Yes, and “basically” seems an appropriate word. You have found the two passages that are often quoted as saying that “one should learn the Dhamma in one’s own language”. But when you inspect them carefully, it is far from obvious that either passage says just that.
The quote from MN 139 is the easiest of the two to interpret. It is quite clear, at least to me, that it says one should use local terminology and expressions, not insist on some other standard. This could reasonably be extended to the idea that one should use local languages, although this does not seem to be the exact intent of the original passage.
Then there is the remaining conundrum of why the text seems to contradict itself. First it says:
And however it is known in those various localities, you speak accordingly …
That’s how you don’t insist on local terminology …
But should we not expect the last line to read:
That’s how you don’t insist on non-local terminology …
There is something strange going on here. I suspect our understanding of janapadanirutti is wrong. Otherwise we have a blatant contradiction in terms. Bhante @Sujato hasn’t engaged on this issue. Yet to me it seems quite significant.
It’s a bit awkward that a passage that shows such anomalies is our best evidence for the Buddha saying we should speak the Dhamma in the local language. It means we don’t really have a very solid basis for this at all. For the passage from the Vinaya is in fact much more ambiguous than the one at MN 139. Here it is again for reference:
Tena kho pana samayena yameḷakekuṭā nāma bhikkhū dve bhātikā honti brāhmaṇajātikā kalyāṇavācā kalyāṇavākkaraṇā. Te yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkamiṃsu, upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṃ abhivādetvā ekamantaṃ nisīdiṃsu. Ekamantaṃ nisinnā kho te bhikkhū bhagavantaṃ etadavocuṃ – ‘‘etarahi, bhante, bhikkhū nānānāmā nānāgottā nānājaccā nānākulā pabbajitā. Te sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṃ dūsenti. Handa mayaṃ, bhante, buddhavacanaṃ chandaso āropemā’’ti. Vigarahi buddho bhagavā … ‘‘kathañhi nāma tumhe, moghapurisā, evaṃ vakkhatha – ‘handa mayaṃ, bhante, buddhavacanaṃ chandaso āropemā’ti. Netaṃ, moghapurisā, appasannānaṃ vā pasādāya … vigarahitvā … dhammiṃ kathaṃ katvā bhikkhū āmantesi – ‘‘na, bhikkhave, buddhavacanaṃ chandaso āropetabbaṃ. Yo āropeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṃ pariyāpuṇitu’’nti.
At this time there were two monks called Yameḷa and Kekuṭa, brothers born into a brahmin family, who were well-spoken and had good voices. They went to the Buddha, bowed, sat down, and said, “Venerable Sir, the monks now come from a variety of families, clans, and classes. They corrupt the word of the Buddha by using their own expressions. Now we could give metrical form to the word of the Buddha.” The Buddha rebuked them, “Foolish men, how can you say such a thing? This won’t give rise to confidence in those without it …” after rebuking them … the Buddha gave a teaching and addressed the monks: “You should not give metrical form to the word of the Buddha. If you do, you commit an offense of wrong conduct. You should learn the word of the Buddha using its own expressions.”
What we can say with relative certainty is that the Buddha - or perhaps his students, one or more generations removed - disallowed giving metrical form to the Dhamma, or alternatively that he disallowed rendering it in Vedic Sanskrit. (Classical Sanskrit did probably not yet exist.) This is already quite useful. It presumably means that we should not give an artificial status to the suttas that accord with social ideas of class. In other words, Buddhism should avoid falling pray to the class structure of general society, at least in certain areas. Although this does not directly support the idea that translation should be done, it does point in that direction. Local languages tend not to have to have fewer class signifiers than standards imposed from outside.
Apart from this, it is not clear what other conclusions we can draw from this passage. The critical phrase is sakāya niruttiya. Sakāya means “one’s own”, and nirutti, as I have argued, means “expression” and perhaps by extension “language”. The phrase occurs twice in the passage above, both of which I have bolded for ease of reference. In the first occurrence the meaning is obvious: sakāya refers to the nirutti of the monks who are said to “corrupt the word of the Buddha”, “their own expressions”. In the second instance things are far less clear. There are at least two possible meanings:
You should learn the word of the Buddha using your own expressions.
If nirutti meant “language” rather than “expression”, this might be fine. But if nirutti does mean expression or terminology, then this rendering seems quite implausible. If the monastics started using their terminology, it would not take long before it would be difficult to agree on what the Buddha had said, let alone what he had meant. That way only lies the decline of the Dhamma. So if nirutti means “expression”, it seems we are forced to render this as I have in the quote above:
You should learn the word of the Buddha using its own expressions.
And this, of course, means that there is no guidance at all in this passage on whether we may translate or learn the Dhamma in our own language. So it seems to me that a passage that has always been used to support the idea of using local languages, in fact has nothing to do with it. Anyway, that’s how I see it. I would be very happy to hear counter-opinions.
Where does this leave us? Personally I believe the passage from MN 139 is sufficient to say that the Buddha encouraged the translation and teaching of the Dhamma in local languages. But even if this is reading too much into it, I do not think there are any passages to contradict this idea, and so we are left with silence. Whenever there is no specific prohibition - and we see from history that translation has been the norm - I believe we have all the information we need to happily continue with our translation projects, and by extension to teach the Dhamma in local languages. If the Buddha didn’t prohibit something, we may assume it is allowable.