More specifically related to Kerala (but still without historical explanation or systematical account) is the article of K. Kunjunni Raja, "Kerala Pronunciation of Sanskrit", Adyar Library Bulletin 25, 1961, pp. 461-476 - see on l/ḷ the pp. 472-3 here attached. 

The general question which arises in the case of "purely" regional texts is: should the critical edition of such texts adopt the regional spellings of Sanskrit, as given (all) in the (indigenous script) manuscripts, or shift to the normalized orthography. As reminded by Esposito, the printed editions in local scripts (for instance Malayalam) preserve these peculiar spellings of the local manuscripts.

<5f8dc698-bc3f-4029-9339-d0250994ecb4.jpeg>

Le 24 mars 2023 à 15:13, Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> a écrit :

Jonas Buccholz wrote:   I have not been able to find any consistent pattern when l becomes retroflex 
 and Anna Esposito wrote:  So far, no one has been able to explain to me why the l has been 
changed to ḷ in these words, and consistently in every manuscript (and 
also in the printed edition). 

I also don't see a pattern. For example this sentence from the manuscript I'm looking at:

दळाग्रे हां सूर्यमण्डलाय नमः। Why दळा . . . but . . .ण्डला. . .
Harry Spier

On 2023-03-24 14:18, Andrew Ollett via INDOLOGY wrote:

Dear all,

In Kannada, too, Sanskrit words are often written with a retroflex ḷ (ಳ = ळ) where we might have expected l (ಲ = ल). The retroflex ḷ in Sanskrit words is called by the name kṣaḷa (ಕ್ಷಳ) in Kēśava's Śabdamaṇidarpaṇam (1260 CE). Kēśava (or Kēśirāja, as he is also known) distinguishes this sound from the retroflex ḷ found in Kannada words, called kuḷa (ಕುಳ), which is however written with exactly the same letter (ಳ). Kēśava further notes that the kṣaḷa and kuḷa (ಳ = ळ) can serve as equivalents for the sake of prāsa (second-letter alliteration), whereas the dental l (ಲ = ल) cannot alternate with either of them.

I don't know precisely (a) why Kēśirāja felt it necessary to distinguish between the Sanskrit and Kannada retroflex ḷ; and (b) why the retroflex ḷ (kṣaḷa) occurs optionally in some Sanskrit words, in some positions, and not in others. Kittel in his /Grammar of the Kannada Language /pp. 14–15 <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.org%2Fdetails%2Fin.gov.ignca.23505%2Fpage%2F13%2Fmode%2F2up&data=05%7C01%7Cchristophe.vielle%40uclouvain.be%7C010a2a6d1d9d4e0580d308db2c6e822f%7C7ab090d4fa2e4ecfbc7c4127b4d582ec%7C0%7C0%7C638152625371200345%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6zP26X299xcrvTg1G1m8T5R8faN8G0JB6cZjXMApo8M%3D&reserved=0>, §30, says: “It is often used by Kannaḍa people as a substitute for the Saṁskṛita ಲ (= ल), the sound of which in the Saṁskṛita language apparently bears a dubious character for them, one that is neither their ಲ (= ल) nor their ಳ (= ळ); this ಳ (= ळ) is Kêšava’s kṣaḷa.” I interpret this to mean: whereas Kannada clearly distinguishes a dental and retroflex lateral, Sanskrit does not, and the Sanskrit lateral is pronounced somewhere between a dental and retroflex position (kind of like the "dental" stops in most kinds of American English), with some phonotactically-conditioned variation within this range. The exact conditions of this variation remain a little obscure, but Kēśava does after all call the consonant kṣaḷa, which suggests that the retroflexion is found (among other places) in those same contexts where dental n is retroflexed to ṇ. Christophe's observation that retroflex ḷ is not used word-initially accords with my impression of Kannada usage.

Andrew

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 5:08 AM Christophe Vielle via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

  I was in course of stating more or less the same as Anna Aurelia
  about the Malayalam script manuscripts, observing the regularity
  of the use of the retroflex for peculiar words, which, I would
  add, usually preserve this peculiarity in their
  borrowing/inclusion within Malayalam language. The retroflex is
  systematically replaced by -l- in the Devanagari manuscripts which
  are transcripts of Malayalam script mss., with the problem that
  this retroflex can in fact also sometime be used for -ḍ- (see
  below /jaḷa/ for /jaḍa/ etc.).
  Contrasting examples are /viḷambita/ (cf. /viḷambase/ in
  Esposito's post) with a "forced" intervocalic -l-  > -ḷ- after a
  prefixe (/lamb- /alone being written with l-),
  versus///vilo//ḷita/ keeping the initial -l- of the theme after
  the prefixe. A more complete listing of the forms of the concerned
  words (from the apparatus in crit. ed. mentioning them) should be
  made for drawing linguistic conclusions. The references of Philipp
  Maas are useful in this respect.

  A few samples from a text in course of edition

  vilolita : viloḷita
  kuntala : kuntaḷa
  lalita : laḷita
  pulinā : puḷinā
  milatpulakakuḍmalaṃ : miḷatpuḷakakuḍmaḷaṃ
  valakṣagu : vaḷakṣagu
  kalakala : kaḷakaḷa
  alinda : aḷinda
  gala : gaḷa
  antarāla : antarāḷa
  pacelima : paceḷima
  bahala : bahaḷa
  gadula : gaduḷa
  nalina : naḷina
  bakula : bakuḷa

  vilambita : viḷambita

  jaḍa : jaḷa

  From a purāṇa text:

  /pātāla /:///pātāḷa/
  /śālin- /: /ṣāḷin//-/
  /tolikā /: /toḷikā/
  /argala-/: /arggaḷa-/
  /vyāla/- : /vyāḷa/-
  /bala- / : /vaḷa-/
  /karāla- /:///karāḷa-/
  /pralaya- /: /praḷaya-/
  /dhūli/- : /dhūḷi/-
  /alakā- : //aḷakā-/

  /-viluḍī/- : -/viluḷī/-
  -/jaḍī/- : -/jaḷī/-
  /-vrīḍam /: /-vrīḷam/
  /kṣveḍita-/ : /kṣveḷita-/
  /thuḍa- /:///thuḷa/-
  /huḍa- / : / huḷa-/

  Le 24 mars 2023 à 09:29, Anna Aurelia Esposito
  <anna.esposito@uni-wuerzburg.de> a écrit :

  Dear Harry Spier,
  I found the same in drama manuscripts written in Malayāḷam
  script. In particular Sanskrit words intervocalic l is replaced
  by ḷ. This usage persevers not only in all manuscripts, but also
  in the editions printed in Malayāḷam script (see e.g. the
  edition of the “Trivandrum Plays” ascribed to Bhasa of Bhāskaran,
  1987).

  In Cārudatta ascribed to Bhāsa we find for example ḷ in I.2a
  dehaḷīnām, I.13b bahaḷa-, I.13b -kāḷā-, I.26.38 viḷambase, III.8b
  karāḷo, III.10b -kākaḷīṣu, III.12d nīḷa-, in Dūtavākya -kaḷaṅka-
  35.1, -praḷaya- 47c and *49c, -laḷitā- *47a.

  So far, no one has been able to explain to me why the l has been
  changed to ḷ in these words, and consistently in every manuscript
  (and also in the printed edition). A possible explanation would
  be, as you suggest, that one scribe read the text and the other
  wrote it; but in some cases it is evident from the errors in the
  manuscripts that the text was copied and not written down by
  hearing. I am curious if someone from the list can give us an
  explanation.

  Best wishes,
  Anna Esposito


  Zitat von Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>:

  Dear list members,
  I'm looking at the devanagari transcription of a south indian
  grantha
  manuscript.  most consonent l's are the classical sanskrit l
  i.e. ल but
  some words have the letter, ळ .
  Some examples are:
  प्रक्षाळ्य

  नाळिकेरोद्भवंपादौप्रक्षाळ्याचम्यमुकुळीकृतियपिण्गळायवामांघ्र्यब्जदळासह्रिताम्अण्गुळ्यग्रेणशुद्धविद्यातत्वव्याप्तसर्वमणळोपेतं

  I'm pretty sure this isn't from typist misprints because प्रक्षाळ्य
  occcurs many times always spelled with ळ

  Any explanations would be appreciated.  My understanding is that
  sometimes
  manuscripts were created by one scribe speaking the text and
  another scribe
  writing what he hears.  Is that a possible explanation for the
  occurance of
  this letter ळ .  I.e. local pronounciation creeping in.

  Thanks,
  Harry Spier

–––––––––––––––––––
Christophe Vielle
Louvain-la-Neuve

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology