Re: Kacc.: Date & Origin

In reply to Dr. Pind,

> the widespread assumption (German and Anglo-Saxon) that the canon
> contains maagadhisms reflecting an eastern linguistic context and therefore
> an eastern background is in my view based upon misguided analyses ...

I agree.

It is certainly very convenient for the related "Magadhism theses" that
certain languages that were demonstrably important in the historical
development of Theravada Buddhism are no longer extant (e.g., Paisaci) to
further complicate matters.

> I do believe, however, that the language of the canon
> reflects a spoken MI language, possibly a central dialect, otherwise one
> cannot explain the phonetics of it, especially the widespread use of glides.

  From my own perspective, this puts even greater importance on the role of
orthography in reducing an oral tradition to writing.  It may be (e.g.) that
the "linguistic" differences between segments of the Jain canon are more
attributable to different "orthographical methodologies" (at some remote
period of anitquity --not at all evident/reflected in the orthography used
today) used by the two sects of Jainism, or in different regions &
traditions.  Thus, some comparative linguistic evidence in Jain Prakrit may
really be "non-linguistic".  I have used this as a first example as it is
inherently less controvertial to Buddhists.  More controvertial is to
consider the palpable evidence we have that differences in orthography have
played a role in the repeated re-construction of the canon in Burma,
Thailand, & Sri Lanka --i.e., that texts restored from Burmese sources in
Sri Lanka exhibit spellings that reflect a Sinhalese scribe's attempts to
transliterate from the Burmese script.  (This example is fresh in my mind
thanks to a provocative article from Bhante Nyanatusita)

This is an imperfect example, as it concerns the "transmission" of one
written text to another written text --the transmission of a spoken
literature to a written literature (in which many of the participants are
illiterate, and come from different lingual groups --e.g., the certain
participation of monks who were "Dravidian as a first language" in the
council at Matale, etc.) seems to me to create many questions as to what
extent (possibly unanswerable) questions of orthography may interfere with
linguistic analysis.

> It is almost impossible to assign a date
> to Kacc which often reads like a compilation of grammatical notes strung
> together with no obvious logical pattern to it.
> ... Some of the rules are very strange and virtually inexplicable.

I agree --but I think this very "imperfection" (both inherent and measured
in relation to the language emprically found in the canon) suggests an early
origin.  How could anyone have invented this stuff in the 7th century A.D.? 
The "late origin" hypothesis becomes harder to support than an "early
origin" assumption --even if it is declared to be nothing but an assumption.

> Indigenous scholars were evidently unimpressed with Kacc...

I agree --and I don't know why so little of the literature recognises this. 
My basic hypothesis on this point would be: the Kaccayana-Vyakarana was an
early and imperfect grammar that was of regarded as relatively unhelpful in
the recorded history of Sri Lanka (i.e., compared to its competitors, Mogg.
etc.) until several layers of additional interpretation and explication were
added in the 14th/15th century --primarily by the Burmese.  Suddenly, the
old "Ur-text" became useful again, and infused with new life and
significance.  Obversely, it may be that some earlier version of Kacc. was
of greater use at a much earlier period of Buddhist history (i.e., basically
unknown to us) --and before Mogg., etc., existed.  In other words: there may
have been layers of interpretation and explication that made (an earlier
version of) Kacc. useful and meaningful in the context of peninsular India
  --but of this we know nothing.

Sadly, grammatical rules were not inscribed in caves to be preserved for
future generations.  The only inscriptions I see around here consist of the
bragging of conquerors devoting a stone lingam to Shiva, etc.

E.M.


--
A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/
View Streaming Dhamma Video http://dharmavahini.tv/
A man should not live heedlessly but should exert himself to live
righteously. Such a man is happy in this world and in the next.
Random Dhammapada Verse 168