PT> The Ara.na,vibhanga Sutta says:
PT> M 139.12
PT> 'You should not cling to a regional language; you should not reject
PT> common usage.' So it is said. In what connection is this said?
This passage refers to rendering of wordly terms in communication with
lay followers. The fact that it is emphasized may indicate that the
monks were overly zealous in speaking only Pali in all circumstances
and on all occasion, whereas wordly terms should told to lay followers
in their own language.
PT> [1] The Vinaya relates an incident where two monks complained to the Buddha
PT> that other monks of various origins were distorting the Buddha's Teaching in
PT> using their own dialect (sakya niruttiy) and proposed that the Teaching be
PT> transmitted in Vedic verse (chandaso). The Buddha refused and declared: 'I
PT> allow you, monks, to learn the Buddha Word in your own dialect.' (anujnmi
PT> bhikkhave sakya niruttiy Buddha,vacanaµ pariypuöituµ, V 2:139; Geiger,
PT> PLL 1968:6 f).
Well, this reference is false. In the PLL (Pali Literature and
Language), on pages 6-7, Wilhelm Geiger voices exactly the opposite:
"If Pali is the form of Magadhi used by the Buddha, then the Pali
canon would have to be regarded as the most authentic form of
the Buddhavacanam, even though the teachings of the master might have
been preached and learnt from the very beginning in the various
provinces of India in the respective local dialects. The conclusion
has been drawn -- wrongly, in my opinion, -- from Culavagga V.33.1 = Vin
II.139. Here it is related, how two Bhikkhus complained to the master
that the members of the order were of various origins, and that they
distorted the words of Buddha by their own dialect (sakaaya
niruttiyaa). They therefore proposed that the words of Buddha should
be translated into Sanskrit verses (chandaso). Buddha however refused
to grant the request and added: anujaanaami bhikkhave sakaaya
niruttiyaa buddhavacanam pariyaapu.nitum. Rhys Davids and Oldenberg
translate this passage by 'I allow you, oh brethren, to learn the
words of the Buddha each in his own dialect.' This interpretation
however is not in harmony with that of Buddhaghosa, according to whom
it has to be translated by "I ordain the words of Buddha to be learnt
in _his_ own language (i.e.Magadhi, the language used by Buddha
himself)." After repeated examination of this passage I have come to
the conclusion that we have to stick to the explanation given by
Buddhaghosa. Neither the two monks or the Buddha himself could have
thought of preaching in different cases in different dialects. Here
the question is merely whether the words of Buddha migth be translated
into Sanskrit or not. This is however clearly forbidden by the Master,
at first negatively and then positively by the injunction beginning
with 'anujaanaami'. The real meaning of this injunction is, as is
also best in consonance with Indian spirit, that there can be no other
form of the words of Buddha than in which the Master himself had
preched. Thus even in the life-time of Buddha people were concerned
about the way in which the teaching might be handed down as accurately
as possible, both in form and in content. How much more must have been
the anxiety of the disciples after his death! The external form was
however Magadhi, thought according to tradition it is Pali."