Re: Dhp 39

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

<< I guess that supports your view as to the corruption of
anaprāśraya, as the Vism is around 500 A. D. and the Paṭsambhidamagga
is also quite late, at least a few hundred years after the Dhp, >>

I don't have a view I'm trying to support, and the Vism reference
wasn't given for that purpose. And besides, I hardly know the Patna
Dhp so I'm really in no position to give conclusions on its readings
or have an informed discussion on them. Saying that I thought the
reading seemed corrupt was only based on my first impressions. I do
not know the language or dialect of the Patna Dhp. To me it seems like
a text mixed up with Sanskrit, Pali, and the Prakrits and is unlikely
to have its own grammar texts like that of Pali which must have at
least a humdred.

My main area of interest is in the study of traditional Pali grammar,
in particular, that of Kaccaayana with most of its commentaries and
subcommentaries and the Saddaniiti. I'm working with the idea that
knowing these texts thoroughly will go a long way in helping us
understand the intricacies of the Pali language. These grammar texts
also help to preserve the language. Without them the language would
degrade at a more rapid rate.

Best,
Jim.