Paul
I am sorry I cannot agree with your negative views on etymology. One of the
ways (only one, but still an important one) in which we can work out the
meaning of a word is via its etymology. Semantic fields of all words change
with context and over time and it is this problem which leads not just to
misunderstandings but also to the long debates on exact meanings of passages
(often with important doctrinal consequences). To ignore this problem puts
us in the position of "knowing" ahead of time the meaning we want to get out
of the text but the words and the grammar don't support it so we decide the
words and the grammar are irrelevant.
Of more importance to context than the date of the publication of MW was the
lack of a BHS dictionary which had to wait until Edgerton. It is vital that
we remember that any doctionary builds on all previous dictionaries, they
each have (or should have) a clear understanding of their purpose and role
which may or may not meet the purpose and roles users see for it, and each
dictionary is merely one person's or group of people's views of the meaning
and usage of the item at the time.
However, at least you don't confuse etymology and meaning - there has been a
discussion elsewhere on the etymology of "karuna" and none of the replies
have more than scouted the edge of the question and most have concentrated
on glosses of the word in the commentaries - in other words, on the meanings
of the word in the opinion of various commentators rather than on its
etymology.
I am not sure what you mean by an "academic linguist" as opposed to an
"amateur" - surely these are not merely not mutually exclusive but should
be, in our field, handmaidens to each other? We cannot get at the texts
without a lot of linguistics since there is so much material that is
untranslated into modern languages we can read and often we have as yet no
satisfactory dictionaries to help us out (as happens with some of the
Prakrit material). Similarly, if we were not amateurs we wouldn't be in the
field in the first place.
I totally agree that the work of Margaret Cone on the Pali Dictionary is
absolutely essential and thus far excellent - but this is not to denigrate
the old PTS dictionary. For one thing, that one is at least complete. You
still the PTS PED alongside as well as the CPD (as far as that has got so
far)and when they fail there is always the Burmese Pali dictionary to fall
back on. The reason I suggest this is that any dictionary (even one that
concentrates on meanings)has a very limited scope and the citations can only
cover the most frequent examples - you can be sure that the text you get
stuck on will have a meaning not attested in the dictionaries at hand and
you may even find that the commentaries, if they exist, disagree. In some
cases it is difficult to be sure of the actual meaning (rhino horns and
geese spring to mind here)
Incidentally one criticism I have of MW is that it sometimes has obscure
usages as examples and misses a common one - I wonder whether the pundit
advisors he used sometimes had a small smile at his expense)
Keep up the good work
Robert Didham
>From: "paulocuana" <paulocuana@...>
>Reply-To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
>To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Pali] Re: Gair Karunatillake Answers - Chapters 8-9
>Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:40:02 -0000
>
>Dear Dimitry,
>
>I was very happy to hear that the PTS was working on a new dictionary,
>and the first volume of "A Pali Dictionary" by Ms. Margaret Cone is
>very satisfying. The problem with the PED is its dogged commitment
>to etymology. While the history of words has its place among the more
>academic linguists, surely most of us amateurs read the texts for
>their meaning. Ms. Cone's dictionary is much welcomed as it focuses
>on meaning and usage instead of history.
>As to Monier-Williams, wasn't the first edition published in 1851?
>I see references to an Oxford reprint edition of 1899 but I'm not sure
>this is the same thing you are referring to.
>
>Best Wishes,
>Paul O Cuana
>
>
>--- In Pali@..., "������� ���������� ��������� (Dimitry A.
>Ivakhnenko)" <koleso@...> wrote:
>
> > Reconstructing rare Pali word on the basis of Sanskrit equivalent
>is a
> > common practice widely used by "paliglots", including Mr Rhys Davids
> > himself.
> >
> > When PED was compiled in the beginning of 20th century, such
>resources
> > as Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary didn't exist yet. So we
>should
> > use such resources wisely in difficult cases.
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus