Re: Duroiselle Grammar

One of the interesting aspects of Duroiselle's grammar is that it is
based on an "empirical method" of providing descriptive (not
prescriptive) information about the language as he found it in the
canon --and (perhaps especially) in the Jatakas.

The result is that Duroiselle lists many more forms than other authors
(ancient or modern) --many that are not "Kaccayana's Pali", but are
perhaps interesting or useful to students none-the-less.

In preparing a new edition, one might highlight or contrast this --it
could be as simple as putting some forms/sections in bold-text or
footnoting them to indicate where D. is describing a paracanonical
feature of the language.  I assume that somebody at some point has
written an authoritative article on these features that differentiate
"Jataka Pali" from its earlier antecedent (or, indeed, Commentarial
Pali?) --but I have never read such an article.  Many sources I've
read dismiss these differences as "minor" or "unimportant" --but I
suspect that this is because (as F. Bacon says) "it is one thing to
come to satisfaction, and quite another to do the work".  In my
comparative reading of D. (now several years ago!) I found some of the
differences not so minor at all; of course (as I've said before) Kacc.
himself presents a somewhat different picture of the language than
what the empirical method would reveal in Pali canon --and the reason
for this is a worthy subject of speculation.

Duroiselle's grammar could be massively expanded/improved in many
respects --I think the most obvious is in the section on syntax, as
discussed on this list many months ago.  Correction of "pure errors"
(typographical errors, etc.) would be fairly easy work.

I'll note that Duroiselle wrote a few other books on Pali --I reported
a few minor works to this list while I was in Sri Lanka, and I belive
Bhante Nyanatusita photographed one (a small exercise book on
poetics?).

E.M.