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

14161Re: [Pali] Re: About the thread of Relational Grammar

Expand Messages
  • George Bedell
    Dec 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Ven. Pa.n.dita,

      You wrote:

      >But I like Jim's term 'substratum' to render the Pali term 'adhikara.na'.

      This is not really Jim Anderson's term, but appears in K. V. Abhyankar's Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar(1961) under tulyaadhikara.na: "having got the same substratum; denoting ultimately the same object; expressed in the same case; the same as samaanaadhikara.na in the grammar of Paa,nini. cf. Kaat. II. 5.5." (p. 189) This passage was called to the group's attention by Mahinda Palihawadana. Abhyankar also has an entry for adhikara.na alone: "(1) support; a grammatical relation of the nature of a location; place of verbal activity. cf. aadhaaro 'dhikara.nam P. I. 4.45;" (p. 14) But in the usual understanding of this suutra, it is aadhaara which means 'support', 'location' or 'substratum', and adhikara.na (the kaaraka) is being defined as having that sense.

      The above appears to be close to what you had in mind when you wrote:

      >In the sentence "puriso bhatta.m pacati", "puriso" refers to a particular man so that man is
      >the substratum of "puriso". The verb "pacati" refers to the action of that man, so he is also
      >the substratum of "pacati". Then "puriso" and "pacati" have the same substratum.


      >In classical Pali grammars, content is treated as the locus (location) of the language that
      >refers to it. So "havin the same substratum" means that both "puriso" and "pacati" have the
      >same location, i.e., the same referent.

      There is a perhaps significant difference between what you say and what Abhyankar implies: tulyaadhikara.na 'having the same substratum' is a relation between two things. According to your explanation, these are puriso and pacati, but I think Abhyankar would say they are puriso and the suffix -ti. Only this interpretation is consistent with 'denoting ultimately the same object', since verb forms like pacati do not denote objects.

      I think I agree that 'having the same substratum' is a possible translation of tulyaadhikara.na, but I have two reservations about it. (i) I would prefer to avoid using obscure Latin terms to translate obscure Pali terms, and (ii) I think we should be surer that Aggava.msa in fact understood it in that way. Tulyaadhikara.na is not his term, since it appears in the corresponding suttas of Kaccaayana, and (according to Abhyankar) in the earlier Kaatantra Sanskrit grammar. Looking just at 869-71, it isn't clear to me that it means more than 'denoting the same object', where it is the nominative noun phrase and the verbal suffix indicating person and number which are involved: these suttas are part of a presentation of these suffixes.

      You also wrote, concerning tulyaadhikara.na:

      >I would like to suggest a working principle to be used in the meantime. It is what is
      >understood by this term in the Burmese tradition.

      That sounds like a useful principle, but it is a little difficult for us non-Burmese to practice. Aside from the materials that you have made available, how can we access the Burmese tradition?

      Finally, thank you for the Pali tools paper which I received a few minutes ago. * * * * *
      George Bedell
      230/5 Suan Lanna Village, Huay Kaew Road,
      t. Chang Phuak, a. Muang
      Chiang Mai 50300, Thailand

      From: ashinpan <ashinpan@...>
      To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2009 18:23:57
      Subject: [Pali] Re: About the thread of Relational Grammar

      George Bedell wrote:

      > Please add my name to the list of those interested in 'Relational Grammar'. I found your examples (posted the same day) concerning Saddaniiti 869 of interest, and I would like to see the paper on Pali tools you mention.

      Thanks for showing your interest in my paper. Now I am editing the paper (mainly to clean up the citations) and I will upload it when it is ready.

      > I have looked over the file 'Basic Relational Grammar', and a >couple of questions come to mind:
      > (i) What is the relation, if any, between your Relational Grammar and the 'Relational Grammar' proposed by David Perlmutter and Paul Postal in the USA and developed into a large literature in the 1970s and 1980s?

      No relation whatsoever. I coined the term "relational grammar" in (2002) while teaching at ITBMU as a rendition of the Burmese term "caacap"; I did not know that that term had been already in use in the field of linguistics.

      > (ii) What role does Relational Grammar play in your analysis of the examples you gave to explain the term tulyaadhikara. ne? I could not find the term 'substratum' in your outline.

      I used the concept when I described the "identical adjectives" but not the term. But I like Jim's term 'substratum' to render the Pali term 'adhikara.na' .

      with metta

      Ven. Pandita

      New Email names for you!
      Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
      Hurry before someone else does!

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic