SuttaCentral
Kd 4 On Pavarana:
The Pali term Ajja pavāraṇā is in one place (segment 74) translated as “Today is the invitation ceremony.”, somewhere else (segment 277) as “Today is the invitation.”, and again somewhere else (segment 305) as “Today is the invitation day.”.
Thanks, @sabbamitta. I have noted your comment and I shall look into it when I get an opportunity.
Kd 4 segment 718:
The Pali term “Pavāritānaṃ āpatti thullaccayassa.” is translated: “And thereʼs no offense for those who already have invited.”
Corrected to: … a serious offense for those… 
Kd 4 segment 987
Pali “na saṃghabhedakassa … pe …”—no English translation.
Thank you! I have added the missing phrase.
Kd 4 segment 1118
“‘I’m canceling it because he has failed in morality/in conduct/in view,’ he should asked,”
… he should be asked,—
Segment 1129
“‘I am canceling it because of what I have seen/because what I have heard/because of suspicion,’”
because of what I have heard—
Kd 5 Seg 287
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ‘idāni mañcaṃ vā pīṭhaṃ vā abhiruhissāmī’ti upāhanaṃ dhāretun”ti.
When you know that you are must about to use furniture, …
Can’t use the Pali to help myself, so removing “must” unless I hear otherwise 
Yes, please. There are always little mistakes creeping in, and so it’s great that you get these things sorted out. Sādhu!
Kd 4 segment 1220
“If the offender is known about before the invitation ceremony, but the offense only afterwards, the offender should be corrected.”
Not entirely sure—but shouldn’t it be “the offense should be corrected”?
The Pali is:
Pubbe ce, bhikkhave, pavāraṇāya puggalo paññāyati, pacchā vatthu, kallaṃ vacanāya.
“The offender should be corrected” renders the last part, kallaṃ vacanāya, lit. “it is appropriate to speak/correct”. Since the speaking/correcting is always to the offender, I have added that, even though it is not in the Pali. In English the sentence looks incomplete without it. So I think it’s ok.
Thank you for questioning these things. Hopefully we will be able to remove most of the errors. Not all of course! 
Finished is the fourth Khandhaka on the invitation day.
I am out of winter “retreat”, such as it was, and gathering focus to get back to work on this effort. Where could I best make a contribution?
Wheeee! Well done.
If you are ok with it, I will send you the Uposatha-khandhaka next. It has a lot in common with the Pavāraṇā-khandhaka and hopefully that will help you with the segmentation.
If you would like a break, please let me know.
The light at the end of the tunnel is getting closer!
Welcome back! It’s good to know that you are still happy to contribute. The Kosambi-khandhaka is still not complete. If you would like to continue with that, that would be great.
Enjoy!
I’ve have now done a bit of research on this. It seems lohitaka is ordinary red, whereas mañjiṭṭhaka is more like pink or purple. Although perhaps a little bit obscure, especially for those with English as a second language, have settled on “magenta” for the latter.
Thanks again for pointing this out.
Kd 2 segments 67, 68
If I understand correctly, there seems to be no English translation for this phrase:
“Tanti pātimokkhaṃ vuccati.”
(Tanti = term, pātimokkhaṃ vuccati = gloss)
Yes, I have not translated it in the main text, and so it does not really make sense to translate it here where the term is glossed. Tan/taṃ just means “it” and it refers back to the pātimokkha. This means that no information is lost by not translating it.
OK, I have located the HTML you sent me for the Kosambi-khandhaka, so I can restart that.
Kd 5 seg 367
With all the notes on pādukā, I get the idea this has already been given considerable thought! And I’m thinking it’s not something for which there is an English word nor an equivalent object(s), these days, perhaps? Obviously I have no clue or context about the Pali, so solely reading the English, even in context and with the explanatory notes, I’m very confused to read “And you should not use shoes for walking.” I’m pretty sure I’ve seen monastics walk in shoes! So just out of curiosity, I wouldn’t mind being unconfused-ed at some point 
Also thanks for fixing red->magenta in this khandhaka too 
Yes, I can see why this seems surprising. Ajahn Thanissaro translates pāduka as “non-leather footwear”. So anyone who follows his interpretation would be able to wear leather shoes. However, I have not been able to find any justification for his rendering. It seems to me that the two types of standard footwear mentioned in the vinaya, upahāna and pāduka, are best described as sandals and shoes respectively.
But I don’t think we should be too strict about this rule. The exact nature of upahāna and pāduka is bit fuzzy, and it would be a mistake to tie them too closely to sandals and shoes. So as with so many other minor rules we are probably better off asking what the Buddha’s broader intention was in laying down such a rule. From the context, the answer seems to be that pāduka were considered luxurious. Applying this to the modern context, I would say any footwear that is neither luxurious nor indulgent (this being the other standard criticism of monastics) is acceptable.
Also, the vinaya trends to be very flexible when it comes to illness or even discomfort. So for instance, if you use boots while working, I would say there is no problem. Likewise, if you use shoes or boots in a cold climate, then again this comes under the standard exemption for illness found elsewhere in the vinaya. True, it is not specifically mentioned for this rule, but considering its minor nature, I think it is fair to apply such standard exemptions.
So there you are. That’s my take on it. I tend to be quite flexible with the minor rules. There are some, however, who would disagree with this approach.
Anyway, congratulations on making good progress with the Camma-khandhaka! Please feel free to take your time. I would like everyone who takes part in this to enjoy their work. 