Talk:𑀓𑀬

Lect
R:inc:Pischel says this form is attested in Ardhamagadhi and Jain Maharastri. Is the hiatus filler form given as Maharastri in this entry actually Jain Maharastri? That's to say, while converting this entry to Prakrit, it'll be tagged as Ardhamagadhi and Jain Maharastri, should it also be tagged as Maharastri? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 14:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Early European scholars made a distinction between Jain and no-Jain varieties. According to this distinction, the non-Jain variety tends to be literature from the Satavahana dynasty may have surfaced a few centuries later, while the Jain variety tends to be post-Satavahana literature. The labelling is just a reflection of how terms appear in sources, so according to that reasoning the hiatus filler form would not be labelled as Maharastri. However, the Jain and non-Jain varieties are both instances of a single lect:
 * JM. ∪ M. ∪ 𑀤𑀔𑀺𑀦𑀸𑀧𑀣𑀧𑀢𑀺
 * Kutchkutch (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I've converted the entry to Prakrit. Also, I hope you don't mind me giving all these forms the status of full lemmas, instead of simply altforms of each other. They have descendants and phonetic developments of their own (e.g. some descendants have the retroflex consonant because of the OIA combination /ṛt/ whereas the others have retained the dental in ) so I figured they should be words in their own right. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 09:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)