I'm sorry to harp on about this, but perhaps I was too hasty when I
wrote:
It is,
of course, entirely possible that someone at some point misread
prāghuṇika as prādyuṇika (though it would have to have been
someone ignorant of the former word, like myself) and that the
mistake was then copied [...] it is possible that the mystery word
should not mean 'frequent' after all, but rather the next thing
discussed,
which would be someone dear or connected to the querent. But I
can't see prāghuṇika fitting that sense either, at least not
from its etymology.
I see now that Turner actually suggests prāhuṇa to be the more
correct/original form, related to the idea of hospitality, with the
-gh- being a result of influence from a different root. That does
seem to increase the probability of prāghuṇaka/-ika being the
original word after all, used in the sense of 'someone welcome'
rather than just 'wanderer' or (as MW suggests) 'one who goes forth
deviously' (!). If so, the word must then have been misread as
prādyuṇika and eventually deteriorated into prāyaṇika, etc.
This solution seems attractive, but it does presuppose that Turner
is right about the word having connotations of welcome, hospitality
and even kinship (vernacular meanings include 'bridegroom' and
'daughter's husband'). Romain Garnier, in a paper published in JAOS
133.1, seems to think so: '[...] prāhuṇa- et prāhuṇaka-.
Ces deux dernières formes sont assurément les meilleures [...]'. The
solution also seems to suggest that the word was unusual enough not
to be understood by the copyists, at least in some regions.
Best wishes,
Martin