Re: Kacc 10 revisited

Hi George,

   (1) Sorry for a rushed reply (viz., earlier).  I ran over to start
up my Mac after sending that message, and looked at my own work on the
verse in question (which is better than my memory of it proved to be)
--and I'm now back at the internet terminal to write to you again.
I'm just recovering from a Yunnanese head-cold.

   (2) Let's go back to the actual Pali verse in question here:
   [1-1-11:] "The adjoined leading [letter] of the other [word] ...
[1-1-10:] having been before, [the adjoining leading letter of the
other word] with its vowel may be separated and set below."
   Pind's explanation is in part affirmed by the fact that verses
1-1-10 and 1-1-11 are indeed "in reverse order" --and only make sense
if read backwards.  If you find this translation / explanation equally
as untenable as the Sinhalese theories, all I can say is "just look at
the Pali".
   The only part of the translation that is questionable is what I have
translated at the end of the phrase: "separated and set below".  To
me, the meaning of this is quite clear, and only becomes obfuscated by
claims that "below" is instead supposed to mean "before" or "at the
beginning", etc.

   (3) Yeah, you're right: in general, I was thinking of the length of
the vowel before the geminate, but I was also mixing this up with some
(half-remembered) rules about long vs. short vowels after (e.g.) a
double-s.  Such rules exist, but are doubtless spurious to the point
you were making.

E.M.