Browse Groups

• ## Re: Linguistic Statistical Analysis

(21)
• NextPrevious
• Hi, Dimitry, ... Did you mean 4 last verses or 4 last lines? Each verse (siloka) of 32 syllables consists of 2 lines (paadayuga) of 16 syllables each, which
Message 1 of 21 , Aug 14, 2001
View Source
Hi, Dimitry,

> We can open eyes even wider and suggest that in the early version
> there were only 4 last verses ;)

Did you mean 4 last verses or 4 last lines?

Each verse (siloka) of 32 syllables consists of 2 lines (paadayuga)
of 16 syllables each, which are in turn made up of 2 paada-s of 8-
syllables each.

They key fact (and there are others) about the vatta meter is that
each line (paadayuga) ends in ` - ` ` or ` - ` - (sorry, but I can't
make the correct symbols on my keyboard so I use ` for a light
syllable and - for a heavy one).

end of the 2nd and 4th paada-s of each verse.

The variants apply to each line (paadayuga), not to each verse, and
are determined by the meter at the end of the initial paada.

Now, I haven't mastered all the ifs and buts of scansion, so this may
not quite be right, but for the two paadayuga of our 3rd verse I have:

"PaĆ±ca kaamagu.ne hitvaa piyaruupe manorame

- ` - ` ` - - - | ` ` - ` ` - ` -

saddhaaya gharaa nikkhamma dukkhass' antakaro bhava.

- - ` ` - - - ` | - - - ` ` - ` `

Both lines (paadayuga) end in the ` - ` ` or ` - ` - cadence of vatta
meter.

In the first line, the initial paada ends in ` - - - so this is the
normal (pathyaa) form.

But the second line's initial paada ends in - - - ` so that, I think,
is the 3rd variant (vipulaa) form.

I think!

I do invite anyone whose studies of Pali meter are more advanced than
mine to jump in and provide correction, if necessary.

> It's like checking the currency: if it lights up properly in
> ultraviolet rays, has watermarks, relief, intricate ornament and
> foil strip, then it's most likely genuine.

Well, that would certainly be persuasive for me, but I know that
there are others who would argue that for them this can never be
wholly conclusive. Doubting Thomases!

For example, I read one brief comment on Warder's enterprise -- I
think it may have been written by Richard H. Robinson -- that
dismissed his entire exercise as "interesting but failed" (!) See:

http://here-and-now.org/buddrel/netbiblio.html#5.3

That, of course, gives no explanation for the reviewer's point of
view. (I haven't read any longer reviews of Warder.)