Re: Kacc.: Date & Origin

this is a very informative conversation. it is refreshing to
see some one working with orthographic issues. i have written
about mss. orthography (in Pali, bi-lingual and vernacular
mss) recently. i would like to have any more information on
the statement "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." can you recommend any source on Thai
"palpable" evidence that I may not know. I am always looking
to learn more about this subject.
justin

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:01:43 +0600
>From: "navako" <navako@...> 
>Subject: Re: SV: [palistudy] Kacc.: Date & Origin 
>To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>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
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
>Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo!
your home page
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/GP4qlB/TM
>--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

______________
Dr. Justin McDaniel
Dept. of Religious Studies
2617 Humanities Building
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
909-827-4530
justinm@...