Talk:𑀧𑀸𑀅
Latest comment: 6 years ago by DerekWinters
@माधवपंडित, AryamanA, Kutchkutch Hi. Regarding aspirated geminates in the prakrits, I know that Sanskrit and many NIA languages do unaspirated + aspirated (क्ख), but I think I remember reading that the prakrits prefer (ख्ख), and so we should accurately reflect the spelling used in the languages. DerekWinters (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC) And so I'm asking if you all have seen similar things or not. DerekWinters (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- @DerekWinters: If they were really spelled like that, we should make the required changes. However I cannot see how घ्घ or ख्ख can be pronounced, they almost inevitably sound like ग्घ or क्ख... -- माधवपंडित (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- @माधवपंडित: They would be pronounced the exact same. It's just the choice of orthography. I'm just not entirely sure which one was used. DerekWinters (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- @DerekWinters: I'm not aware of that convention, but if you think it's more common than we ought to use it for our entries. Do you have any sources supporting what you're saying (just to make sure)? —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 01:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- @माधवपंडित: They would be pronounced the exact same. It's just the choice of orthography. I'm just not entirely sure which one was used. DerekWinters (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- @DerekWinters, AryamanA I've never seen this convention before for the Prakrits, but according to Woolner and Pischel it is used in certain manuscripts:
- Woolner page 14, §15
- Note 3. An aspirate is doubled by prefixing the corresponding non-aspirated sound : kkh, ggh, and so on. Some [manuscripts] literally double the aspirates, writing khkh, chch, and so on. This is merely an orthographical difference, the pronunciation was the same.
- Woolner page 14, §15
- Pischel page 143, §193
- In the manuscripts that are in the Dravidian script from which the Nagari manuscripts have been transcribed, hence in South Indian impressions too the aspirates like other consonants are either printed double or are mostly indicated as to be doubled by a small circle in the interval before the aspirate (a somewhat rare point) : aghgha=or a○gha=aggha=argya…cha and dha are most seldom written doubled; in relation to other aspirates the manuscripts waver…This method of writing is orthographic, but not a phonetic meaning. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Kutchkutch: Thanks for getting that information! @DerekWinters: I think this means that the more common form was CCh, but we should probably add ChCh alternative forms since they were used in some manuscripts. The small circle ○ in Dravidian manuscripts may suggest that Southern Brahmi had different conventions from Northern Brahmi, we should look into that at some point. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 02:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Kutchkutch, AryamanA: This is exactly what I was remembering. Thank you! (@Kutchkutch). And @AryamanA, that sounds fair. DerekWinters (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Kutchkutch: Thanks for getting that information! @DerekWinters: I think this means that the more common form was CCh, but we should probably add ChCh alternative forms since they were used in some manuscripts. The small circle ○ in Dravidian manuscripts may suggest that Southern Brahmi had different conventions from Northern Brahmi, we should look into that at some point. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 02:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- In the manuscripts that are in the Dravidian script from which the Nagari manuscripts have been transcribed, hence in South Indian impressions too the aspirates like other consonants are either printed double or are mostly indicated as to be doubled by a small circle in the interval before the aspirate (a somewhat rare point) : aghgha=or a○gha=aggha=argya…cha and dha are most seldom written doubled; in relation to other aspirates the manuscripts waver…This method of writing is orthographic, but not a phonetic meaning. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Pischel page 143, §193