Ms. Cone's dictionary is a step forward, but still has a lot to
improve. What for are those numerous Pali citations without
explanation - nowadays anyone can find any number of relevant
citations on computer. PED is more friendly in this regard. It also
has many pioneering discoveries of the meanings, be they right or
wrong. Ms. Cone's dictionary often simply preserves them and does not
reflect active work of thought. It gives impression that
philological Pali thought has somewhat stagnated since 1925.
p> As to Monier-Williams, wasn't the first edition published in 1851?
p> I see references to an Oxford reprint edition of 1899 but I'm not sure
p> this is the same thing you are referring to.
I don't know its exact publication date. The fact is that
Monier-Williams dictionary is not included in the list of consulted
sources of PED.
Etymology represents an important constituent of linguistic studies -
alongside with actual context, commentarial glosses, definitions,
equivalents in other languages. We should use all these tools for
better understanding.