SV: Iti & ti

<Thus the ambiguity: given that early written Pali did not distinguish
double consonants or long vowels in its orthography, "iiti" vs. "itti"
may well have been resolved in subsequent spelling reforms, i.e., the
amendment of the canon to suit the new orthography.>

I think that there is sufficient evidence to show that the writing system
used by those Buddhists who wrote down the canon included the reproduction
of geminate consonants. In fact, geminate consonants are responsible for
lowering a preceding vowel, cf. e.g. the writing Vaase.ttha that is derived
from Vaashi.s.ta in Sanskrit. Kaccaayana has Vaasi.ttha, evidently a
Sanskritism that never influenced the transmission of the canon. There are
other examples: pokkhaarinii < pu.skari.nii and so on. Paatimokkha <
*praatimukhya (I regret to say, this is how I interpret this much discussed
term). Another important example is bhaddante often written bhadante,
especially in the Sinhalese tradition (influence from Buddhist Sanskrit
bhadanta?. However, the voc. bhaddanta evidently presupposes bhaddante,
which appears to have been better preserved in the burmese tradition. I do
not think that the Burmese invented this spelling, which only occurs in
verse and initially in prose. I's an emphatic form, the enclitic version is,
of course, bhante.

Regards,
OP