LANMAN. — PALI BOOK-TITLES. 689 



Comment 3. The triliterals. — For Vinaya, the use of Vin. is dis- 

 cussed at pages 679, 680. Next, Dhainma-sarjgani. The biliteral Dh. 

 stands for the oft-cited Dhainma-pada : and the s which converts that 

 biliteral into the triliteral Dhs. is the only natural differential for 

 Dhamma-sarjgani. — For Vibhanga, Canon 6 forbids the use of Vibh. 

 as a triliteral and of Vib. with split digraph, and so we are forced to 

 take Vbh. — Coming to the difficult Katha-vatthu : Kthv. counts as 4 

 letters and Ktv. is barred (Canon 6) ; Kav. and Kav. are not sugges- 

 tive ; and since uncombined K does not stand for anything else than 

 Katha, it would seem that Kvu. is the best available designation (in 

 spite of the vatthu and the v : see page 681). — Next, Dhatu-katha. 

 That Dh. should stand for two things, Dhamma- and Dhatu-, is a pity, 

 but it does not stand for anything else ; and, of the alternatives Dha. 

 and Dht. for Dhatu-katha, neither seems to me better (Canon 2) than 

 the only other feasible one, Dhk. — For Puggala-pailnatti, Pug. is more 

 suggestive than Pup., although both are very doggy. — For Yamaka, 

 Yam. is satisfactory. — • For Patthana, Pat. is much too vague ; despite 

 Canon 10, we must needs take the initial of each syllable and combine 

 them to Ptn. 



Comment 4. The quadriliterals. — The Varjsas are so numerous that 

 their designations should unquestionably be uniform (Canon 5), and 

 nothing could possibly be more suggestive than vrj. Far the most 

 important are Dlpa-varjsa and Maha-varjsa. It has been made amply 

 clear that D. and M. may be put to much better use as designating 

 Digha and Majjhima. With due regard to Canon 5, nothing could be 

 more natural and suggestive than Dpvrj. and Mhvrj. The designations 

 Tpvrj. and Dtvrj. involve split digraphs: hence Thvrj. and Davrj. ; and, 

 by analogy with Davrj., rather Savrj. than Ssvrj. (cp. Canon 10). 



Of the "other books," Visuddhi-magga, Milinda-panha, and Abhi- 

 dhana-ppadipika are by far the most important. Although I have for 

 years myself written Vm. for Visuddhi-magga, I think, since a quadrilit- 

 eral is required, that Visu. is more suggestive than Vism. (which makes 

 us think of vismaya) or Vsdm. orVsmg. For Milinda, I choose Miln., 

 rather than Mind, or Mlnp., as being more suggestive and because we 

 are so familiar with Mil. For Abhp. and Abhs., see p. 681. On more 

 than one account, Khus. and Muls. are better than the Khus. and Mul. 

 of List 4. The commentaries are much better designated in the 

 manner explained below. The very familiar and important Asln. may 

 perhaps be tolerated, and perhaps also Samp, and Sumv. ; but, on the 

 whole, Dhs.cm. and Vin.cm. and D.cm. are vastly better. For the rest, 

 comment is dispensable. 



vol. xliv. — 44 



