is probable that in preaching the
Buddha used not Pali in the strict sense but the spoken dialect of
Magadha[615], and that this dialect did not differ from Pali more than
Scotch or Yorkshire from standard English, and if for other reasons we
are satisfied that some of the suttas have preserved the phrases which
he employed, we may consider that apart from possible deviations in
pronunciation or inflexion they are his _ipsissima verba_. Even as we
have it, the text of the canon contains some anomalous forms which are
generally considered to be Magadhisms[616].

The Cullavagga relates how two monks who were Brahmans represented to
the Buddha that "monks of different lineage ... corrupt the word of the
Buddha by repeating it in their own dialect. Let us put the word of the
Buddhas into _chandas_[617]." No doubt Sanskrit verse is meant,
_chandas_ being a name applied to the language of the Vedic verses.
Gotama refused: "You are not to put the word of the Buddhas into
_chandas_. Whoever does so shall be guilty of an offence. I allow you to
learn the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect." Subsequent
generations forgot this prohibition, but it probably has a historical
basis and it indicates the Buddha's desire to make his teaching popular.
It is not likely that he contemplated the composition of a body of
scriptures. He would have been afraid that it might resemble the hymns
of the Brahmans which he valued so little and he wished all men to hear
his teaching in the language they understood best. But when after his
death his disciples collected his sayings it was natural that they
should make at least one version of them in the dialect most widely
spoken and that this version should be gradually elaborated in what was
considered the best literary form of that dialect[618]. It is probable
that the text underwent several linguistic revisions before it reached
its present state.

Pali is a sonorous and harmonious language which avoids combinations of
consonants and several difficult sounds found in Sanskrit. Its
excellence lies chiefly in its vocabulary and its weakness in its
syntax. Its inflexions are heavy and monotonous and the sentences lack
concentration and variety. Compound words do not assume such monstrous
proportions as in later Sanskrit, but there is the same tendency to make
the process of composition do duty for syntax. These faults have been
intensified by the fact that the language has been used chiefly