Talk:क्रोश
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Bhagadatta in topic Prakrit
Prakrit
[edit]Hi @Bhagadatta! Could you determine from which Prakrit were Tamil கோசு (kōcu) and Telugu కోసు (kōsu) borrowed (or more generally, from which Prakrit(s) were Dravidian languages normally borrowed), so that the two terms can be shown directly beneath the Prakrit in the Descendants section? Maharashtri Prakrit may be? According to Tamil Lexicon, the Tamil word is from kośa.
- Also, Turner mentions a Prakrit kosa as a descendant of Sanskrit क्रोश (króśa). If possible, could you also tell which Prakrit it is in? Thanks! —Lbdñk (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Lbdñk: If the South-Dravidian languages borrowed Sanskrit origin words into their lexicon, it has to be through either Pali or Maharashtri. Shauraseni and (Ardha)magadhi were spoken too far into the north. In Karnataka, Maharashtri Prakrit is associated with the Jain influence on the Dravidian culture and lifestyle. And of course, Pali was propagated through the spread of Buddhism in South India. So if one known the word came from Prakrit and not Pali, one can be sure it is from Maharashtri. Also, it has been accepted that Turner means Maharashtri when he says Prakrit. It also should be noted that Shauraseni and Maharashtri were probably mutually intelligible so the words in Shauraseni and Maharashtri are the same in many cases, which is why he felt no need to differentiate between them. The difference and the non mutual intelligibility among their descendants is thanks to the Apabhramshas which descended from the Prakrits, not these Prakrits themselves. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Bhagadatta: Thank you for explaining! I think if the source of some word is Pali, I would find it being mentioned specifically (even though Pali is a Prakrit, albeit different from other ones). So grounded upon this, the source of the Tamil word is Maharashtri Prakrit; and as you said, Turner uses Maharashtri Prakrit-- however, in this case, Tamil Lexicon suggests the word has [ʃ] (kośa), while Turner* suggests [s] (kosa). Which one you think is the correct representation of the Maharashtri Prakrit word?
- *By the way, AryamanA mentions the following: "[B]ut sometimes he lists terms from other Prakrits too." —Lbdñk (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Lbdñk: Can't figure out the reasoning behind [ʃ]. Maharashtri Prakrit turns the Sanskrit ś into s. In fact apart from Ardha-madgadhi, most Middle Indo Aryan languages merge Old Indo-Aryan sibilants viz. s, ś and ṣ into s. Ardha-magadhi merges those into ś. Now this latter language, the ancestor of modern Bengali, was used by Buddha and the king Aśoka might have been the donor language to Tamil when Buddhism arrived in southern India. But I do not know what the Ardha-magadhi descendant of Sanskrit क्रोश (krośa) is; if anything, it would be kośa. But a word like that cannot be Maharashtri.
- @Lbdñk: If the South-Dravidian languages borrowed Sanskrit origin words into their lexicon, it has to be through either Pali or Maharashtri. Shauraseni and (Ardha)magadhi were spoken too far into the north. In Karnataka, Maharashtri Prakrit is associated with the Jain influence on the Dravidian culture and lifestyle. And of course, Pali was propagated through the spread of Buddhism in South India. So if one known the word came from Prakrit and not Pali, one can be sure it is from Maharashtri. Also, it has been accepted that Turner means Maharashtri when he says Prakrit. It also should be noted that Shauraseni and Maharashtri were probably mutually intelligible so the words in Shauraseni and Maharashtri are the same in many cases, which is why he felt no need to differentiate between them. The difference and the non mutual intelligibility among their descendants is thanks to the Apabhramshas which descended from the Prakrits, not these Prakrits themselves. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. Turner mentions multiple Prakrit descendants in cases like पर्वत (parvata) where there are more that one descendant and each one can be ascribed to a separate Prakrit. Even then, he could not be bothered to actually name the different Prakrits, suggesting that these languages were still largely mutually intelligible. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Bhagadatta, we ping an user in edit summaries by hyperlinking the full username, e.g., [[User:Bhagadatta]]. —Lbdñk (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Lbdñk! I have only recently recommenced editing after being largely inactive for over a year so these small niceties escape me. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)