Friends,

Mahinda deserves our gratitude for his forthright assessment last week of the state of the Saddaniiti project:

> I am sorry to say that I don't think we are making much progress in this
 venture. It is
> not possible to translate (i.e., understand) this kind of text unless one (gradually) gets
> used to the peculiar idiom found in Indian
 grammatical and exegetical works. Saddaniti > is just too difficult for anyone
 who is not familiar with this idiom. Even the
> Baalaavataara, which is meant
 for the 'baala' (children, i.e., beginners) is not all that
> easy to
 translate. I think however, things might have been less intricate had we
 first
> gone through that text and become familiar with the idiom. Or, doing
 a systematic
> study of any commentary could have helped, since the exegetical
 vocabulary is
> somewhat akin to the grammatical. The vocabulary and style of
 Pali grammatical texts
> are heavily influenced by the corresponding texts
 written for Sanskrit grammar.



> Contributing to the present discussion of the Saddaniiti is, at least for
 me, a tiring and > unproductive effort. Please forgive me for saying this. I
 would be glad if the experience > of others who are more patient than me is
 different.


I agree with Mahinda that we are not making much progress, and it not just that the going is slow, but also that the result (so far, at least) is not an accurate and readable translation that might be of use to others. I also feel that `contributing to the present discussion of the Saddaniiti is ... a tiring and unproductive effort.' In my case that feeling is not based so much on the material that others have posted, as on my own efforts to continue the translation of pariccheda 2 that I started in January. I think this must be the `third thread' which Yong Peng said `did not start'. That does not seem a very fair statement, since the amount of text I covered (37 lines in Smith's edition) in my one post is roughly the same as what he has covered in all eight of his (40 lines). It is true that there wasn't much discussion of my translation, but I would like to think that is because little was called for. If anyone wishes to know why I have not continued posting, the answer is simple: my Pali is not adequate. I do not fully understand the following definitions of vibhatti or the discussion of noun and verb forms which lack them. It is impossible for me (not to mention pointless) to translate a text which I do not understand. The throw-enough-mud-against-the-wall-and-some-of-it-is-bound-to-stick method does not strike me as very effective in translation.

We find the Saddaniiti difficult not because it is `advanced Pali' but because (i) it was written at least a thousand years after the Tipitaka in another country and another culture and (ii) it belongs to a highly specialized and technical genre: grammar. The majority of Pali reference works (dictionaries and grammars) were compiled to be used in reading the Tipitaka, and did not put much (if any) effort into medieval technical prose. Mahinda is right that we need to beome familiar with this variety of the language. He is also right about the role of Sanskrit and Sanskrit grammar in understanding Aggava.msa. This point is quite separate from any help a knowledge of Sanskrit might provide in learning Pali. The Pali grammars were written by people who were familiar with Sanskrit and Sanskrit grammar, and who were trying to show that Pali could be analyzed in the same way. Their work cannot be understood out of that context. So I am disappointed that Mahinda's remarks have not been taken very seriously.

George