Re: attribution of the ADP .Tiikaa

> I am not sure what you are referring to when you claim to have consulted
> "every other published source", since there is an extensive amount of
> published Burmese material relevant to this issue.

I believe you know exactly what I am referring to, and I believe my
former message was entirely clear on this point, given that you allude
to precisely the same sources yourself, viz.:

> Gandhava.msa, Yan's Pi.takat Samuin
> (soon to be PTS Pi.takat Samuin), Pa~n~naasaami's Saasanava.msa, or their
> derivatives (Bode, et al), then that these texts make similar attributions
> should not come as a surprise.

Indeed, it is "no surprise" to me (thus I alluded to them _en masse_),
and they are indeed all mutually "derivative" sources, as is the
introduction to the 2000 Pune edition.  Thus, you know full well what
I mean when I say "every other published source".

> It is hardly non sequitur ...

It was a non sequitor (per se) precisely because it did not build upon
nor relate to the evidence you presented in that message prior to
writing it; the conclusion was introduced _non sequitor_ --that
doesn't mean that I disapprove of it nor that I presume it to be
false.

> ... to conclude that a
> group of related, relatively contemporary texts, which frequently reproduce
> the same information, might faithfully transmit uncertain attributions.

Indeed, it happens often, as we both know; however, your conclusion
has even less support than theirs.

I think that a speculative claim based on the *style* of the
commentary is very dubious given how heavy the Sanskrit influence is;
remember, the traditional attribution is to a migrant from India (very
easy to believe, given that it reflects mainland Indian learning of
Sk. sources, etc.) who would not, therefore, fit easily into stylistic
categories of contemporaneous Burma. It is also supposed that the
.Tiikaa had some kind of influence/arrival in Sri Lanka --if the
latter could be dated or compared, this would be a useful
corroboration of either/any theory.

> ...and occasionally they _are_ misleading or
> incorrect. There is no question that their attributions should be used
> cautiously...

Caution is easy to advise, but difficult to practise --especially when
dispensing with traditional dates to assign speculative ones.

E.M.