Question: In the Chandogya Upanishad, the word “मटची” “maTacI” is used to
describe famine in the Kuru kingdom.

> 
> “मटचीहतेषु कुरुष्वाटिक्या सह जायया उषस्तिर्ह चाक्रायण इभ्यग्रामे
>  प्रद्राणक उवास” (1.10.1).
> 
> 
> 

Apparently according to different internet forums this word was adopted from kannada or telugu, it means locusts or hailstones.

Does this word has any parallel in any sanskrit dictionaries, etymologies or words?

Answer: 
There is a commentary ([source](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/chandogya-upanishad-english/d/doc238794.html)) based on Shankara’s bhasya that parallels the word ‘maṭacī’ in the Sabdakalpadruma (dictionary of sanskrit words compiled in the 19th century):

> 
> According to Śaṅkara, the word maṭacī means ‘fire from thunder.’ According to the Śabdakalpadruma, it refers to a species of small red birds, and according to Ānandagiri it means ‘locusts.’ Another meaning is ‘hail.’
> 
> 
> 

You can find the etymology from the relevant passage in the Sabdakalpadruma, [from archive.org](https://archive.org/details/sabdakalpadrumah03devauoft/page/566).
According to [this](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/15121/what-mleccha-languages-are-used-in-the-vedas-according-to-purva-mimamsa) question:

"In Adhyaya 1 Pada 3 of Jaimini's Purva Mimamsa Sutras, the defining text of the Purva Mimamsa school, Jaimini discusses how to determine the meaning of a word occurring in the Vedas. He argues that by default one should rely on the meaning of the word in the language of the Aryas, i.e. Sanskrit. But if a given word in the Vedas has no meaning in Sanskrit, then he says that one should rely on the meaning of the word in the languages of Mlecchas or foreigners. Here's what this excerpt from Shabara's commentary on the Purva Mimamsa Sutras says:"

> 
> It has been established that that meaning is to be regarded as more
>  authoritative which is accepted by persons who take their stand upon
>  the scriptures. Now in the Veda, we meet with certain words which are
>  not used by the Aryas (who are the people that take their stand on the
>  scriptures) in any sense at all, but are in use among Mlechchhas; such
>  are the words "pika", "nema", "sata", "tamarasa" and such others. In
>  regard to these, there arises the question - Are we to deduce their
>  meaning from their etymology, commentaries and roots with the help of
>  lexicons and grammar? Or should we accept that as their meaning in
>  which sense they are used by the Mlechchhas? ...
> 
> 
> The meaning that is imparted to a word even by uncultured people,
>  -even though not known to the cultured - would be comprehended, - and it would not be right to reject what has been comprehended and which
>  is not incompatible with any authority.... From all this we conclude
>  that (according to the usage of the Mlechchhas), the word "pika"
>  should be taken in the sense of the cuckoo,- the word "nema" in the
>  sense of half - the word "tamarasa" in the sense of lotus, - the word
>  "sata" in the sense of “wooden vessel, round in shape and with
>  hundred-holes”.
> 
> 
> 

---

But I think this is incorrect, because by definition all words found in the Vedas are Sanskrit words. So, this implies that those words you think are Telugu/Kannada words are actually Sanskrit words that Telugu and Kannada borrowed from Sanskrit as [loan words](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loanword).