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

Re: [Pali] Re: Nouns with identical singular and plural

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.