Talk:ঘর

Reconstruction

@Bhagadatta, AryamanA: Per {{R:ODBL|1|463}}, *garha is a later form of OIA gṛha. Since the Prakrit form is ghara (with metathesis), can this reconstruction be created as an Ashokan Prakrit entry? -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 19:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Yes it can be, Ashokan was added primarily to serve as a "proto-Prakrit". Chatterjee's reconstructions are fine to be used. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 00:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Chatterji reconstructs only the form, so I am afraid I had to reconstruct the meaning myself: please check the entry: *𑀕𑀭𑁆𑀳 (*garha). Thanks. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 19:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Looks good. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 08:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: I believe ‘corruption’ is a bad word that serious linguists avoid using. The word is only used by grammarians. What about ‘innovation'? 09:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh I did not ping properly. @Bhagadatta, I am in favour of a more neutral term… -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 11:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Right, I did not see this. Generally, "innovation" is used - at least in the context of Sanskrit and general Indo-Aryan - when words are analysed as having certain components which are then inserted into other words to form new words. "Corruption" is used, for the want of a better term, to refer to the natural change that happens over time but still within the same language. So if a Sanskrit term is formally problematic with its PIE ancestor, we suppose an earlier OIA term to have existed and the attested Skt term to be a corruption of it. Sometimes both the actual word and its corrupted derivative are attested.

But I would not use the word "corruption" to refer to terms inherited by the descendants of Sanskrit. So yea, that word is not appropriate in an Ashokan Prakrit etymology. We can actually simply say "From Sanskrit". It's not formally problematic enough to warrant an additional comment in the etymology about its ancestry. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 11:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)