I second Yong Peng's procedural proposal. Baalaavataara contains narrower coverage of
Paali grammar that Saddaniiti (Padamaalaa), but it will provide a bridge to the very brief
and abstract Paa.ninian grammatical system.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ong Yong Peng" <palismith@...> wrote:
>
> Dear George, Jim and all,
>
> thank you for making the good moves. I agree that, as the group has
> discussed, we can take Saddaniti a bit at a time. And we should
> probably stick to just one of the classics now, rather than having
> more. We can devote remaining discussions to modern texts, sutta
> translations, Pali in general and open questions.
>
> However, I would also like to compromise with Mahinda, who has been
> very helpful to our discussions. I like to propose that we cover
> padamaalaa first, then work on Baalaavataara, before proceeding with
> dhaatumaalaa. But, only one classic at a time, or risk getting
> overwhelmed and drowned. ;-)
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng.
>
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, gdbedell wrote:
>
> Returning to Saddaniiti (I am going to change the thread name to
> something more transparent), we have been told that it is the longest,
> not the oldest, and the most difficult of the grammars; and are
> advised to start with Kaccaayana. Saddaniiti is very long, but it can
> be broken up into small pieces. Kaccaayana is several centuries older
> than Saddaniiti, but this is not immediately relevant (unless perhaps
> your primary interest is the development of grammar and its influence
> on Paali literature). And with all respect, I am not convinced that
> Saddaniiti is more difficult than Kaccaayana. In my limited
> experience, perhaps the opposite is true, particularly in the case of
> Padamaalaa.
>
> So I am posting a translation below of the opening section of
> Padamaalaa, Pariccheda 2, about one page of Smith's edition (pp. 13-14).
>