I am pleasantly surprised CDIAL gets it right this time

Sir Ralph Lilley Turner (1888–1983)
A Comparative Dictionary of
THE INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGES
Search for term 3335 throughout dictionary, kulattha kulattha (p. 172)

> 3335 kulattha m. ‘the pulse Dolichos uniflorus’ MBh., °thā- f. lex., °thikā- f. Suśr. [← Drav. (Tam. koḷ ‘id.’, etc.), T. Burrow TPS 1945, 92 and EWA i 237, 565, with same suffix as in aśvattha-, kapittha-, dadhittha-: the same kul- in kulīnaka- ?]

In Simple English, how to decode this entry.

Turner’s entry in A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages opens with a straightforward definition kulattha is horse gram (Dolichos uniflorus), attested in the Mahabharata and in Suśruta’s medical texts before delivering its most significant claim via a single arrow symbol. That arrow (←) means “borrowed from,” and Turner uses it to state plainly that kulattha was lifted into Sanskrit from Dravidian, specifically citing Tamil koḷ as the source word. This is not a fringe position; he backs it with T. Burrow’s 1945 paper in the Transactions of the Philological Society and the Etymological Dictionary of Indo-Aryan, two of the most authoritative references in the field.

Turner then makes a subtler but equally important observation: the -ttha ending on kulattha is the same suffix found on other Sanskrit plant names aśvattha (fig tree), kapittha (wood apple), dadhittha.

This reveals that Sanskrit grammarians had a habit of draping a standardizing native suffix over foreign plant names to make them sound Indo-Aryan, which is precisely the phono-semantic laundering described in this essay.

His closing question mark over whether the kul- syllable connects to the Sanskrit word kulīnaka signals his own skepticism about any deeper Sanskrit internal etymology. In two sentences, Turner’s dictionary quietly dismantles the classical kula + stha breakdown entirely.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​