Mimamsashastrasarvasva 2.11

2.11

“ye śabdā na prasiddhāḥ syurāryāvarttanivāsinām
teṣāṃ mlecchaprasiddho'rthaḥ kiṃ2 grāhyo neti cintyate9
pika-nema-sata-tāmarasaśabdā hi āryāṇāmaprasiddhārthakāḥ,
mlecchānāṃ tu kokilādiṣu prasiddhāḥ | tatra yadi mlecchaprasiddhirapramāṇameva tato niruktādivaśenārthaḥ kalpyaḥ | atha sā pramāṇaṃ tarhi
saivai grahīṣyate
tatra–
“niruktayākriyādvārā pratipattirbalīyasī
śāstrasthā vetyanenāsau kalpyāpi hi balīyasī4”
mlecchā hi dṛṣṭārthavyavahāritvāt na śabdārthāviplave yatante tasmā7 kalpasūtrāṇāmasvataḥprāmāṇyādhikaraṇam
prayogaśāstramiti cet

“Regarding those words which are not well-known to the inhabitants of Āryāvarta,
it is enquired whether their meaning as well-known among the Mlecchas is to be accepted or not.
For the words ‘pika’, ‘nema’, ‘sata’, and ‘tāmarasa’ have meanings unknown to the Āryas, but are well-known among the Mlecchas for a cuckoo and so forth. There, if the well-known usage of the Mlecchas is entirely devoid of authority, then the meaning must be assumed by force of etymology and the like. But if it is an authority, then that very [meaning] will be accepted.
There:
‘An understanding through the operation of etymology is stronger,
or based on scripture; therefore, even though it has to be assumed, it is stronger.’
For Mlecchas, acting only for seen purposes, do not strive for the non-corruption of word and meaning; therefore—” (7)

Topic on the non-intrinsic authority of the Kalpasūtras.
If it is said that they are manuals of ritual practice—