Venerable Bhante Dhammanando,
This is exactly what I think. The intention of the commentators was not
giving an etymology as we understand this nowadays. Nor scientifical
treatises on matter etc. When people fall over the descriptions of
rupakkhandha, comparing it with science or medical science, they miss the
point.
The commentators merely wanted to explain the meaning of dhammas as found in
the Tipi.taka, that was their sole purpose.
Rhys Davies sometimes speaks of wordplays, but there is nothing playful
here.
I also use the expression 'word associations' as a means of explaining
dhammas.
With respect,
Nina.
op 25-05-2005 04:30 schreef dhammanando_bhikkhu op
dhammanando@...:

>

I now think that "etymology"

> should not be used at all as a translation of nirukta /
> nirutta. Nowadays I simply refer to the commentators' word
> derivations as "word derivations". :-)
>
> The advantage of this is that it not only avoids the
> judgmental taint of adjectives like "folk", "fake" and
> "ersatz", but it also allows one to say, "The commentators
> derived the word 'araha.m' in five ways....", rather than
> "The commentators gave five etymologies for araha.m...." The
> latter statement is really a solecism when one considers the
> very specific and well-established meaning of "etymology" in
> the context of historical philology.