Re: iCPD

> It is interesting that you may be related to one of the editors of the
> Oxford English Dictionary. I used to have pictures of its editor in chief in
> my office. The history of the making of the Oxford English Dictionary tells
> a lot about the difficulties lexicographers have to face every minute when
> writing a dictionary, especially a dictionary of an ancient language, like
> the language of the early Buddhist canon.

Indeed, making a dictionary for Pali, Sanskrit, etc., is very
different from producing one for the English language (which is very
young, with a short history, by comparison).  Sadly, this seems to be
too-rarely appreciated by those who make dictionaries themselves.

I very much appreciate lexicographical works that are specific to one
historical period, such as Woolner's "dictionary" for the Ashokan
Inscriptions.  I would be very interested if a small team were to
propose a lexicon for (e.g.) just the Culla-vangsa and Pali works of
the same period; this could then be compared to early sutta material,
to assist in identifying what really is a latter
interpolation/accretion, etc.

But if none of the lexicons are period-specific, then all of the
business of assigning dates to usages becomes absurd (with the
exception of very focussed studies, that are the result of one scholar
working in isolation, e.g., some of K.R. Norman's work).  The whole
debate over "Magadhisms" is an unflattering example of this.

I have never found an article on the distinctive aspects of "Vinaya
Pali", which is at least 500 years younger than some of the oldest,
and also has more "Jain-Prakrit" elements.  All of this is important
work for lexicographers --but a "lone scholar" (such as myself) cannot
possibly take it on.

Writing dictionaries is not done by men, but by armies.

E.M.