Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13918Re: [Pali] Re: Saddaniiti XXV: introduction

Expand Messages
  • Jim Anderson
    Sep 7 7:16 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      George wrote:

      > (i) Jim's note on "kiriya.m akkhaayati" raises some interesting
      > He takes akkhaayati as an active form meaning 'tells about' and
      > why it looks like a passive. He doesn't consider what the relation
      might be
      > between the following pairs of forms.
      > khyaa khaa root 'tell'
      > aakhyaati akkhaati 3s present '(it) tells'
      > aakhyaata akkhata past participle 'told'
      > It appears to me that the forms on the right are in fact Sanskrit,
      > corresponding to Pali forms on the left. I haven't done an
      > search, but the fact that aakhyaati and aakhyaata are not listed in
      the PTS
      > dictionary suggests that they are not found in early Pali. Akkhaati
      > akkhaata are listed (p.2) though no technical meaning for akkhaata
      > given. The differences are simplification of khy to kh with
      gemination of
      > kh to kkh and concomitant shortening of the prefix aa. The
      > by Pali grammarians of the Sanskrit term aakhyaata 'finite verb'
      > caused some confusion, and it isn't clear (from what has been
      > so far) how far Aggava.msa was aware of it.

      You will find 'aakhyaati' and 'aakhyaata' both listed at DOP I 280
      (Cone). The Pali grammarians take 'khaa' and 'khyaa' as two separate
      roots but give them both as a pair under one meaning (pakathane or
      kathane). It is not uncommon for Pali and Sanskrit to have identical
      forms. 'aakhyaati' is a Pali as well as a Sanskrit verb. 'aakhyaata'
      can be found in the Tipitaka in 'svaakhyaata' (su + aakhyaata --
      well-proclaimed) along with the other form 'svaakkhaata'. I think it
      would be hard to determine with certainty which is the older one.

      > (ii) Jim explains his parsing of "kiriya.m akkhaayati", but doesn't
      > the remainder of the line: aakhyaata.m kiriyaapada.m. Judging from
      > translation he takes them to be conjoined predicate nouns 'verb and
      > for action'. It seems to me possible to construe them as a reduced
      > of which aakhyaata.m is the subject: 'a verb is an action word'. If
      that is
      > reasonable, the line might be translated as:
      > Aakhyaata means action word, because it 'tells about the action'.

      That is certainly a possible alternative. I was reading
      'kiriyaapada.m' as a gloss or synonym for 'aakhyaata.m' and thought of
      'aakhyaatapada.m' and 'aakhyaatikapada.m'. I wonder if kiriyaapada.m
      might be a more general term that could include participles,
      infinitives, absolutives. and action-nouns. Cone on p. 690 gives the
      meanings: a verbal form, a verb.

      > (iii) If indeed Aggava.msa intends to define aakhyaata as 'action
      word', it
      > must be pointed out that he has given a bad definition. Because,
      like all
      > other languages we know of, Pali has many verbs which do not mean
      > kind of action (e. g. bhavati). The alternative is to give a
      > definition, something like Panini's sup-ti"nanta.m padam, 'a word is
      > ends in sup (an acronym for the case/number suffixes) or ti"n (an
      > for the person/number suffixes)'.

      Would 'activity' be a better translation for 'kiriyaa'? I think
      'kiriyaa' includes the meaning of 'bhaava' (state).

      Best wishes,
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic