Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Linguistic Statistical Analysis

Expand Messages
• 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
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).

Since we're talking about line (paadayuga) endings, that covers the
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.)

Well, sorry to go on so much about this subject.

Derek.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.