Re: Pali grammatical terms & abbreviations

Eisel,

> No, I'm not disappointed; however, my concern is that many textbooks
> (i.e., modern grammars) rely on English (and pseudo-Latin)
grammatical
> concepts, and apply them in an imprecise and inconsistent way to
Pali
> grammar. I think everyone on this list is probably so advanced in
their

I think you're overestimating us.

> knowledge of Pali grammar that they aren't thrown by these
> inconsistencies, but both in comparing modern sources, and within a
> given modern textbook, there are inconsistencies, and these LARGELY
> derive from the undertainty with which the English grammatical terms
have
> been applied to the Pali.

I share your concern. I think it's important that we be made aware of
inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the English renderings of Pali
terms. When we take up a Pali term for study we can also take into
consideration the English term(s) in which it is typically rendered
and decide on whether or not it is acceptable or misleading. In taking
up a Pali term for study, I'm looking at two approaches: 1) of an
introductory nature--whenever it just comes up spontaneously in a
discussion or a text other than Kaccaayana. We would not spend too
much time on it by going into great detail and trying to solve
difficult problems; 2) a detailed study of each important term we meet
with in the course of our study of the actual text of Kaccaayana from
the beginning to the end. Btw, we are still working on the two
introductory verses of that work.

In light of  recent decades of Western linguistic studies some of the
old English terms have been changing. For instance, in my copy of _A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_ by Quirk et al (1985),
I noticed that the term "present participle" has been replaced with
"-ing participle" (cp. tvaadiyantapadaani for absolutives). A good
knowledge of both Pali and English grammar with all their technical
terms would be rather helpful in translation work, I think. And
besides it's a good way of comparing Western and Indian concepts of
language.

> > I
> > think the ordinal terms for the imperative and the optative are
very
> > old Indian terms predating Panini.
>
> Yes, but they are isolated in the list of non-ordinal terms
presented by
> Kaccayana, and their numbers do not actually correspond
("ordinally") to
> their position in that list.  I do not know any Pali grammatical
source in
> which those two ordinal names "make sense".  Your opinion on their
antiquity
> is very interesting to me --but it only elaborates the problem.

I'm afraid my opinion was based on faulty memory. I thought the term
'pa~ncamii' (imperative) was in Panini's work. Both Rett and Ven.
Dhammanando have provided some valuable information which I am
grateful for.

Best wishes,
Jim