Hi James,
Thanks for the generous and detailed explanation to help out a
newbie. It makes a lot of sense, and I have a better understanding of
the issue now. Please feel free to contact me off list if you have any
questions about installing and getting DPR to work on your system. On my
windows vista system, it was pretty straightforward.
1. Download digital pali reader from source forge,
2. run the file that you downloaded,
3. and then inside the DPR directory that it created, find the
"index.htm" file and double click it. it loads up in your internet
browser locally just as if it was an external website address you were
visiting.

Pali Text Reader was also straightforward and simple to install.
I noticed Lennart's post today, and will experiment with some of the
tools he suggested and report back to the group later.

-Frank

On 1/25/2010 2:30 PM, James Whelan wrote:
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> Perhaps I could help a little bit.
>
> Pali does indeed predate classical Sanskrit, but is probably roughly
> contemporaneous, or at least for a time ran a parallel course, with Vedic,
> which is an earlier and far less regularised form of what later became
> Sanskrit. Both Pali and Vedic almost certainly come from an earlier - now
> lost - common stock. The extreme value of making comparisons between Pali
> and Sanskrit is that Sanskit has preserved many of the forms that have
> been
> lost in Pali. The most important for the purposes of the present
> discussion
> is compound consonants.
>
> In Sanskrit: dharati = hold, from which is derived dharma.
>
> In Pali: dharati = hold, identical to Sanskrit. But with the addition of
> -ma, the compound consonant /rm/ becomes /mm/, whence dhamma.
>
> Where there is a compound consonant at the beginning of a word, Pali
> almost
> always reduces it to a single consonant:
>
> Sanskrit: smriti
>
> Pali: sati.
>
> Although Pali reduces the initial compound consonant to a single
> consonant,
> the language retained the 'shadow' of the missing element. So,
> although the
> speakers could not start a word with a double consonant, the doubling
> crept
> back in when it could, i.e. when it was supported by a vowel at the end of
> the preceding word in the compound. Thus: sati becomes anapana-ssati.
>
> Another example is:
>
> Sanskrit: pravartana (turning, as in turning the wheel of the law).
>
> Pali: pavattana. Here, the /pr/ reduces (as an initial) to /p/, and the
> intervocalic /rt/ reduces to /tt/.
>
> Now, when pavattana follows a preceding vowel in a compound, the doubled
> /pp/ takes the opportunity to come back: whence
> dhamma-cakka-ppavattana-sutta.
>
> So, the phenomenon of a double consonant at the beginning of word when
> it is
> the second or later element in a compound is simply the reappearance of
> another consonant that was there in an earlier form of the language.
> By the
> way if you look in the vocabularies in Warder's Introduction to Pali, you
> will see many words beginning with an initial letter in brackets, e.g.
> (p)pa-yaa. This simply means that on its own the own it begins with a
> single /p/, but it will double when it 'gets the chance'.
>
> If we trace Pali back to an earlier form, now lost but reconstructible
> with
> a reasonable degree of certainty for the present purposes, we will almost
> certainly find the unreduced forms of the compound consonants.
>
> Although it is not strictly historically accurate to say that Pali
> actually
> derives from Sanskrit, nevertheless it is very often perfectly accurate to
> say that Sanskrit preserves many forms that Pali has lost, and the Pali
> derives from those exact same forms that still exist in Sanskrit. So, from
> that point of view, when we say for example that dhamma 'comes from' or is
> derived from the Sanskrit dharma, this is just a convenient shorthand
> way of
> saying that dhamma comes from an older form of the word that has been
> preserved unaltered in Sanskrit as dharma.
>
> It is a moot point whether the Buddha actually spoke the same language
> that
> is preserved in the Pali Canon. This is a big subject, for which I can do
> no better at present than to refer you to Stefan Karpik's excellent
> article
> on the subject. He concludes, with very cogent reasons, that it was the
> same. Anyway, even if it wasn't exactly the same as the spoken language of
> Magadha at the time, then it must have been near enough to have made
> no real
> difference. However, the point is that at that time the language was not
> written, and when in due course it did come to be written is was
> written in
> scripts originally devised for other languages. These scripts had their
> own conventions. In one of them, the Devanagari script, used for Sanskrit,
> the convention was to run compounded words together into one long string.
> Scripts deriving from Devanagari (or from a common stock) tended to do the
> same. The string could be made even longer when separate words were
> written
> together under the rules of sandhi, i.e. when the last sound of the
> preceding word merged with the first sound of the following one. A simple
> example is the opening words of the Story of Nala: aasiit raajaa
> 'there was
> a king'. By sandhi, the final /t/ of aasiit becomes /d/. So it is aasiid
> raajaa. Now, by a convention of the Devanagari script, the syllables are
> divided thus: aa-sii-draa-jaa. We thus get the written syllable /draa/
> which is the last consonant of the preceding word, with the first syllable
> of the following one. ( /dr/ is written as a compound ligature in
> Devanagari.) For that reason, with a combination of compounding and
> sandhi,
> sometimes entire sentences are written without a break between the words.
> Awfully difficult for beginners.
>
> The bottom line is that we write dhammavicayabojjhanga because it was
> written all as one word a long time ago under the conventions of one
> or more
> scripts that were never designed for Pali in the first place. There is no
> reason we have to maintain those conventions, and I entirely support those
> who would hyphenate for clarity. Since Pali, like Vedic, is primarily an
> oral tradition (by total contrast to e.g. Chinese, which is primarily a
> written tradition), there is nothing 'unPali' or fake about writing it in
> any way we choose. (By the way, contemporary websites in Sanskrit written
> in Devanagari mostly ignore sandhi and write the words separately. That
> tends to show that even traditionally minded Hindus blogging in Sanskrit
> regard themselves as being free to accommodate the script to modern tastes
> and requirements, rather than vice versa.)
>
> Regrettably, however, whether we hyphenate or not, or just leave gaps
> between the words, we cannot avoid having to accommodate, for the sake of
> linguistic accuracy, the reappearance of the doubled consonant at the
> beginning of a word in compound, or the merging or vowels. If we ignore
> these phenomena, we lose something of the carefully preserved oral
> tradition. Alas, the Ven. Pandita is absolutely right when he says: 'If
> you choose to write "anapana-sati" instead, it won't be real Pali'.
>
> Having seen your post on the subject, I might have to ask you for help in
> getting the DPR to work. I find Sanskrit more manageable than computers!
>
> With metta,
>
> James Whelan
>
> From: Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com>] On
> Behalf Of frank
> Sent: 25 January 2010 20:22
> To: Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: compounding - Re: [Pali] dhammavicaya
>
> Hello Ven. Pandita,
> Thank you for the explanation, however it confuses me more than it
> clarifies. I thought pali predated sanskrit, and that the written pali
> language was predated by a spoken Maggada(?). So in the Buddha's time,
> there was no "real pali". AnapanaSSati did not exist as a written word.
> Only phonetic sounds and syllables sounding something like,
> "uh-nuh-punnuh-sa-tee" existed in the language, transmitted by speaking
> from monk to monk, village to village. I'm not trying to say there are
> no legitimate grammatical reasons for what you explained, I'm just
> trying to understand why compounding has to be represented in writing
> the way it is today.
> If I were to represent sounds of compound dhamma words in written
> form like this:
> anapana-sati,
> dhamma-vicaya-sambojjanga,
> samadhi-indriya,
> sadda-indriya,
> panna-indriya,
> etc., is there any ambiguity or grammatical reason where the receiver of
> my written communication could misinterpret what I wrote?
> Whereas I see "pannindriya" in the romanized pali text it looks like a
> complete and new stranger to me even though I'm completely familiar with
> panna and indriya.
> I don't really see hyphens as an eye sore either, if that's the only
> objection of why compounding is not represented with hyphens. I was just
> reading a dual pali/english line by line sutta where the author
> translated ekayano as "one-way-path". Is that "real" english? I don't
> know the answer to that, but I do know as a native English speaker that
> the hyphens did not introduce any ambiguity or alter the intended
> meaning from the sender. In fact, it improved the clarity.
> Ultimately the Buddha was most interested in teaching about dukkha
> and its cessation, using whatever the most popular language and simple
> words that could communicate meaning the most clearly to as many people
> of as many cultures and backgrounds, for as long as possible. If he
> thought that hyphens in written transmissions of suttas would reduce
> the steep pali learning curve for buddhists from the future, I bet he
> would approve.
>
> -Frank
>
> On 1/25/2010 9:48 AM, ashinpan wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]