> Certainly, I am
>happy to admit that there are respectible authors outside of this group of
>texts, but I think they fit into another category, as they are not so
>universally accepted as "The Paa.li".

That would include the respectable author Buddhaghosa as I understand
it. Isn't 'the Pali' equivalent to 'the Canon' i.e. tipitaka, as
opposed to commentaries?

For example in Saddaniti Aggavamsa observes that aorist is most
prevalent with 'maa' prohibitives in 'the pali' while the imperative
is used in the athakatha's etc. (sutta 889 in suttamala). The
examples of non-pali he gives are from the narrative (commentarial)
portions of the jatakas. So commentarial literature seems not to be
considered Pali in the original sense you are using.

So I wouldn't try to argue Buddhaghosa's special status vis a vis
Asanga etc on the basis of his belong to the 'pali'.

best regards,

/Rett