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

Re: Saddaniiti XXV: introduction

Expand Messages
  • ypong001
    Dear Jim and friends, sadhu. Thank you, Jim, for your effort. The project page will provide links to all Saddaniti posts.
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 5 5:19 PM
    • 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 2 of 8 , Sep 5 8:03 PM
      • 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 3 of 8 , Sep 5 10:02 PM
        • 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 4 of 8 , Sep 7 7:16 AM
          • 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 5 of 8 , Sep 8 2:18 AM
            • 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 6 of 8 , Sep 9 12:33 AM
              • 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 7 of 8 , Sep 9 7:59 AM
                • 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.