Dear Dimitry,

I don't wish to be contentious but it seems important
that one should know the date of publication of
Monier-Williams before stating that it didn't exist at
the time the PED was compiled. Not knowing anything
about Sanskrit, I was genuinely confused by the
comment
to the point that I thought perhaps there were two
such
people named M-W and I'm still not convinced of this.
This is to say nothing of the question that the
existence of M-W leaves open, i.e. why did Rys-Davids
and Stede not choose M-W.

As to the two PTS dictionaries, the old focuses on
etymology and the new on meaning and usage. Both are
fine works and I didn't mean to denigrate the old.
I think you'll find that Ms. Cone uses quotations to
illustrate meaning and mere citations to show the
range
of texts, usually canonical, where a word is found.

I did think your criticism of Ms. Cone was rather
harsh
and it recalled a humourous poem that Dorothy Parker
wrote. Now remember this is all in good fun. I
believe Mrs. Parker wrote the poem in response to a
friend of hers who had criticized the work of Charles
Dickens.

Those who call him spurious and shoddy
Shall do so over my lifeless body,
I do invite such birds
To step outside and say those words.

Thank you, Dimitry, for all that you contribute.
With sincere best wishes,
Paul

--- "������� ���������� ��������� (Dimitry A.
Ivakhnenko)" <koleso@...> wrote:

> Dear Paul,
>
> 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.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Dimitry
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com