Re: Introduction and Question
- Dear Mark Hulbert, Everett Thiele, and all
How are you?
Mark asked 3 questions:
"(a) do Sanskrit first then move on to Pali,
(b) do Pali first (as it is easier, in
principal?) then move on to Sanskrit, or
(c) figure what the heck and
just try doing both at once?"
When I began to study English with the aim of achieving capability to
use it like a native speaker, I had somewhat similar questions. I
read somewhere that it is easier to understand English if you first
study Latin as there are a lot of words adopted from Latin. But, I
did not manage to get a complete set of Latin grammar, with the first
volume missing (so I was never able to begin the study).
So I concentrated on learning the available texts of English grammar
works and dictionaries (mainly from Oxford Uni Press).
Later when I immigrated to Australia, English has become the only
compulsory means of daily communication (read, write, speak, listen,
hear all the time).
Now my dreams are in English.
What I am getting at here is that I become a daily (and nightly in
dreams) user of English without having studied Latin.
My answer to Mark's questions would be that it is not necessary to
study Sanskrit to master Pali, and vice versa.
As a multi-lingual myself, I do recommend any willing and capable
persons to learn different or related languages, as it is always good
to know more than one language. It is fun.
But, we can master a language without prior understanding of any
Suan Lu Zaw
--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "mchulbert" <mchulbert@y...> wrote:
I am a new member and have just started learning Pali using the Pali
Primer and Warder. I have had a latent interest in Buddhism for many
years (hatched while completing a Ph.D in philosophy 10 years ago),
but I am now starting to get serious and read the Suttas and just
about anything else I can get my hands on.
Ultimately, I would like to gain some proficency in both Pali and
Sanskrit, so my question is: is there a particularly strong reason to
learn Sanskrit first and then progress to Pali, or does the reverse
make just as much sense? I keep reading that Pali is a "simplified"
version of Sanskrit and Walshe, in the introduction to his
translation of the Digha Nikaya, notes the existence of certain rules
of thumb that approximate a Sanskrit-to-Pali conversion. Given these
facts, does it make sense for someone like me to (a) do Sanskrit
first then move on to Pali, (b) do Pali first (as it is easier, in
principal?) then move on to Sanskrit, or (c) figure what the heck and
just try doing both at once? (If it is relevant, I have some small
background in classical languages, having been force fed Latin at
school in England and spent some time working with medieval Latin
texts as a graduate student.)
I've been lurking on the list for a week or so and it seems like a
great place with some really nice folks.
Metta to all.
Replies Name/Email Yahoo! ID Date Size
2864 Re: Introduction and Question Everett Thiele Mon
6/30/2003 5 KB