vgv - very good points!
My point was mInaKshi (as written) is common in the applicable context (i.e. referring to deity in religious contexts and also cm krithis), and the ksha letter is in fair use albeit in very select words. But mInATci as written is also common both when it applies to the deity, as well as common lingua like what drs/mahakavi indicated. In fact usage of mInATci is indeed a lot more common than what I indicated in the other thread.
I said mInAkshi is "the norm" - that would be wrong if applied to overall use. Even in the applicable context, at best it should have been "mInAkshi is very acceptable". I just felt one need not mandate mInAkshi => mInATci, just because of mukham => mugam (or sukham => sugam). I feel the latter is in the category of very well established morphs, such that the morphed words are treated as well recognizable tamizh words.
Btw, not that this need be taken as very official indicator, but a simple google search on the tamizh word (i.e. type in tamizh script) for either returns many hits - but the hits for mInATci dwarf the hits for mInAkshi
. Similar for visAlAkshi vs visAlATci.
Also - in case anyone cares, for the vasanta GB krithi, unless Ta <=> Da also counts for prAsa/edugai (??), it would be naDanam, as the anupallavi starts as vaDakkayilayil (http://www.geocities.com/promiserani2/c1351.html
). But if Ta/Da is ok for prAsa, then pl. disregard this.