Re: Eng translation of Kacc 1:1

Eisel,

There are some technical problems with two of your recent messages:

1) Your previous message contains Unicode characters which do not display
properly despite my having set everything to read Unicode in my mail
program. I would suggest that you convert such characters to Velthuis in
future messages if you want them to be read properly by all members of the
list. I agree that Unicode is the way of the future but at present it is in
a transitional phase with many technical problems still needing to be worked
out before it becomes truly universal and compatible on most computer
systems.

2) Regarding your latest message, the problem is that you're responding to a
message sent to you by Ole but not to the group. Obviously, part of an
off-list discussion has been inadvertently sent here.

Robert Kirkpatrick's message seems to have been accidentally sent as there
isn't anything new added to it. It is just a repeat and has now been deleted
from the archive.

Best wishes,
Jim

> Hello once again, Dr. Pind,
>
> > Kacc I.1.10-11 are admittedly obscure. Both suttas presuppose Kaatantra
I.1.21-22, although Kacc inverts the order of the suutras.
>
> I had rather thought that 11 might make sense before 10; however,
> their current order doesn't really obfuscate matters much.
>
> Also, it may well be that a critical round of redactors read the verse
> in the same sense that I have translated it, viz., that the rule is
> describing writing vowels (specifically) "below", rather than
> consonants or syllables of any kind.  This orthographic praxis of
> writing initial vowels as subscripts did exist, at least marginally,
> in Burmese antiquity, as I've seen it in Burmese epigraphy; I am not
> aware of it in any other S.E.A. script (doubtless it has mainland,
> Indic precedents), and it would seem impossible at any/every stage of
> the development of Sinhalese script in particular.
>
> Thank you very much for your remarks,
>
> I will take another long look at my translation of the vutti to 10 and
> 11, and make further revisions,
>
> E.M.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com