Revision as of 22:23, 16 November 2006 editNat Krause (talk | contribs)15,397 editsm moved Talk:Pāli language to Talk:Pāli: what's the other Pāli?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:31, 21 March 2024 edit undo170.64.197.129 (talk) →Sanskrit-Pali contrast | ||
(206 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= | ||
{{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=Top}} | |||
{{cleanup taskforce notice|Pāli}} | |||
{{WikiProject Sri Lanka|importance=Top}} | |||
{{ConvertIPA}} | |||
{{WikiProject India|importance=High|history=yes|history-importance=high|assess-date=May 2012}} | |||
{{LanguageTalk}} | |||
{{WikiProject Southeast Asia |importance=Low}} | |||
Does anyone know the standard abbreviation for Pāli?] 21:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
{{WikiProject Languages|importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Bangladesh|importance=Low}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | |||
{{Broken anchors|links= | |||
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Dharmas in Buddhist phenomenology) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Dharmas in Buddhist phenomenology","appear":{"revid":3837066,"parentid":3837062,"timestamp":"2004-06-02T06:36:13Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":306692583,"parentid":306203321,"timestamp":"2009-08-07T23:07:03Z","replaced_anchors":{"Dharma as a \"Purusartha\"":"As a \"Purusartha\"","Dharmas in Buddhist phenomenology":"In Buddhist phenomenology"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"Buddhist phenomenology"} --> | |||
}} | |||
== Pali: Dead language. == | |||
There ain't one | |||
http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/related/iso639.txt ] 10:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) | |||
There is an extensive literature in Pali that is "living". How can it be called dead? I propose that relevant defintion be modified. | |||
---- | |||
The facts: There are words in Pali literature that are attributed to "Buddho Bhagava". Those words should be considered as the origin of the language. Of course, like any other languge, it changed over the course of 2500 years. We now have an extensive literature. For example see Hinuber.] (]) 12:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
www.accesstoinsight.org is only intended to provide a small selection of Pali texts (see their home page) in English. I would have added a link to the complete canon at www.metta.lk/tipitaka which has almost all the canon in Pali and English (and Burmese) but they seem to be down at the moment (not uncommon). ] 10:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) | |||
:Please follow the link (also given in the lede) to the WP article on ]s. A dead language, by definition, is a language that no longer has any native speakers. Pali fits this definition (i.e. there are currently no people on Earth whose first language is Pali). For comparison, ] also has an extensive literature and is still widely studied, yet is considered a dead language.--] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 17:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Tipitaka link now added ] 10:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
== Copyright problem removed == | |||
== IPA == | |||
Prior content in this {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACENUMBER}}|119|draft|article}} duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://books.google.com/books?id=OtCPAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA163. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, ''unless'' it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see ] if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or ] if you are.) | |||
How would one write Pali in IPA? I know Pali is pronounced as if it was spelled ''Palee'', but as an English reader, I can understand how a lot may say ''Palai''. --] 23:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
For ], we cannot accept ] text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of ''information'', and, if allowed under ], may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and ] properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original ''or'' ] from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our ] for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations '''very seriously''', and persistent violators '''will''' be ] from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. <!-- Template:Cclean --> ] (]) 07:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Devanagari== | |||
==Reasons for Buddhist use of Pali== | |||
I'd like to see the Pali in the article put into Devanagari (or some other commonly used script). I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure whether Pali spelling conventions are the same as for Sanskrit... --] ] 19:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
I'm not sure that the motivations for this are very clearly explained in the article as it stands today (you have to read very far down in the article and fill in some gaps). Originally, Buddhists wanted to use a language that was much closer to what people spoke in their daily lives in order to make doctrines accessible to all (as opposed to the Brahmins' use of archaic Sanskrit, only taught to a relative few). However, as the spoken languages kept evolving down the centuries, Pali itself eventually became increasingly remote from everyday speech, and some Pali writings became subjected to Sanskritizing influences... ] (]) 14:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
:That is not the case. Pali has an overlap over 90% grammatically and lexically with Sanskrit. Those who claim that the similarity is because of Pali being Sanskritized later likely dont know either Sanskrit or Pali. I study both languages for many years. Therefore the contrast between Pali and Sanskrit is not that Pali would have been better understood than Sanskrit - in fact as Pali and Sanskrit translators know, Pali is not more easy to understand than Sanskrit, it is in fact more difficult. ] (]) 11:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Changing the Pali terms in the article to be in Devanagari would not be reflective of either current or historical usage. To my knowledge, the only time Pali has been written in Devanagari is during attempts by followers of Dr. Amdedkar to encourage the use of Pali among Indian converts to Buddhism. For an English-language article, using the correct Romanizations (explained in the Pali Alphabet (Unicode) section) is both the most accesible and equally accurate. Devanagari would mostly be of use to Sanskritists, I believe; Sinhala, Thai, or Burmese would be more helpful to students of Pali, and the Romanization probably has the widest accesibility. --] 22:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified == | |||
:::I would agree with the usefulness of Sinhala, Thai, and Burmese along with Devanagari. Below are the Pali terms from the article in Thai script. | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
:::Pali - บาลี (or ภาษาบาลี lit. "Pali language") <br> | |||
:::Suttapiṭaka - สุตตปิฎก<br> | |||
:::Jātaka - ชาดก <br> | |||
:::dharanis - I don't think this is Pali, at least it's not in any of my dictionarys?<br> | |||
:::anything else? ] 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
::This is absolutely correct, and I say this as a student of Sanksrit who is currently enjoying OSX's excellent unicode support and built-in Devangari keyboard (nothing comparable, I believe, would help me enter proper romanization).]|] | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070617033953/http://www.bcca.org/services/fonts/ to http://www.bcca.org/services/fonts/ | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
:::OK. I was not aware of the full script situation with Pali. I was assuming that it was parallel to Sanskrit (where, although other scripts are used, the default script is Devanagari). What's the convention among students of Pali? Is there one? --] (]) (]) 21:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
== Why does this article get worse and worse? == | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 23:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
I'm sorry to see that after my attempts to revise the information on the history of the language some months ago, it has been re-written to reflect the usual errors and lies. | |||
== threvada buddhism's Pali and mahayana's BHS == | |||
This is a sad demonstration that the "democratic method" is not applicable to the process of writing an encyclopedia. | |||
im not sure why buddhist texts are dated so late when we clearly know that pali and BHS are older languages, even wikipedia acknowledges that pali and BHS are earlier than middle indo aryan like prakrits which are dated to third cen BC. SO i dont understand why there is so much issue regarding dating pali and BHS texts from the late buddhist period, i dont know why western scholars are so interested in dating indian stuff ''late''. i was listening to Mr. Richard Salomon and he also dates the buddhist texts from the period actual buddhist manuscripts have been discovered knowing fully well that buddhist manuscripts may have not survived indian environment and thus only north india/ central asian regions manuscripts have been found. The amaravathi and buddhist centers there which produced loads of buddhist texts date back pre mauryan times. Pali and BHS have been declared as mixed languages even though its clearly a misnomer, these languages are more archaic and perhaps were preserved solely because of the religions like jainism, buddhism and other sramanic religions who didn't like sanskrit or liturgical language of the brahmins. First of all the entire buddhist hybrid notion is a misnomer, which is aimed at reducing the importance of these pre prakritic languages, secondly these languages who's texts have survived not being acknowledged as earlier period than prakrits and thirdly not being categorized as an earlier middle indo aryan languages. i think the sole reason for their classification is that if these texts are dated earlier, they will force the scholarship to date brahmic alphabets earlier and with that chances of connecting the brahmi with aramaic, attempts of which have already partially failed become almost zero since it is likely to coincide with achaemenid pre aramaic adoption period of pure cuneiform. I wont even mention the complications which arise with categorizing mitanni indo aryan language. Linguists want to keep a gap of least more than a thousand years before the middle indo aryans arise after the aryan migration ] (]) 03:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
Seemingly nobody is interested in checking authoritative sources, or resolving conflicting accounts (that arise on the wiki) by reference to real scholarship; they just mimic what their "Intro to Hindi" teacher told them, or what their "Intro to Sanskrit" book vaguely suggested about Buddhist sources. | |||
== Lineage of Pali == | |||
Instead of looking at a revision and thinking "Hey, this isn't quite what my 'Intro to Hindi' book suggests ... maybe I'd better look into it" it seems that the majority of the ill-informed just respond by reducing the text to their own level of ignorance. "Hey, this isn't what I already know --it must be wrong!" | |||
The article itself states that Pali is a middle Indo Aryan language and yet there are those who vandalise the language family section, writing that Pali is descended from Sanskrit | |||
I don't know if anyone participates in this "Wiki" with an open mind that someone else might know more than they do; it really doesn't seem to be the case at all. | |||
Which Sanskrit exactly , Vedic or classical ? ] (]) 07:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
: The descent chart does appear to be wrong- it currently implies incorrectly that Pali is descended from Sanskrit. I think having Indo-Aryan - ]/Middle Indic - Pali would better illustrate things, since Pali is part of the Middle Indic language family. {{u|Gotitbro}}, the current chart shows Pali descended from Sanskrit and Prakrit, neither of which are correct. Would you put it directly under Indo-Aryan instead? An unambiguous source would be helpful. --] (]) 07:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
::{{re|Spasemunki}} Prakrit and Pali being descended from Sanskrit is the main feature of these langs, I have removed the clearly incorrect Prakrit from the tree. Removing Sanskrit from the infobox here would be like removing ] from the ] infobox. The user above is just trying to remove any mention of Sanskrit from Pali related articles. ] (]) 07:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::I had thought I read that Pali and some of the Prakrits were thought to descend from parallel varieties of Old Indic, rather than being directly derived from Vedic Sanskrit but I can't locate the reference. In that case, it seems like we ought to specify Vedic Sanskrit since Classical is usually what unqualified Sanskrit refers to. --] (]) 08:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::Actually, what I recalled is already in the article under ]: "A number of its morphological and lexical features show that it is not a direct continuation of Ṛgvedic Vedic Sanskrit. Instead it descends from one or more dialects that were, despite many similarities, different from Ṛgvedic." The scholar cited in that section as regarding it as descended from Vedic died in 1936, so I would tend to regard the more recent publication as carrying greater weight. --] (]) 08:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{re|Spasemunki}} I see, I have removed that from the infobox. The confusion in classification occurs as a lot of words in either corrupted or borrowed forms from Sanskrit are in both Pali and some early Prakrit languages. ] (]) 08:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Great. I've added Middle Indo-Aryan back to the box as well- that is the language family that Pali is most directly part of. The box is for classification/family, rather than descent, so the fact that Pali is a MIE language rather than descended from one shouldn't be significant. --] (]) 08:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
Spasemunki, thank you. Atleast someone has a good understanding of linguistic history. ] (]) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
I notice that the article on Prakrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/Prakrit) has not been reduced to quite such stupidity as the article on Pali --probably because fewer people have edited it (...or read it) since I re-wrote it myself. | |||
== Controversial Images == | |||
Depressing. | |||
What does an image venerating Lord Vishnu, that too, written in Sanskrit language have to do with the Pali Language article ? ] (]) 07:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
:It would be much easier to keep track of which edits you were talking about if you had a user account instead of just an IP, or if you could at least mention specifically which revisions you are talking about. There are several origin theories for Pali; it's far from a settled issue. Any claim that Pali was *never* a language spoken as something other than a literary language seems very difficult to prove conclusively- we don't know exactly what the differences between spoken and written language were in ancient times because we have no record of spoken language. I'll readily agree that I've seen references that indicate that Pali was an artificially constructed language never used as a vernacular- but I've also seen references that indicate that Pali developed out of a lingua franca used after the death of the Buddha. Drawing a line between the precursor language as used in daily life (which is known only through reconstruction) and the literary language seems a fairly thorny task. We can make hypotheses on the basis of differences between modern written vs. spoken usage, and patterns of language use in South Asia, but that is not the same as having direct proof. References would be extremely helpful here for establishing what the positions are, and who is proposing them. Do you have a reference for the claim that Pali was never a spoken language? Similar references for the Prakrit article would be helpful as well. I'll dig around and see what I can find. --] 07:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Sanskrit and Pali comparisons are replete in scholarly sources which the image was specifically created to illustrate. Your replacement with a singular script is unconstructive. And do not harass users by hounding them with the same question everywhere. ] (]) 07:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
That is a nonsensical excuse. | |||
==Pāli and Pali== | |||
Every language is compared with every other language by scholars and non-scholars alike. | |||
By your spurious logic, why not add images of Homer's poem and the pages of the Latin Bible to the Sanskrit article in wikipedia, since Classical Sanskrit is often compared with Ancient Greek and Classical Latin ? | |||
That Image(venerating Vishnu in Sanskrit) has to be removed. And you know that very well. | |||
] (]) 14:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
I sort of understand why this page was moved from ] to ], but I don't understand why ] became a disambiguation page. I propose to move the dab page to ] and make ] a redirect. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
It is quite amusing that you accuse me of 'harassment'. | |||
==Link removed== | |||
Unlike a 'certain someone', I don't harass or bully others by threatening to edit block them. ] (]) 14:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
::You can view seven alphabetic systems traditionally used to render Pāli in documents | |||
I removed this link because, on examination, it turned out that it was somewhat inaccurate (problematic glyphs in the Romanized Pāli and the wrong Devanāgarī aksharas for '''o''' and '''s''') and, from a practical point of view, not very helpful - no one not already familiar with the alphabets can easily determine which letter corresponds to which sound. ] 02:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
And how exactly Am I 'hounding' you with the same question everywhere, when this talk section is intended for everyone ? You are not the only one on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 05:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
==Paragraphs removed== | |||
I have removed the following paragraphs for lack of relevance to the article: | |||
It seems you do not want Pali to be written in Burmese or Sinhalese script but you allow images that have written Sanskrit and Pali in Devanagari and ironically in the Burmese script respectfully. This is sheer hypocrisy on your part. ] (]) 05:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
::This is demonstrably true (e.g.) in the instance of ], a Pāli-educated Buddhist monk, who became the first author of the Sanskrit ] genre of poetry, highly influential on ] poetics thereafter. Likewise, in ] philosophy, post-Buddhist schools such as ] ] have been directly influenced both by ] Philosophy and argumentation, with concomitant effects in the use of the language itself. | |||
:I'm inclined to agree that the first image in the article should be an image of a Pali document, rather than a comparative one. If the article itself was drawing a comparison between scripts or languages, it would make sense to include a comparison image. In terms of the state of the article, it would be more beneficial to add images of Pali texts in other scripts than to add Sanskrit texts that don't directly inform the content of the article. {{u|Bodhiupasaka}} if you have an issue with another user, it would be better to take it to their talk page rather than repeating it here. I would also encourage you to remember that ] is a policy that everyone has to abide by. --] (]) 06:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
::Within the context of religious writings, similar-sounding words to those found in ] can have significantly different meanings than those of Pāli. The active re-definition and re-invention of the religious meanings assigned to certain key terms (such as ]/]) was an active aspect of philosophic debate for many centuries, and the ], ], and various schools of ] all had competitive notions of the value and significance of these terms. | |||
Spasemunki, Thank you for concurring with my position. | |||
::The philosophy of early ] ] found in ] and the ] recorded in Pāli are, in many respects, mutually opposed; however, historical sources indicate that these were not the only schools, nor the only languages, that participated in the debates within the Buddhist fold. There is no extant Buddhist literature of the Prakrit language ], but this and other languages were associated with particular philosophical approaches to Buddhist doctrine (and particular sectarian affiliations) in recorded history. | |||
I don't really have a problem with any user. However undoing my edits and contributions, even when they are backed by scholarly publications(Nalanda article), is quite unfounded. | |||
And with all due respect, I am not the one who blankly accuses others of 'harassment'. That distinction belongs to another user on this thread. It is him/her who is dragging personal issues on to this talk page. | |||
] (]) 06:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Orthography == | |||
These paragraphs fail to distinguish between ''a language'' and the philosophical ideas conveyed in that language. While it may well be argued that the word '''buddháḥ''' means one thing in Hindu literature, '''buddhaḥ''' means another thing in Mahāyāna Buddhist literature, and '''buddho''' means yet a third thing in Theravāda literature (and may mean several different things ''within'' each of those literary and philosophical traditions), the differences in meaning are only accidentally linked to the differences in the dialect or language employed. A Mahāyāna writer might polemicize against the Theravāda concept of '''nibbānaṃ''' (this is a hypothetical instance); but, writing in Sanskrit (Classical or Hybrid), he will call the concept '''nirvāṇam''' regardless of which concept is under discussion. The choice of phonetic shape for the term is determined by linguistic context (i.e., what language the author is writing in), not by the definition of the word. The value of a technical term will vary according to the point of view of the author using the term; it is poor scholarship to attempt to embed a philosophical definition, which will necessarily vary between schools and authors, into the fabric of the language. | |||
I notice that the Phonology:Consonants section shows the Thai letters used to represent Pali. This seems both arbitrary & a little out of place. Anyone object to my: | |||
# removing the Thai script from the Consonants Table; &, | |||
# creating a separate orthography section that presents the major scripts used for representation of Pali today (Thai, Khmer, Sinhalese, Burmese)? | |||
] (]) 20:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
: It's not arbitrary. I did some raw google hit counting (so original research) to determine what the most common writing systems for Pali was on the Internet. The top three, in order, were: (1) Thai script (alphabet), (2) Thai script (abugida), (3) Roman script. However, this is the English language Misplaced Pages, so I think it would be in order to replace Thai with Roman. It's not altogether surprising, as Thailand is the country with the most Theravada Buddhists. I'm thinking I need to do a similar table at ]. Addressing the needs of the vernaculars has made Pali spelling surprisingly complicated when one takes Unicode into account. --] (]) 17:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
The article should be about the Pāli language, a matter of primarily linguistic concern and only secondarily -- and not intrinsically -- of philosophical concern. There is already an article on ] Buddhism; general characterizations of this nature belong in that article, not in an article on Pāli. | |||
== Sanskrit-Pali contrast == | |||
I don't know of any direct evidence that Aśvaghoṣa was "Pāli-educated". ] 18:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Could anyone help to translate the ] words in the sections with ''']''' → ''']''' format? As in: | |||
== Alveolar plosives == | |||
:''']''' (well-organized) → ''']''' | |||
——] (]) 13:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
Are the sounds given as alveolar plosives in the consonant table actually alveolar? I would have thought them to be dental, which is the case in just about every other Indo-Aryan language. --] 20:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
== HTML == | |||
There is at least one error in the table under the ASCII heading: two different characters (Unicode 61626 & 61686) are given the same HTML code. ] 10:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Fixed. ] 12:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:31, 21 March 2024
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
Pali: Dead language.
There is an extensive literature in Pali that is "living". How can it be called dead? I propose that relevant defintion be modified.
The facts: There are words in Pali literature that are attributed to "Buddho Bhagava". Those words should be considered as the origin of the language. Of course, like any other languge, it changed over the course of 2500 years. We now have an extensive literature. For example see Hinuber.Dgdcw (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please follow the link (also given in the lede) to the WP article on dead languages. A dead language, by definition, is a language that no longer has any native speakers. Pali fits this definition (i.e. there are currently no people on Earth whose first language is Pali). For comparison, Latin also has an extensive literature and is still widely studied, yet is considered a dead language.--William Thweatt 17:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://books.google.com/books?id=OtCPAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA163. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Reasons for Buddhist use of Pali
I'm not sure that the motivations for this are very clearly explained in the article as it stands today (you have to read very far down in the article and fill in some gaps). Originally, Buddhists wanted to use a language that was much closer to what people spoke in their daily lives in order to make doctrines accessible to all (as opposed to the Brahmins' use of archaic Sanskrit, only taught to a relative few). However, as the spoken languages kept evolving down the centuries, Pali itself eventually became increasingly remote from everyday speech, and some Pali writings became subjected to Sanskritizing influences... AnonMoos (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is not the case. Pali has an overlap over 90% grammatically and lexically with Sanskrit. Those who claim that the similarity is because of Pali being Sanskritized later likely dont know either Sanskrit or Pali. I study both languages for many years. Therefore the contrast between Pali and Sanskrit is not that Pali would have been better understood than Sanskrit - in fact as Pali and Sanskrit translators know, Pali is not more easy to understand than Sanskrit, it is in fact more difficult. Srkris (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070617033953/http://www.bcca.org/services/fonts/ to http://www.bcca.org/services/fonts/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
threvada buddhism's Pali and mahayana's BHS
im not sure why buddhist texts are dated so late when we clearly know that pali and BHS are older languages, even wikipedia acknowledges that pali and BHS are earlier than middle indo aryan like prakrits which are dated to third cen BC. SO i dont understand why there is so much issue regarding dating pali and BHS texts from the late buddhist period, i dont know why western scholars are so interested in dating indian stuff late. i was listening to Mr. Richard Salomon and he also dates the buddhist texts from the period actual buddhist manuscripts have been discovered knowing fully well that buddhist manuscripts may have not survived indian environment and thus only north india/ central asian regions manuscripts have been found. The amaravathi and buddhist centers there which produced loads of buddhist texts date back pre mauryan times. Pali and BHS have been declared as mixed languages even though its clearly a misnomer, these languages are more archaic and perhaps were preserved solely because of the religions like jainism, buddhism and other sramanic religions who didn't like sanskrit or liturgical language of the brahmins. First of all the entire buddhist hybrid notion is a misnomer, which is aimed at reducing the importance of these pre prakritic languages, secondly these languages who's texts have survived not being acknowledged as earlier period than prakrits and thirdly not being categorized as an earlier middle indo aryan languages. i think the sole reason for their classification is that if these texts are dated earlier, they will force the scholarship to date brahmic alphabets earlier and with that chances of connecting the brahmi with aramaic, attempts of which have already partially failed become almost zero since it is likely to coincide with achaemenid pre aramaic adoption period of pure cuneiform. I wont even mention the complications which arise with categorizing mitanni indo aryan language. Linguists want to keep a gap of least more than a thousand years before the middle indo aryans arise after the aryan migration 115.135.130.182 (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Lineage of Pali
The article itself states that Pali is a middle Indo Aryan language and yet there are those who vandalise the language family section, writing that Pali is descended from Sanskrit Which Sanskrit exactly , Vedic or classical ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- The descent chart does appear to be wrong- it currently implies incorrectly that Pali is descended from Sanskrit. I think having Indo-Aryan - Middle Indo-Aryan languages/Middle Indic - Pali would better illustrate things, since Pali is part of the Middle Indic language family. Gotitbro, the current chart shows Pali descended from Sanskrit and Prakrit, neither of which are correct. Would you put it directly under Indo-Aryan instead? An unambiguous source would be helpful. --Spasemunki (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Spasemunki: Prakrit and Pali being descended from Sanskrit is the main feature of these langs, I have removed the clearly incorrect Prakrit from the tree. Removing Sanskrit from the infobox here would be like removing Aramaic from the Syriac language infobox. The user above is just trying to remove any mention of Sanskrit from Pali related articles. Gotitbro (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- I had thought I read that Pali and some of the Prakrits were thought to descend from parallel varieties of Old Indic, rather than being directly derived from Vedic Sanskrit but I can't locate the reference. In that case, it seems like we ought to specify Vedic Sanskrit since Classical is usually what unqualified Sanskrit refers to. --Spasemunki (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, what I recalled is already in the article under Pali#Classification: "A number of its morphological and lexical features show that it is not a direct continuation of Ṛgvedic Vedic Sanskrit. Instead it descends from one or more dialects that were, despite many similarities, different from Ṛgvedic." The scholar cited in that section as regarding it as descended from Vedic died in 1936, so I would tend to regard the more recent publication as carrying greater weight. --Spasemunki (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Spasemunki: I see, I have removed that from the infobox. The confusion in classification occurs as a lot of words in either corrupted or borrowed forms from Sanskrit are in both Pali and some early Prakrit languages. Gotitbro (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Great. I've added Middle Indo-Aryan back to the box as well- that is the language family that Pali is most directly part of. The box is for classification/family, rather than descent, so the fact that Pali is a MIE language rather than descended from one shouldn't be significant. --Spasemunki (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Spasemunki: I see, I have removed that from the infobox. The confusion in classification occurs as a lot of words in either corrupted or borrowed forms from Sanskrit are in both Pali and some early Prakrit languages. Gotitbro (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, what I recalled is already in the article under Pali#Classification: "A number of its morphological and lexical features show that it is not a direct continuation of Ṛgvedic Vedic Sanskrit. Instead it descends from one or more dialects that were, despite many similarities, different from Ṛgvedic." The scholar cited in that section as regarding it as descended from Vedic died in 1936, so I would tend to regard the more recent publication as carrying greater weight. --Spasemunki (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- I had thought I read that Pali and some of the Prakrits were thought to descend from parallel varieties of Old Indic, rather than being directly derived from Vedic Sanskrit but I can't locate the reference. In that case, it seems like we ought to specify Vedic Sanskrit since Classical is usually what unqualified Sanskrit refers to. --Spasemunki (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Spasemunki: Prakrit and Pali being descended from Sanskrit is the main feature of these langs, I have removed the clearly incorrect Prakrit from the tree. Removing Sanskrit from the infobox here would be like removing Aramaic from the Syriac language infobox. The user above is just trying to remove any mention of Sanskrit from Pali related articles. Gotitbro (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Spasemunki, thank you. Atleast someone has a good understanding of linguistic history. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Controversial Images
What does an image venerating Lord Vishnu, that too, written in Sanskrit language have to do with the Pali Language article ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sanskrit and Pali comparisons are replete in scholarly sources which the image was specifically created to illustrate. Your replacement with a singular script is unconstructive. And do not harass users by hounding them with the same question everywhere. Gotitbro (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
That is a nonsensical excuse. Every language is compared with every other language by scholars and non-scholars alike. By your spurious logic, why not add images of Homer's poem and the pages of the Latin Bible to the Sanskrit article in wikipedia, since Classical Sanskrit is often compared with Ancient Greek and Classical Latin ? That Image(venerating Vishnu in Sanskrit) has to be removed. And you know that very well.
Bodhiupasaka (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
It is quite amusing that you accuse me of 'harassment'. Unlike a 'certain someone', I don't harass or bully others by threatening to edit block them. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
And how exactly Am I 'hounding' you with the same question everywhere, when this talk section is intended for everyone ? You are not the only one on Misplaced Pages. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems you do not want Pali to be written in Burmese or Sinhalese script but you allow images that have written Sanskrit and Pali in Devanagari and ironically in the Burmese script respectfully. This is sheer hypocrisy on your part. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree that the first image in the article should be an image of a Pali document, rather than a comparative one. If the article itself was drawing a comparison between scripts or languages, it would make sense to include a comparison image. In terms of the state of the article, it would be more beneficial to add images of Pali texts in other scripts than to add Sanskrit texts that don't directly inform the content of the article. Bodhiupasaka if you have an issue with another user, it would be better to take it to their talk page rather than repeating it here. I would also encourage you to remember that WP:AGF is a policy that everyone has to abide by. --Spasemunki (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Spasemunki, Thank you for concurring with my position. I don't really have a problem with any user. However undoing my edits and contributions, even when they are backed by scholarly publications(Nalanda article), is quite unfounded. And with all due respect, I am not the one who blankly accuses others of 'harassment'. That distinction belongs to another user on this thread. It is him/her who is dragging personal issues on to this talk page.
Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Orthography
I notice that the Phonology:Consonants section shows the Thai letters used to represent Pali. This seems both arbitrary & a little out of place. Anyone object to my:
- removing the Thai script from the Consonants Table; &,
- creating a separate orthography section that presents the major scripts used for representation of Pali today (Thai, Khmer, Sinhalese, Burmese)?
Pathawi (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's not arbitrary. I did some raw google hit counting (so original research) to determine what the most common writing systems for Pali was on the Internet. The top three, in order, were: (1) Thai script (alphabet), (2) Thai script (abugida), (3) Roman script. However, this is the English language Misplaced Pages, so I think it would be in order to replace Thai with Roman. It's not altogether surprising, as Thailand is the country with the most Theravada Buddhists. I'm thinking I need to do a similar table at wikt:Wiktionary:About Pali. Addressing the needs of the vernaculars has made Pali spelling surprisingly complicated when one takes Unicode into account. --RichardW57m (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Sanskrit-Pali contrast
Could anyone help to translate the Sanskrit words in the sections with saṃskṛta → pālī format? As in:
——170.64.197.129 (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class Buddhism articles
- Top-importance Buddhism articles
- C-Class Sri Lanka articles
- Top-importance Sri Lanka articles
- WikiProject Sri Lanka articles
- C-Class India articles
- High-importance India articles
- C-Class India articles of High-importance
- C-Class Indian history articles
- High-importance Indian history articles
- C-Class Indian history articles of High-importance
- WikiProject Indian history articles
- WikiProject India articles
- C-Class Southeast Asia articles
- Low-importance Southeast Asia articles
- WikiProject Southeast Asia articles
- C-Class language articles
- Low-importance language articles
- WikiProject Languages articles
- C-Class Bangladesh articles
- Low-importance Bangladesh articles
- WikiProject Bangladesh articles