13918Re: [Pali] Re: Saddaniiti XXV: introduction
- Sep 7 7:16 AMGeorge wrote:
> (i) Jim's note on "kiriya.m akkhaayati" raises some interestingissues.
> He takes akkhaayati as an active form meaning 'tells about' andconsiders
> why it looks like a passive. He doesn't consider what the relationmight be
> between the following pairs of forms.elaborate
> 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 inthe PTS
> dictionary suggests that they are not found in early Pali. Akkhaatiand
> akkhaata are listed (p.2) though no technical meaning for akkhaatais
> given. The differences are simplification of khy to kh withgemination of
> kh to kkh and concomitant shortening of the prefix aa. Theborrowing
> by Pali grammarians of the Sanskrit term aakhyaata 'finite verb'clearly
> caused some confusion, and it isn't clear (from what has beentranslated
> 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'tdiscuss
> the remainder of the line: aakhyaata.m kiriyaapada.m. Judging fromhis
> translation he takes them to be conjoined predicate nouns 'verb andword
> for action'. It seems to me possible to construe them as a reducedclause
> of which aakhyaata.m is the subject: 'a verb is an action word'. Ifthat is
> reasonable, the line might be translated as:That is certainly a possible alternative. I was reading
> Aakhyaata means action word, because it 'tells about the action'.
'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 'actionword', 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 meanany
> kind of action (e. g. bhavati). The alternative is to give amorphological
> definition, something like Panini's sup-ti"nanta.m padam, 'a word iswhat
> ends in sup (an acronym for the case/number suffixes) or ti"n (anacronym
> for the person/number suffixes)'.Would 'activity' be a better translation for 'kiriyaa'? I think
'kiriyaa' includes the meaning of 'bhaava' (state).
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>