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

Saddaniiti XXV: introduction

Expand Messages
  • Jim Anderson
    [Saddaniiti XXV: aakhyaatakappo : introduction, p. 811,15-18] XXV. ito para.m pavakkhaami saddhamme buddhabhaasite kosallatthaaya sotuuna.m
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      [Saddaniiti XXV: aakhyaatakappo : introduction, p. 811,15-18]

      XXV.

      ito para.m pavakkhaami saddhamme buddhabhaasite
      kosallatthaaya sotuuna.m kappamaakhyaatasavhaya.m.

      From here on I will expound the Chapter, called the Verb,
      to listeners for the sake of proficiency in the True Dhamma,
      in the Buddha's speech.

      Note: alternatively, "spoken by the Buddha" instead of ".., in
      the Buddha's speech".

      tattha kiriya.m akkhaayatiiti aakhyaata.m kiriyaapada.m.

      Therein, it tells about the action, thus (it is) the verb, the word
      for the action.

      Notes:
      1) "tattha" (therein) refers to the preceeding verse.
      2) "kiriya.m akkhaayati" is understood here as an active sentence
      with 'kiriya.m' as the object (kamma) of the transitive verb
      'akkhaayati'. The regular active form is 'akkhaati' (aa + khaa + a +
      ti) and the passive form is 'akkhaayati' (aa + khaa + a + ya + ti).
      Cone (DOP I 5f) gives 'akkhaayati' as both a passive and as an
      alternative form for 'akkhaati'. How then does one account for
      the -ya- in the active form? One solution could be to take -y- as an
      inserted letter (aagama) to prevent the following vikara.na -a- from
      disappearing but this seems unlikely. At Sadd II 326 both verbal roots
      /khaa/ and /khyaa/ are given together in the sense of pakathana
      (pakathana.m aacikkhana.m desana.m vaa). The form 'akkhaayati' is
      given there in the passive only. I think 'akkhaayati' can also be a
      causative (aa + khaa + ?a + .naya + ti) and perhaps the impersonal or
      stative has the same form too. It's an ambjguos verb.
      3) "aakhyaata.m" -- the (finite) verb -- is an agent-noun in the
      neuter as far as I can tell. It can be resolved into the prefix 'aa' +
      the root /khyaa/ + the past participle suffix 'ta' + the vibhatti
      suffix 'si' for the nom. sing. Sd 1144 (Sadd III 850) explains the use
      of 'ta' to denote the agent as in 'buddho'. For other etymologies we
      have at Sadd II 326,23: "kiriya.m aakhyaati kathetiiti aakhyaata.m".
      And, at Ruup p. 257 (Be), there is "kriya.m aacikkhatiiti aakhyaata.m
      kriyaapada.m".

      Jim Anderson, 31 August 2009
    • ypong001
      Dear Jim and friends, sadhu. Thank you, Jim, for your effort. The project page will provide links to all Saddaniti posts.
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 5, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Jim and friends,

        sadhu. Thank you, Jim, for your effort.

        The project page will provide links to all Saddaniti posts.
        http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/synthesis/saddaniti.00.cdv


        metta,
        Yong Peng.
      • gdbedell
        (i) Jim s note on kiriya.m akkhaayati raises some interesting issues. He takes akkhaayati as an active form meaning tells about and considers why it looks
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 5, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          (i) Jim's note on "kiriya.m akkhaayati" raises some interesting issues.
          He takes akkhaayati as an active form meaning 'tells about' and considers
          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 elaborate
          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 and
          akkhaata are listed (p.2) though no technical meaning for akkhaata is
          given. The differences are simplification of khy to kh with gemination of
          kh to kkh and concomitant shortening of the prefix aa. The borrowing
          by Pali grammarians of the Sanskrit term aakhyaata 'finite verb' clearly
          caused some confusion, and it isn't clear (from what has been translated
          so far) how far Aggava.msa was aware of it.

          (ii) Jim explains his parsing of "kiriya.m akkhaayati", but doesn't discuss
          the remainder of the line: aakhyaata.m kiriyaapada.m. Judging from his
          translation he takes them to be conjoined predicate nouns 'verb and word
          for action'. It seems to me possible to construe them as a reduced clause
          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'.

          (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 any
          kind of action (e. g. bhavati). The alternative is to give a morphological
          definition, something like Panini's sup-ti"nanta.m padam, 'a word is what
          ends in sup (an acronym for the case/number suffixes) or ti"n (an acronym
          for the person/number suffixes)'.

          George Bedell

          --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson.on@...> wrote:
          >
          > [Saddaniiti XXV: aakhyaatakappo : introduction, p. 811,15-18]
          >
          > XXV.
          >
          > ito para.m pavakkhaami saddhamme buddhabhaasite
          > kosallatthaaya sotuuna.m kappamaakhyaatasavhaya.m.
          >
          > From here on I will expound the Chapter, called the Verb,
          > to listeners for the sake of proficiency in the True Dhamma,
          > in the Buddha's speech.
          >
          > Note: alternatively, "spoken by the Buddha" instead of ".., in
          > the Buddha's speech".
          >
          > tattha kiriya.m akkhaayatiiti aakhyaata.m kiriyaapada.m.
          >
          > Therein, it tells about the action, thus (it is) the verb, the word
          > for the action.
          >
          > Notes:
          > 1) "tattha" (therein) refers to the preceeding verse.
          > 2) "kiriya.m akkhaayati" is understood here as an active sentence
          > with 'kiriya.m' as the object (kamma) of the transitive verb
          > 'akkhaayati'. The regular active form is 'akkhaati' (aa + khaa + a +
          > ti) and the passive form is 'akkhaayati' (aa + khaa + a + ya + ti).
          > Cone (DOP I 5f) gives 'akkhaayati' as both a passive and as an
          > alternative form for 'akkhaati'. How then does one account for
          > the -ya- in the active form? One solution could be to take -y- as an
          > inserted letter (aagama) to prevent the following vikara.na -a- from
          > disappearing but this seems unlikely. At Sadd II 326 both verbal roots
          > /khaa/ and /khyaa/ are given together in the sense of pakathana
          > (pakathana.m aacikkhana.m desana.m vaa). The form 'akkhaayati' is
          > given there in the passive only. I think 'akkhaayati' can also be a
          > causative (aa + khaa + ?a + .naya + ti) and perhaps the impersonal or
          > stative has the same form too. It's an ambjguos verb.
          > 3) "aakhyaata.m" -- the (finite) verb -- is an agent-noun in the
          > neuter as far as I can tell. It can be resolved into the prefix 'aa' +
          > the root /khyaa/ + the past participle suffix 'ta' + the vibhatti
          > suffix 'si' for the nom. sing. Sd 1144 (Sadd III 850) explains the use
          > of 'ta' to denote the agent as in 'buddho'. For other etymologies we
          > have at Sadd II 326,23: "kiriya.m aakhyaati kathetiiti aakhyaata.m".
          > And, at Ruup p. 257 (Be), there is "kriya.m aacikkhatiiti aakhyaata.m
          > kriyaapada.m".
          >
          > Jim Anderson, 31 August 2009
          >
        • gdbedell
          I can t seem to tell left from right; and it doesn t help that formats are not preserved. khyaa khaa root tell aakhyaati akkhaati
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 5, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I can't seem to tell left from right; and it doesn't help that formats are not preserved.

            khyaa khaa root 'tell'
            aakhyaati akkhaati 3s present '(it) tells'
            aakhyaata akkhata past participle 'told'

            It appears to me that the forms on the left are in fact Sanskrit,
            corresponding to Pali forms on the right.

            G.B.

            --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "gdbedell" <gdbedell@...> wrote:
            >
            > (i) Jim's note on "kiriya.m akkhaayati" raises some interesting issues.
            > He takes akkhaayati as an active form meaning 'tells about' and considers
            > 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 elaborate
            > 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 and
            > akkhaata are listed (p.2) though no technical meaning for akkhaata is
            > given. The differences are simplification of khy to kh with gemination of
            > kh to kkh and concomitant shortening of the prefix aa. The borrowing
            > by Pali grammarians of the Sanskrit term aakhyaata 'finite verb' clearly
            > caused some confusion, and it isn't clear (from what has been translated
            > so far) how far Aggava.msa was aware of it.
          • Jim Anderson
            ... issues. ... considers ... might be ... elaborate ... the PTS ... and ... is ... gemination of ... borrowing ... clearly ... translated ... You will find
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 7, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              George wrote:

              > (i) Jim's note on "kiriya.m akkhaayati" raises some interesting
              issues.
              > He takes akkhaayati as an active form meaning 'tells about' and
              considers
              > 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
              elaborate
              > 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
              and
              > akkhaata are listed (p.2) though no technical meaning for akkhaata
              is
              > given. The differences are simplification of khy to kh with
              gemination of
              > kh to kkh and concomitant shortening of the prefix aa. The
              borrowing
              > by Pali grammarians of the Sanskrit term aakhyaata 'finite verb'
              clearly
              > caused some confusion, and it isn't clear (from what has been
              translated
              > 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
              discuss
              > the remainder of the line: aakhyaata.m kiriyaapada.m. Judging from
              his
              > translation he takes them to be conjoined predicate nouns 'verb and
              word
              > for action'. It seems to me possible to construe them as a reduced
              clause
              > 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
              any
              > kind of action (e. g. bhavati). The alternative is to give a
              morphological
              > definition, something like Panini's sup-ti"nanta.m padam, 'a word is
              what
              > ends in sup (an acronym for the case/number suffixes) or ti"n (an
              acronym
              > for the person/number suffixes)'.

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

              Best wishes,
              Jim
            • gdbedell
              ... This is not inconsistent with my suggestion that both words are (relatively) late borrowings from Sanskrit. The more interesting fact (in the current
              Message 6 of 8 , Sep 8, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Jim wrote:

                > You will find 'aakhyaati' and 'aakhyaata' both listed at
                > DOP I 280 (Cone).

                This is not inconsistent with my suggestion that both words
                are (relatively) late borrowings from Sanskrit. The more
                interesting fact (in the current discussion) is that they are not
                listed in the PTS dictionary. Cone's dictionary has a much
                broader and deeper textual basis than PTS. Unfortunately
                I do not have easy access to a copy.

                > The Pali grammarians take 'khaa' and 'khyaa' as two
                > separate roots but give them both as a pair under one
                > meaning (pakathane or kathane).

                If I am right, this is their way of accommodating the
                variations introduced under Sanskrit influence.

                > 'aakhyaati' is a Pali as well as a Sanskrit verb.

                The editors of the PTS dictionary did not recognize aakhyaati
                or aakhyaata as Pali words. Evidently Aggava.msa did not
                recognize the former as a Pali word either; otherwise he would
                have used it rather than akkhaayati. This may indeed be the
                explanation for the y in his verb. Clearly he did recognize
                aakhyaata as a Pali word, and equally clearly it was borrowed
                from Sanskrit by his predecessors. It is one of the four
                'parts of speech' which appears in almost every early Sanskrit
                grammar: naamaa 'khyaato 'pasarga nipaata (usually
                translated 'noun, verb, prefix and particle'). On this evidence,
                aakhyaati was borrowed later, maybe independently or maybe
                under the influence of aakhyaata. Cf. K. V. Abhyankar,
                A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar sv aakhyaata, pp. 54-5.

                > I wonder if kiriyaapada.m might be a more general
                > term that could include participles, infinitives,
                > absolutives. and action-nouns.

                Aggava.msa doesn't appear to make any distinction
                between aakhyaata and kiriyaapada.m (which doesn't
                necessarily mean there wasn't one). Abhyankar says
                (p. 55): "When a k.rt affix is added to a root, the static
                element predominates and a word ending with a k.rt
                affix in the sense of bhaava or verbal activity is treated
                as a noun and regularly declined…. Regarding
                indeclinable words ending with k.rt affixes…, the
                modern grammarians hold that in their case the
                verbal activity is not shadowed by the static element
                and hence they can be, in a way, looked upon as
                aakhyaatas." I think Jim is right to restrict aakhyaata
                to finite verbs in Saddaniiti.

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

                It seems to me that 'activity' is no improvement. We
                cannot say that all verbs mean an activity any more than
                that they all mean an action. I would say that 'make'
                refers to an action, 'sleep' refers to an activity and 'stand'
                refers to a state. Many verbs can do more than one, like
                'eat'. But I suppose there are those who want to talk about
                'the activity of being'. This is of course English and not Pali,
                but it illustrates why efforts to define nouns and verbs
                semantically are generally hopeless. In the real world if we
                want to categorize a word, we don't proceed by asking what
                it means, but rather by looking at its morphological form.
                If bhavati is not acceptable as an obvious non-activity verb,
                what about hoti? From the opposite angle, if kiriyaa,
                kiriya.m and bhaava refer to activities (or whatever we
                decide verbal meanings are) does that make them
                aakhyaatas?

                Abhyankar (sv kriyaa, p. 133) says: "The word bhaava
                many times is used in the same sense as kriyaa or verbal
                activity in the suutras of Paa.nini…. Some scholars draw
                a nice distinction between kriyaa and bhaava, kriyaa
                meaning dynamic activity and bhaava meaning static
                activity." Kriyaa and kiriyaa are a Sanskrit/Pali doublet
                like aakhyaati/akkhyaati. In the case of bhaava, there is
                no phonological change to create such a doublet.

                George
              • Nina van Gorkom
                Dear George and Jim, I read your correspondance with interest and I admire both of you because of the way you handle this difficult subject. Just one little
                Message 7 of 8 , Sep 9, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear George and Jim,

                  I read your correspondance with interest and I admire both of you
                  because of the way you handle this difficult subject.
                  Just one little remark: I take to Jim's translation of activity. I
                  look at it by way of paramattha dhammas: it is citta that is active
                  at any moment, even the moment we define as a state. Citta is always
                  performing a function, even in deep sleep. Otherwise we would not be
                  alive.
                  Nina.
                  Op 8-sep-2009, om 11:18 heeft gdbedell het volgende geschreven:

                  > Would 'activity' be a better translation for 'kiriyaa'?
                  > > I think 'kiriyaa' includes the meaning of 'bhaava' (state).
                  >
                  > It seems to me that 'activity' is no improvement. We
                  > cannot say that all verbs mean an activity any more than
                  > that they all mean an action. I would say that 'make'
                  > refers to an action, 'sleep' refers to an activity and 'stand'
                  > refers to a state. Many verbs can do more than one, like
                  > 'eat'.



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Jim Anderson
                  Dear George, Thank-you for all your remarks and observations. There is much to consider and I have hardly anything to say at this time. Best, Jim
                  Message 8 of 8 , Sep 9, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear George,

                    Thank-you for all your remarks and observations. There is much to
                    consider and I have hardly anything to say at this time.

                    Best,
                    Jim
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.