--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ong Yong Peng <ypong001@...> wrote:

> Dear Michael and friends,
>
>...
>That notion is that "Pali" was never a language proper at all (but
>it was also not an artificial language). It was a selection of
>words from the languages current at the time. That selection was of
>those words whose roots were the oldest, so that Pali actually
>represents a language that antedates such languages as Maghadi.
>...

I would like to know and understand how the sources of the Pali
("text") information (as stated above) come from?

(1) "Pali" was never a language proper at all?
(2) it was also not an artificial language?
(3) It was a selection of words from the languages current at the
time?
(4) That selection was of those words whose roots were the oldest, so
that Pali actually represents a language that antedates such anguages
as Maghadi?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

Sincerely,

Thomas Law