Dear Teng Kee,

I did not fully understand your earlier messages:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/13183
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/13187

That's why I did some further research. It is not hard to conclude
that only one of ka and ka.m refers to the kamboja, given that both
can appear in the same entry. However, which one of them is kamboja,
and whether the other refers to another Khmer edition, or Burmese,
Thai, Sinhala, Laotian, or possibly Bangladeshi edition, is what we
are trying to determine.

After foreign invasion, war and poverty, many Asian countries are
struggling to stand on their own feet, some are only beginning to
rediscover their roots. I have my reasons for keeping our options
open, although it may sound ridiculous to you, I remind you that new
archeological finds is redefining our history every day.

metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ong Teng Kee wrote:

I gave you the fact but you still went as far as bangladesh edtion,I
really can't stand that even I am not a scholar at all.Can I say you
show� no respect at all to my knowledge?