Re: viyoga (Kc 10) --comment

Hi Jim,

> Thanks for your arguments against the points I made and the helpful
> explanations about scripts. I'm not familiar with the writing systems of
> South India and don't really have much of an idea of the one Ole has in mind
> to support his thesis of the two rules applying to a particular way of
> writing.

(1) I am not an expert on mainland (Indian) orthography, but I believe
that the method Ole is describing has existed (sporadically) in both
the North and South of India --as attested in the limited paleographic
record.

(2) I believe the same method had some kind of marginal existence at
some early date in mainland S.E.A. --as I've seen something like it
very rarely in Burmese & Lanna inscriptions, and it may or may not be
the inspiration for the Lanna vernacular method mentioned.

(3) Generally, the fact that I'm aware of is that the significance of
a subscript consonant (in relation to the implicit vowel, etc.) is
*not* universal or uniform in inscriptional Pali --and much less so in
vernacular or hybrid inscriptions.  In Burmese inscriptions I have
only noticed "stacked" syllables a few times, and I really do not know
if this was an echo of the method of marking compound words that Pind
mentions, or if the scribe was just trying to save space by using such
a method inconsistently to fit more words onto a line.

> Even though I don't agree with it, it is not easy to make arguments
> against it.

I feel that Pind's argument is a consistent and valid interpretation;
however, I stop short of stating conclusively that this must be the
correct interpretation as the same evidence is taken as "proof" of the
opposite supposition --and the opposite assumption (followed in the
commentaries, etc.) is also fairly coherent and consistent.  There may
be yet another interpretation, or we may find conclusive textual
evidence in some other source ... EVENTUALLY.

> It seems to me that the /s/ of /so/ can't be
> written under a preceding consonant--there isn't any. You're only showing
> how it can be written above the "s" in "siilavaa".

That is correct --I only commented on stacking the "so" above the
"si".  As Pind has remarked, the commentary does not understand the
verse, so the examples are necessarily at cross-purposes with his
interpretation.

E.M.