Kare,

First of all, I apologize for misspelling your name. I don't know how
to type the 'a' with the little circle on top. I hope you won't hold
it against me :).

Secondly, you have a good idea here. What were the commentators
thinking about when they wrote "Magadhi"? Did they distinguish the
hundreds of varieties of Indian languages/dialects like we do today?
Or did they just view "Magadhi" as "language from up there in
Asoka-land"? I'm no expert, but I think your idea is a good possibility.

But in the end, I think this shows that we have to be careful if we
use the commentaries as a source to pinpoint where Pali originated
(that is the content of the commentaries, not the language). I'll be
honest and say that I'm a bit biased towards the modern linguistic
comparison approach. That's why I find the the comparison between the
languages of the Asokan edicts and Pali so appealing.

I have to admit that I've never looked at the language data myself
though - I am just regurgitating what I've read from a few secondary
sources on the topic. I certainly don't know any ancient or modern
Indian languages - I'm only on Lesson 5 of Pali Primer. hahaha :)
Maybe that means I'm not qualified to participate in the debate, but
I'm participating anyway because it's fun and interesting to me.

Adios,
Thomas

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Kåre A. Lie <alberlie@...> wrote:
>
> In this seemingly never-ending discussion about the origins of Pali
> there is one point that I have never seen brought up. I find this
> rather puzzling, since the point should be rather obvious. I can only
> suppose that I have missed the discussion of this particular point.
>
> Anyway, I would like to mention this point here. If it already has
> been soundly refuted by someone, I would like to learn about it.
>
> Is Magadhi and Magadhi really the same?
>
> The Pali commentaries from Sri Lanka call the language "Magadhi". Why?
> When Buddhism (and the Pali texts) reached Sri Lanka at the time of
> king Asoka, it was brought there from Asoka's empire. This empire had
> it roots in the earlier state of Magadha, but through conquests it now
> comprised most of India. Still it was known as Magadha. So what did
> "Magadhi" mean to the authors of the commentaries? It probably meant
> "a language from the northern part of the Indian mainland". There is
> no particular reason to think that the commentaries associated the
> language with the original state - and later the region - of Magadha.
> And consequently there is no particular reason to associate the Pali
> language - or the dialect that the Buddha originally spoke, whatever
> that might have been - with the region of Magadha or with the later
> Prakrit language called Magadhi.
<snip><snip><snip><snip><snip>
> But, I may of course be wrong. If you see any objections against the
> theory, or if it already has been refuted, please tell me about it.
>
> Best regards,
> Kåre A. Lie
>