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

Re: Nouns with identical singular and plural

Expand Messages
  • Ong Yong Peng
    Dear Nina, thanks for your reply. Would you kindly elaborate your first sentence? Thank you. metta, Yong Peng. ... to me it is more logical to think of stems
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Nina,

      thanks for your reply. Would you kindly elaborate your first sentence?
      Thank you.

      metta,
      Yong Peng.

      --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote:

      to me it is more logical to think of stems of grass and gravelbits in
      the plural.

      > I have seen 'ti.naani', the plural for ti.na (grass),
      > and 'sakkharaayo', the plural for sakkharaa (gravel).
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Yong Peng, I cannot add much more. In English one can say grass or grasses when thinking of the many different grass stems. To me it is not strange that
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Yong Peng,
        I cannot add much more. In English one can say grass or grasses when
        thinking of the many different grass stems. To me it is not strange
        that the Pali has a plural form. The same about gravel.
        The plural in Pali (in English there is not: gravels) makes me think
        of all the little bits of stone that constitute gravel. It all
        depends how one looks at it.
        Nina.
        Op 6-feb-2007, om 11:51 heeft Ong Yong Peng het volgende geschreven:

        > Would you kindly elaborate your first sentence?
        > Thank you.
        >
        > --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote:
        >
        > to me it is more logical to think of stems of grass and gravelbits in
        > the plural.
        >
        > > I have seen 'ti.naani', the plural for ti.na (grass),
        > > and 'sakkharaayo', the plural for sakkharaa (gravel).



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ong Yong Peng
        Dear Nina, thanks again. You are right that different languages each has its own way of treating grammatical number. If there is a particular pattern/rule
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 7, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Nina,

          thanks again. You are right that different languages each has its own
          way of treating grammatical number. If there is a particular
          pattern/rule applied by Pali grammarians, it would be good to know. If
          not, we just have to learn them by heart.

          I have a feeling that Pali _may not_ have a clearly defined concept of
          countable noun. If it is true, I assume that in Pali, most nouns occur
          in both singular and plural, with the exceptions of a few, e.g. odana
          (rice), which are always treated in singular. These may in turn be the
          predecessors of non-countable nouns in later languages. What do you think?

          I would love to hear the opinions of other members on the list.


          metta,
          Yong Peng.

          --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote:

          In English one can say grass or grasses when thinking of the many
          different grass stems. To me it is not strange that the Pali has a
          plural form. The same about gravel. The plural in Pali (in English
          there is not: gravels) makes me think of all the little bits of stone
          that constitute gravel. It all depends how one looks at it.

          > Would you kindly elaborate your first sentence?

          >> to me it is more logical to think of stems of grass and
          >> gravelbits in the plural.

          >>> I have seen 'ti.naani', the plural for ti.na (grass),
          >>> and 'sakkharaayo', the plural for sakkharaa (gravel).
        • Ong Yong Peng
          Dear Nina, as I go through an exercise, I found two examples to support my assumption: pu~n~naani, paapaani. metta, Yong Peng. ... I have a feeling that Pali
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 7, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Nina,

            as I go through an exercise, I found two examples to support my
            assumption: pu~n~naani, paapaani.

            metta,
            Yong Peng.


            --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ong Yong Peng wrote:

            I have a feeling that Pali _may not_ have a clearly defined concept of
            countable noun. If it is true, I assume that in Pali, most nouns occur
            in both singular and plural, with the exceptions of a few, e.g. odana
            (rice), which are always treated in singular.
          • Jim Anderson
            Dear Yong Peng, I don t know enough about the old Pali grammarians treatment of grammatical number to be of much help. But it is certainly a subject worthy of
            Message 5 of 12 , Feb 7, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Yong Peng,

              I don't know enough about the old Pali grammarians' treatment of
              grammatical number to be of much help. But it is certainly a subject
              worthy of interest and study. Grammatical number is treated in
              suttas 663-671 of the Suttamaalaa (Smith's ed. pp. 735-7) which is
              the third part of the Saddaniiti. These suttas are explained in the
              accompanying glosses and examples are given. To give you some idea of
              the scope and sophistication of treatment, I have included the 9
              suttas (without the glosses) below. I haven't been able to find
              anything similar in the Kaccaayanabyaakara.na but perhaps one can
              find something in its many commentaries.

              663 sa.mkhaa-li"ngatthaavikara.nattham uppatti vibhattiina.m.
              664 ekamhi ekavacana.m.
              665 ekamhi viya bahumhi pi.
              666 bahumhi bahuvacana.m.
              667 bahumhi viya ekamhi pi.
              668 samudaaya-jaati-nissay'-ekattalakkha.nesv ekavacana.m.
              669 bahumhi samudaaye bahuvacana.m.
              670 kvaci jaati-atta-garusu ca.
              671 apariccheda-maatikaanusandhinaya-pucchaanusandhinaya-
              pucchaasabhaaga-puthucittasamaayoga-puthuaaramma.na-
              tannivaasa-ta.mputt'-ekaabhidhaana-tannissitaapekkh'-
              aaramma.nakiccabhedesu ca.

              I think "samudaaya" is a reference to collective nouns, and "jaati"
              seems to relate to class or genus. Suttas 669-671 deal with
              exceptions to the general rule -- a plural where one would expect a
              singular.

              I hope this helps a bit.

              Best wishes,
              Jim

              > I have a feeling that Pali _may not_ have a clearly defined concept
              of
              > countable noun. If it is true, I assume that in Pali, most nouns
              occur
              > in both singular and plural, with the exceptions of a few, e.g.
              odana
              > (rice), which are always treated in singular. These may in turn be
              the
              > predecessors of non-countable nouns in later languages. What do you
              think?
              >
              > I would love to hear the opinions of other members on the list.
              >
              >
              > metta,
              > Yong Peng.
              >
            • Ong Yong Peng
              Dear Jim, thanks for the information. I am keen to learn more about collective nouns in Pali, I have not come across many of them yet. Hopefully, we would have
              Message 6 of 12 , Feb 10, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Jim,

                thanks for the information. I am keen to learn more about collective
                nouns in Pali, I have not come across many of them yet. Hopefully, we
                would have the chance to go through the Saddaniiti together some time
                in the future.

                metta,
                Yong Peng.


                --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Jim Anderson wrote:

                I don't know enough about the old Pali grammarians' treatment of
                grammatical number to be of much help. But it is certainly a subject
                worthy of interest and study. Grammatical number is treated in suttas
                663-671 of the Suttamaalaa (Smith's ed. pp. 735-7) which is the third
                part of the Saddaniiti. These suttas are explained in the accompanying
                glosses and examples are given.

                I think "samudaaya" is a reference to collective nouns, and "jaati"
                seems to relate to class or genus. Suttas 669-671 deal with exceptions
                to the general rule -- a plural where one would expect a singular.
              • Jim Anderson
                Dear Yong Peng, There are also some good explanations of the uses of the singular (ekavacana) and plural (bahuvacana) in the 2nd pariccheda of the Saddaniiti
                Message 7 of 12 , Feb 10, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Yong Peng,

                  There are also some good explanations of the uses of the singular
                  (ekavacana) and plural (bahuvacana) in the 2nd pariccheda of the
                  Saddaniiti (Part I: Padamaalaa) with an interesting technical list of
                  five kinds of singulars and fifteen kinds of plurals. The collective
                  noun in the singular comes under "samudaayaapekkhekavacana.m". Some
                  examples of this kind are found in the following passage:

                  ``saa senaa mahatii aasi, bahujjano pasannosi, sabbo ta.m jano
                  ojinaayatu, itthigumbassa pavaraa, buddhassaaha.m vatthayuga.m
                  adaasi.m, dvaya.m vo bhikkhave desessaami, pema.m mahanta.m
                  ratanattayassa, kare pasaada~nca naro avassa.m, bhikkhusa"ngho,
                  balakaayo, devanikaayo, ariyaga.no''-iccevamaadayo, ``dvika.m
                  tika''miccaadayo ca samudaayavasena bavhatthaana.m ekavacanapayogaa.
                  (from CSCD ver. 3)

                  I think "odaana.m" (rice) would come under "jaatyaapekkhekavacana.m"
                  which includes "sassa.m" (corn, crop) in its examples.

                  Best wishes,
                  Jim

                  << Dear Jim,

                  thanks for the information. I am keen to learn more about collective
                  nouns in Pali, I have not come across many of them yet. Hopefully, we
                  would have the chance to go through the Saddaniiti together some time
                  in the future.

                  metta,
                  Yong Peng. >>
                • Ong Yong Peng
                  Dear Jim, thanks for the information. I am unfamiliar with Pali grammar now. I plan to get to it in the future, but first I would like to go through Warder s
                  Message 8 of 12 , Feb 10, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Jim,

                    thanks for the information. I am unfamiliar with Pali grammar now. I
                    plan to get to it in the future, but first I would like to go through
                    Warder's Introduction in Pali before considering the Pali.

                    metta,
                    Yong Peng.


                    --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Jim Anderson wrote:

                    There are also some good explanations of the uses of the singular
                    (ekavacana) and plural (bahuvacana) in the 2nd pariccheda of the
                    Saddaniiti (Part I: Padamaalaa) with an interesting technical list of
                    five kinds of singulars and fifteen kinds of plurals. The collective
                    noun in the singular comes under "samudaayaapekkhekavacana.m".
                  • Ole Holten Pind
                    Dear Jim, This is an interesting passage. The idea that certain terms denote a samudaaya of things, like vana forest or saali denoting a collection of trees
                    Message 9 of 12 , Feb 11, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Jim,

                      This is an interesting passage. The idea that certain terms denote a
                      samudaaya of things, like vana 'forest' or saali denoting a collection of
                      trees or rice grains, can be traced to the Sanskrit grammarians and
                      philosophy of Sanskrit grammar. Aggavamsa mentions the akkharacintaka in the
                      passage to which you refer. This generally means the Sanskrit grammarians.
                      See, for instance, Bhartrhari's Vaakyapadiiya II 155-56.

                      Best wishes,
                      Ole Pind



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Jim Anderson
                      Dear Ole, In keeping with Aggava.msa s scheme, wouldn t vana or saali be classified as jaatyaapekkhekavacana.m rather than as
                      Message 10 of 12 , Feb 11, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Ole,

                        In keeping with Aggava.msa's scheme, wouldn't "vana" or "saali" be
                        classified as "jaatyaapekkhekavacana.m" rather than
                        as "samudaayaapekkhekavacana.m" ? I take "jaati" in the sense of
                        class or genus but admittedly I'm unclear about this term which I
                        have seen grouped with gu.na, dabba, and kriyaa. I believe four of
                        the five kinds of singulars mentioned in the Saddaniiti refer to
                        collections of two or more things. Thanks for your Vaakyapadiya
                        reference which I did see but the Sanskrit text is much too difficult
                        for me to comprehend with what little I know. I'm certainy interested
                        in what the Sanskrit grammarians and philosophers have to say about
                        such things and I did have a look at Paa.n I 2.58 & 1.4.21-2 and the
                        comments of the Kaa"sikaav.rtti, Haridatta, and Jinendrabuddhi.
                        There's lots to study up on!

                        Best wishes,
                        Jim

                        << Dear Jim,

                        This is an interesting passage. The idea that certain terms denote a
                        samudaaya of things, like vana 'forest' or saali denoting a
                        collection of trees or rice grains, can be traced to the Sanskrit
                        grammarians and philosophy of Sanskrit grammar. Aggavamsa mentions
                        the akkharacintaka in the passage to which you refer. This generally
                        means the Sanskrit grammarians. See, for instance, Bhartrhari's
                        Vaakyapadiiya II 155-56.

                        Best wishes,
                        Ole Pind >>
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.