Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Pali] Re: Gair Karunatillake Answers - Chapters 8-9

Expand Messages
  • Paul O Cuana
    Dear Dimitry, I don t wish to be contentious but it seems important that one should know the date of publication of Monier-Williams before stating that it
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Dimitry,

      I don't wish to be contentious but it seems important
      that one should know the date of publication of
      Monier-Williams before stating that it didn't exist at
      the time the PED was compiled. Not knowing anything
      about Sanskrit, I was genuinely confused by the
      comment
      to the point that I thought perhaps there were two
      such
      people named M-W and I'm still not convinced of this.
      This is to say nothing of the question that the
      existence of M-W leaves open, i.e. why did Rys-Davids
      and Stede not choose M-W.

      As to the two PTS dictionaries, the old focuses on
      etymology and the new on meaning and usage. Both are
      fine works and I didn't mean to denigrate the old.
      I think you'll find that Ms. Cone uses quotations to
      illustrate meaning and mere citations to show the
      range
      of texts, usually canonical, where a word is found.

      I did think your criticism of Ms. Cone was rather
      harsh
      and it recalled a humourous poem that Dorothy Parker
      wrote. Now remember this is all in good fun. I
      believe Mrs. Parker wrote the poem in response to a
      friend of hers who had criticized the work of Charles
      Dickens.

      Those who call him spurious and shoddy
      Shall do so over my lifeless body,
      I do invite such birds
      To step outside and say those words.

      Thank you, Dimitry, for all that you contribute.
      With sincere best wishes,
      Paul

      --- "������� ���������� ��������� (Dimitry A.
      Ivakhnenko)" <koleso@...> wrote:
      > Dear Paul,
      >
      > Ms. Cone's dictionary is a step forward, but still
      > has a lot to
      > improve. What for are those numerous Pali citations
      > without
      > explanation - nowadays anyone can find any number of
      > relevant
      > citations on computer. PED is more friendly in this
      > regard. It also
      > has many pioneering discoveries of the meanings, be
      > they right or
      > wrong. Ms. Cone's dictionary often simply preserves
      > them and does not
      > reflect active work of thought. It gives impression
      > that
      > philological Pali thought has somewhat stagnated
      > since 1925.
      >
      > p> As to Monier-Williams, wasn't the first edition
      > published in 1851?
      > p> I see references to an Oxford reprint edition of
      > 1899 but I'm not sure
      > p> this is the same thing you are referring to.
      >
      > I don't know its exact publication date. The fact is
      > that
      > Monier-Williams dictionary is not included in the
      > list of consulted
      > sources of PED.
      >
      > Etymology represents an important constituent of
      > linguistic studies -
      > alongside with actual context, commentarial glosses,
      > definitions,
      > equivalents in other languages. We should use all
      > these tools for
      > better understanding.
      >
      > Best Wishes,
      > Dimitry
      >
      >
      >


      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
      http://mailplus.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.