> Tangentially this is interesting
> because it confirms that Buddhaghosa could read Sanskrit --
> not that this is surprising for a person of his stature.

Sorry, just an additional note. Why this is interesting is because of the
following in the afterword of the PED (p. 738):

/quote/

(i) The Paali Dictionary affords an interesting comparison of our own
interpretation of terms with the fanciful etymological play of words given
by the Commentators, which throws a light both on their dogmatic bias and
their limited linguistic knowledge. It is quite evident that Bdhgh did not
know Sanskrit. -- In matters of grammar I place Dhammapaala higher than
Buddhaghosa. There are more than a score of instances which prove this
point, but the following is especially interesting. The word for "whole,
entire" vissa is extremely frequent in Vedic and Sanskrit (=vishva), but
unknown in Paali (where sabba takes its place), except for one passage in
the Dh. (266). Had Bdhgh known Sanskrit, he would have explained it as
"sabba," but instead of that he takes it as *visra (musty), which (as a
lexic. word) was current in late Paali, but does not fit the passage
mentioned. -- Among other errors B explains "stiffness" (swoon) by "calati"
(see under chambhita and muccha~ncikataa); in paraajita he takes paraa as
instr. of para (=parena DhA III.259); he connects Paali pii.neti with
pinvati (DA I.157, cp. Vism 32 pii.nana), and he explains attamana as
"saka--mana" (DA I.255), thus equalling atta=aatman.

/endquote/

As Nina said, I think there was nothing fanciful or playful about the Paa.li
commentators works... as for dogmatic bias, well, that's a whole other
issue.

Sincerely,

Yuttadhammo