Talk:𑀆𑀅𑀅

Alternative forms and descendants trees

 * @Bhagadatta Since is an alternative form redirect and the exact pronunciation cannot be inferred from the spelling, should the descendants/derived terms be on the primary entry with <?


 * According to R:inc:Pischel,, , and  are Maharastri and  is Ardhamagadhi. Should they move to text and text lines in the the descendants tree at ? At 11 §2, the Sauraseni forms are  and . Since  at  is labeled as text by R:inc:Pischel, that could an example of having terms on both the text line and the lines for text . Should the bullet point text be omitted before text ? Kutchkutch (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's true that keeping the descendants on the original/lemma form's entry is the standard but the Konkani and Marathi descendants are in the derived terms section. I don't know how good < would look under derived terms (if it was under the plain descendants header, it'd look just fine), so I suggest we show and  as descended from *āaa-lla-a and *āaa-illa-a respectively instead of *āa-lla-a and *āa-illa-a as we have it now.
 * Thanks for the specific Prakrit forms - I did not check Pischel and could not find āgaä and āgada in Turner so I left those out. I'll make the changes.
 * Even the change at the descendants section at is fine. Does that mean we'll now show,  and  as "Prakrit" and then show the language specific forms again? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  12:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bhagadatta If one or more terms have no lect specification, the text line could show all the terms to avoid confusion. If all the terms have lect specification, the text line could possibly be left empty, but that may look inconsistent when compared to text lines with terms. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)