Thanks very much for your comments. Context is indeed important, as your solutions to
my problems amply demonstrate. However, Warder doesn't give us any context for these
snippets, which may be why Yong Peng was puzzled.
Also I can't agree that context is everything. Take the other snippet that puzzled him:
jaya.m vera.m pasavati
There is a noun stem jaya- meaning 'winning, victory', but jaya.m cannot be that noun
because it is masculine and would be jayo in the nominative singular. Thus he suggested
there might be a misprint here. As pointed out by Gunnar, this snippet occurs in
jaya.m vera.m pasavati dukkha.m seti paraajito
upasanto sukha.m seti hitvaa jayaparaajaya.m
I found eight online translations of this: six of them render jaya.m as 'winning' or 'victory',
so Yong Peng is not alone. Presumably context is responsible for the misunderstanding or
disregard of what the Pali words say. The other two render it as 'winner' or 'victor'. This is
perhaps better (since it refers to a person rather than an action), but still makes no
grammatical sense. If jaya.m is taken as a present participle (stem jayant-) then we can
understand it as nominative, but it must be an attribute of a covert pronoun, and
translated as 'winning, he generates hatred'. It is not very clear in this case that the
winning and the generating must be simultaneous.
Note that the subjects in the next two clauses (paraajito and upasanto) are past participles
used as nouns, and that jaya- in hitvaa jayaparaajaya.m does mean 'winning' (as part of
the compound jayaparaajaya.m 'winning and losing' in the accusative. Warder has not
taken this snippet from the Dhammapada; it also appears in D, no doubt in a very different
context. I can't help wondering if that original context would help in the interpretation,
and what the relation is (if any) between the two occurrences.