immediate source of this word among the attested Indo-Aryan terms. It has an initial /s/. Dialectally the term is pronounced /ʃəɡ(ə)ɳi/. This is unlike Prakrit which has a /t͡ɕʰ/ but agreeing with Konkani and Marathi. It ends in /i/, which is perhaps related to the final ī of Old Marathi śeṇī. But unlike Konkani and Marathi, Kannada has retained the medial /ɡ/. I cannot think of any other examples of alterations of this kind (i.e. Prakrit /ch/ -> Kannada /ś/ or /s/). I suppose either of the following to have happened: Any thoughts? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 02:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Kannada term was borrowed from Old Marathi because the sound shift from Prakrit /ch/ to Marathi /s/ is known: c.f. Prakrit chāilla -> Old Marathi . But the Old Marathi term being śeṇī does not explain the medial /ɡ/ in Kannada. So was this a case of Kannada borrowing from an undocumented Old Marathi dialect that retained the medial voiced velar? In that case, the etymology chain will be: MIA chagaṇa -> unattested vernacular Old Marathi *sagaṇī -> Kannada sagaṇi ~ śagaṇi; whereas for the standard Marathi term it will be MIA chagaṇa -> late MIA *chayaṇa ~ *chayaṇī -> Old Marathi *seṇa ~ śeṇī ~ *śeṇa ~ śeṇī -> Marathi śeṇ.
 * 2) The Kannada term was borrowed from Old Marathi śeṇī and then hypercorrected to include the medial /ɡ/ through the influence of Classical Sanskrit  (itself borrowed from Prakrit).
 * Is the Marathi (and Kannada) word necessarily from Prakrit chagaṇa? Isn't it better explained by:
 * OIA śákr̥t + -ikā → MIA *sagaṇ-iyā → Late MIA *sagaṇī
 * → Kannada sagaṇi ~ śagaṇi
 * → sayaṇī (loss of intervocalic stops) → seṇī (vowel coalescence) → śeṇī (palatalisation)
 * All of these changes are attested in Marathi. However, you do have a point that MIA ch > Marathi s (secondary ś when palatalised by following vowel) is very common. There are lots of examples in CDIAL, e.g. chárdati > sā̃ḍṇẽ, kacchapa > kāsav. I am not sure how early that can be dated to, does it show up in Old Marathi?
 * If you can claim MIA *sagaṇī continuing the OIA form in ś- that works to explain the Kannada form, or else you have to posit a ch > s by the time of late MIA already. Agree it's complicated, I'd prefer the former explanation more for now. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 05:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I completely overlooked OIA -ikā. It does nicely explain the final vowel in both Kannada and Old Marathi (Kannada regularly reduces the length of the final non-schwa vowels from Indo-Aryan; cf <- ). And yes, ch -> s sound shift had already appeared in Old Marathi;  is Old Marathi, the modern Marathi reflex being . Both our solutions favour an unattested variant as the source of the Kannada term. This is what had me hesitating in the first place; Indo-Aryan terms inherited from unattested variants are very common but Kannada usually borrows literary Prakrit/Pali terms. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  09:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The intervocalic sound change > ∅ of the MIA stage would have already concluded before reaching the Early NIA stage. 54:
 * Intervocalic, , , , , are lost.
 * Since an unattested Old Marathi term retaining is could be considered too speculative, the borrowing probably occurred at the MIA stage. It follows that MIA term must have either been *sagaṇ- + as AryamanA suggests or  + . Since  >  /  had not occurred yet, the Kannada donor is more likely *sagaṇ-.


 * > /  is treated as a regular sound correspondence.
 * 51:
 * only occurs in Sanskrit loanwords
 * 66:
 * 66:


 * The exceptions to this correspondence appear to be:
 * > (chāyāˊ)
 * has the alternative forms and.
 * > >  (ṣáṭtriṁśat)
 * > >  (ṣáṭpañcāśat)
 * Both of these are numerals with the ones/units place being 6.
 * + +  >  <  (*paśca)
 * > an Old Marathi reconstruction with c(h) > (*pracchaṭ)
 * could be reconstructed from the attested Sauraseni past participle.
 * All of these R:CDIAL entries do not have the → symbol.


 * Although *sagaṇ- could function as the etymon for and, it may be unnecessary since they can be inherited from the attested  with Aryaman's sequence:
 * extension
 * vowel coalescence 56:
 * aya > e (also includes → )
 * palatalisation of to  before i(ː) and e
 * Furthermore, inheriting from would make the Old Marathi and Marathi descendants analogous to the other Indo-Aryan descendants with word-initial ch. Kutchkutch (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, inheriting from would make the Old Marathi and Marathi descendants analogous to the other Indo-Aryan descendants with word-initial ch. Kutchkutch (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @ R:dra-okn:KSP page ೩೬೧, column 2 has
 * text
 * So the Old Kannada term is from *sagaṇ without ? Kutchkutch (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)