You're assessment is correct to a degree. The comment I made is one way to indicate a likely shortcoming in Pali which can be discussed without being a Pali scholar as opposed to not being able to discuss it at all unless one is well read across the entire body of Pali literature which seems to be Kare's view....and my concerns are not specifically what you describe but what you describe might be considered to be a specific case of a more general idea....to me there seems to be a very narrow body of Pali literature for many reasons (including what you have mentioned) and one of these is the narrowness of authorship. Another concern is whether one person or a small number of people exerted too much influence on the language or it's transmission...Buddhagossa comes to mind. If memory serves me correctly it seems that some king long ago wanted to sponsor a translation of the Pali into some more modern language and he found Buddhagossa and asked him to translate one text to see how it went......the king liked what Buddhagossa did so he gave him the job of translating it all. Seems to me that we are at the whim of Buddhagossa to a great extent and of course who knows whether Buddhagossa had to make politically correct adjustments to please the king. I'm no scholar on this area but this does raise questions about undo influence on the part of two historic figures.