There are, but you don’t see it, I think. Ven. Dhammanando knows his stuff too, and even the Pali dictionaries gloss “exists”. But you admit your Pali is poor. Then why make these kind of arguments, because most people reading your words have no way to tell your knowledge level. No offense, but it’s a bit “frustrating” if you studied Pali for years, teach it too, but someone who doesnt know the basics tells you you’re wrong, basically.
I stay out of discussions about economy for example because I know I dont know much about it. Cobbler, keep to your last, is what I tell myself.
Also, the early suttas are not a huge work by any means. If you find two or three instances of an idea in various contexts, that’s already very telling. Plus in this case it’s apparently (according to the referenced paper) backed up by the Sanskrit sources, which I suppose you havent considered either.
Its rather Thanissaros translations which are circular, as argued before with “pin down”, which simply is not what the verb meams. This reasoninh can be seen in the same topic of anatta, for example translating yathabhuta as “as it is happening” instead of “as it really is”, to avoid saying that anatta is how nature really is. But that translation is simply wrong, there is no other way to say it. And you can find many contexts to show that this is so.
As you’ve probably seen, it’s all very coherent. The suttas make the same points over and over again in different ways.