Dear Dimitry

The point I was making was partly that the search for meanings and
etymologies of Pali and Prakrit texts is likely to prove less fruitful if
one looks in classical Sanskrit as attested in MW than it is to be if one
looks at forms reflected BHS. For this reason if the compilers of the PED
were to have needed recourse to a Sanskrit dictionary they would have found
Edgerton a lot more useful if only because the examples were drawn almost
exclusively from Buddhist materials.

They probably would have used used Boehtlingk of course rather than MW but
their stated sources do not indicate this (neither are mentioned, though
they do mention both Brugmann and Grassmann - and their foreword is well
worth a read for considerable insight into their perspective).

Edgerton's dictionary was not published until around 1950 (there are current
editions published by Motilal Banarsidass) but as with any dictionary, these
don't get written overnight anymore than one might find a publisher
overnight!!

I am not sure if I have adequately answered your question, Dimitry, but
please let me know if I have totally missed the target.

Cheers

Robert

>From: "������� ���������� ��������� (Dimitry A. Ivakhnenko)"
><koleso@...>
>Reply-To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
>To: Robert Didham <Pali@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re[2]: [Pali] Re: Gair Karunatillake Answers - Chapters 8-9
>Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 10:00:53 +0200
>
>Dear Robert,
>
>RD> Of more importance to context than the date of the publication of MW
>was the
>RD> lack of a BHS dictionary which had to wait until Edgerton.
>
>Can you please tell more about Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary by
>F. Edgerton? How relevant it is to Pali studies?
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Dimitry Ivakhnenko
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus