Frank,

You wrote:

> Since the pali suttas were an oral tradition originally, not written,
> and the fact that it exists now in thai script, roman script, and
> whatever other localized script, I wonder if there is some reason why we
> can not adopt a convention of compounding that allows the exploitation
> and ease in digital processing/searching. For example, if compound words
> were written as anapana-sati instead of anapanaSSati,
> dhamma-vicaya-sambojjhanga, etc, wouldn't that lend clarity, structure,
> ease in understanding and communicating as well as instant dictionary
> lookup capability? Am I missing something? Is there a good reason for
> "anapanaSSati" instead of "anapana-sati"?

In the example that you give, i.e., "anapanaSSati", the cons. "s" is doubled because "sati" is derived from the Skt. form "sm.rti" and the conjunct "sm" of the original "sm.rti" is assimilated into "ss" when "sati" is a non-initial compound member.

If you choose to write "anapana-sati" instead, it won't be real Pali. Rather it will only be your interpretation of that particular compound.

with metta

Ven. Pandita