Re: Iti & ti

Although I would agree (in theory) with Dr. Pind's suggestion that
_'ti_ sometimes behaves like an enclitic particle (and sometimes does
not) I must observe that this is the kind of fine (theoretical)
distinction that was probably not understood for two thousand years of
imperfect transmission (if ever).

In general, I think this issue has already been "sufficiently
explained", but we could further raise the spectre (insisted upon by
K.R. Norman) that Pali orthography passed through a period (of several
centuries) in which double consonants were simply written as
(undistinguished) single consonants --similar to the pre-Ashokan
orthography in early Sinhalese inscriptions (and not much different
from Ashoka's own).

Thus, the "muddled" picture that emerges from the observations that
Rett & Pind have adduced was probably even more muddled at some point
in the distant past --and a "spelling reform" was implemented that
solved one problem and produced another so far as anything with the
sequence "-tti" is concerned.

So... is the sequence "tveva" a phonetic mutation in principle (as
Pind proposes), or is it one part of the solution to the mixed history
in which a more prakritic _itti_ once played a part, but was masked
and unmasked by a sequence of orthographic reforms?  The answer may
well be "both"; in the absence of any direct evidence (i.e., without
seeking it out in the texts) I would simply suggest that the picture
is (and must remain) muddled.

E.M.