Re: Paali

The problem with discussions of the language the Buddha spoke is that
people do not define their terms.

It is perfectly possible that the native language of the Buddha was a
non-IndoEuropean language, but, if he preached in Kosala and Magadha, he
certainly gave his teachings in either Sanskrit or an early Prakrit. The
former would only be plausible if we date the Buddha very early.
Otherwise it is clear that he taught in an early Prakrit and his
teachings were preserved in one or more Prakrit dialects.

We can then speculate that there were eventually multiple dialects in
which the teachings were preserved. If that is the case, then it is
important to understand that these were probably not languages as we
usually understand them. Rather they were dialects which would have been
mutually comprehensible.

At some point the texts were written down, some probably already in the
reign of Asoka. But the oral collections as a whole were put into
writing somewhat later. At this point we are talking about a written
language, which is an entirely different matter. At present we know of
only one such language — the 'standard Epigraphic Prakrit' used for
almost all inscriptions in the second century B.C. until the first
century A.D. and continuing in use in some areas for a number of
centuries. Pali is a somewhat developed and slightly Sanskritized form
of that. There were other such descendants, but they were probably not
that different. I would  not call them distinct languages. Rather they
too are dialects.

Whether Buddhist scriptures were ever put into the later developed
Prakrit languages such as Mahārāṣṭrī is unknown. I exclude Gāndhārī from
consideration here as that was far from the homelands of Buddhism and
writing there may go back to  the time of Persian rule.

Lance Cousins.