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

Saddaniiti XXV: 868

Expand Messages
  • Jim Anderson
    [Saddaniiti XXV: aakhyaatakappo : sutta 868, p. 811,28--812,6 (Smith s edn.)] 868. ekaabhidhaane paro puriso. so ca pacati tva~n ca pacasi -- tumhe pacatha,
    Message 1 of 14 , Oct 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      [Saddaniiti XXV: aakhyaatakappo : sutta 868, p. 811,28--812,6 (Smith's
      edn.)]

      868. ekaabhidhaane paro puriso. so ca pacati tva~n ca pacasi -- tumhe
      pacatha, atha vaa: tva~n ca pacasi so ca pacati -- tumhe pacatha; [p. 812]
      so ca pacati tva~n ca pacasi aha~n ca pacaami -- maya.m pacaama, atha vaa:
      aha~n ca pacaami tva~n ca pacasi so ca pacati -- maya.m pacaama; eva.m
      sesaasu vibhattisu paro puriso yojetabbo. ekaabhidhaane ti kimattha.m ? so
      ca pacati tva~n ca pacissasi aha~n ca pacin ti ettha bhinnakaalattaa maya.m
      pacimhaa ti na bhavatii ti dassanattha.m.

      868. In a single verbal expression, the subsequent is the person. He cooks
      and you (sg.) cook --> you (pl.) cook, or, you (sg.) cook and he cooks -->
      you (pl.) cook; he cooks, you (sg.) cook, and I cook --> we cook, or, I
      cook, you (sg.) cook, and he cooks --> we cook; so (too) for the remaining
      (tense) terminations the subsequent is the person to be used. What is the
      purpose of "in a single verbal expression" ? For the purpose of showing that
      there is no "we cooked" for "he cooks, you (sg.) will cook, and I cooked" in
      this case because of there being different tenses.

      Notes:
      1) "ekaabhidhaane" (eka + abhidhaane -- in a single verbal expression).
      CPD Vol. II, p. 632 has the following remarks under the head
      'ekaabhidhaana': (t.t. gr.) a single verbal expression ("pluriel
      d'ellipse"); . . . ("When (using) a single (verbal) expression as a
      substitute for all [i.e. two or more persons] the later [in the order of the
      paradigm is used]"), Kacc 411. . .
      2) Mmd ad Kc 409 (Be) glosses "ekaabhidhaane" with "tulyaabhidhaane"
      (in an equal or equivalent expression).

      Jim Anderson, 12 October 2009

      The Saddaniiti project page:
      http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/synthesis/saddaniti.00.cdv
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Jim, thank you very much. I have some trouble getting the message, what do I learn from this? He cooks, you cook...There must be more to it, and can you
      Message 2 of 14 , Oct 12, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Jim,
        thank you very much. I have some trouble getting the message, what do
        I learn from this? He cooks, you cook...There must be more to it, and
        can you help me?
        Nina.
        Op 12-okt-2009, om 11:47 heeft Jim Anderson het volgende geschreven:

        > 868. ekaabhidhaane paro puriso. so ca pacati tva~n ca pacasi -- tumhe
        > pacatha, atha vaa: tva~n ca pacasi so ca pacati -- tumhe pacatha



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jim Anderson
        Dear Nina, ... Such expressions as tumhe pacatha can be substituted for the combination of the two expressions that precede it above. tumhe is the
        Message 3 of 14 , Oct 12, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Nina,

          > Dear Jim,
          > thank you very much. I have some trouble getting the message, what do
          > I learn from this? He cooks, you cook...There must be more to it, and
          > can you help me?
          > Nina.
          > Op 12-okt-2009, om 11:47 heeft Jim Anderson het volgende geschreven:
          >
          >> 868. ekaabhidhaane paro puriso. so ca pacati tva~n ca pacasi -- tumhe
          >> pacatha, atha vaa: tva~n ca pacasi so ca pacati -- tumhe pacatha

          Such expressions as "tumhe pacatha" can be substituted for the combination
          of the two expressions that precede it above. "tumhe" is the subsequent
          (paro) used in these two examples, but if "aha.m" or "maya.m" should be
          among any of the preceding expressions then we have to use "maya.m" instead
          of "tumhe". "maya.m" is a later subsequent then "tumhe" and so it would take
          precedence over the earlier "tumhe". The order is from 3rd person singular
          to the 1st person plural.

          I think this rule is applicable to languages in general, including English.
          "We" in a presidential address would include all the citizens of his nation,
          i.e. himself (I), the citizens listening (you pl.), and those not listening
          (they).

          I hope this makes it clearer for you. It's not the sort of rule one would
          expect to find in a book on English grammar and may take a little while to
          get used to. I thought it was a strange rule at first but after some
          consideration, I think I'm starting to get the hang of it. There's a lot
          more commentary on it in the Kaccaayana materials but I've only just started
          to take a look.

          Best wishes,
          Jim
        • Nina van Gorkom
          Dear Jim, thank you for the clarification, I have to get used to it. The example of the presidential address makes it clearer. Still some trouble with the
          Message 4 of 14 , Oct 12, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Jim,
            thank you for the clarification, I have to get used to it. The
            example of the presidential address makes it clearer.
            Still some trouble with the expression 'subsequent'. and: <"maya.m"
            is a later subsequent then "tumhe" and so it would take precedence
            over the earlier "tumhe".> This latter part is not so clear, but
            again, I have to think it over.
            Nina.
            Op 12-okt-2009, om 19:47 heeft Jim Anderson het volgende geschreven:

            > "tumhe" is the subsequent
            > (paro) used in these two examples, but if "aha.m" or "maya.m"
            > should be
            > among any of the preceding expressions then we have to use "maya.m"
            > instead
            > of "tumhe". "maya.m" is a later subsequent then "tumhe" and so it
            > would take
            > precedence over the earlier "tumhe".



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jim Anderson
            Dear Nina, ... In my then should be corrected to than . I m not sure if subsequent is the right translation for
            Message 5 of 14 , Oct 12, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Nina,

              > thank you for the clarification, I have to get used to it. The
              > example of the presidential address makes it clearer.
              > Still some trouble with the expression 'subsequent'. and: <"maya.m"
              > is a later subsequent then "tumhe" and so it would take precedence
              > over the earlier "tumhe".> This latter part is not so clear, but
              > again, I have to think it over.
              > Nina.

              In my <. . .subsequent then "tumhe" and. . .> 'then' should be corrected to
              'than'. I'm not sure if 'subsequent' is the right translation for 'paro'
              here. In my note 1, CPD translates it as 'the later'. In the grammar,
              'pubba' and 'para' are technical terms used to denote what comes before and
              what comes after, respectively, i.e. the antecedent and the subsequent. For
              example, when two vowels come together, a particular sandhi rule would tell
              you which vowel (pubba or para) is to be elided. Something similar applies
              to the choice of person in a verbal expression that is used as a substitute
              for a combination of expressions with different persons. 'te' precedes
              'tumhe', and 'tumhe' precedes 'maya.m' in the order of persons. The later
              person is more inclusive than the one before.

              Jim
            • Nina van Gorkom
              Dear Jim, thank you, that is clear. In English grammars we comes before you (pl), but I know in Pali this is not so. And the reason is clear now, we
              Message 6 of 14 , Oct 13, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Jim,
                thank you, that is clear. In English grammars 'we' comes before you
                (pl), but I know in Pali this is not so. And the reason is clear now,
                we including more persons.
                Nina.
                Op 12-okt-2009, om 22:18 heeft Jim Anderson het volgende geschreven:

                > 'te' precedes
                > 'tumhe', and 'tumhe' precedes 'maya.m' in the order of persons. The
                > later
                > person is more inclusive than the one before.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • George Bedell
                Jim and all, This sutta establishes a hierarchy among the person forms of finite verbs: in Indian grammar, first person (pa.thamo puriso) is what we call third
                Message 7 of 14 , Oct 16, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jim and all,

                  This sutta establishes a hierarchy among the person forms of
                  finite verbs: in Indian grammar, first person (pa.thamo puriso)
                  is what we call third person, middle person (majjhimo puriso)
                  is what we call second person, and last person (uttamo puriso)
                  is what we call first person. See Collins, page 16, who wisely
                  sticks with the familiar Western terminology.

                  The subject of a third person plural verb form must be a group
                  of people each of whom would take a third person singular form
                  by itself (though Aggava.msa does not exemplify this case).
                  The subject of a second person plural verb form must be a
                  group of people at least one of whom would take a second
                  person singular verb form by itself, but the others might take
                  third person forms. The subject of a first person plural verb
                  form must be a group of people at least one of whom would
                  take a first person singular verb form by itself, but the others
                  might take either second or third person forms.

                  Aggava.msa's use of the verb pacati 'cook' is not important.
                  This verb is commonly used in examples. The hierarchy
                  applies to all verbs which allow first or second person subjects.
                  It also applies to pronouns, but since this chapter is about
                  finite verbs we can assume that Aggava.msa is not talking
                  about pronouns here even though some appear in his examples.

                  I don't like the use of 'subsequent' for paro here because that
                  word tends to be understood as referring to a result; e.g. 'her
                  subsequent embarrassment'. Maybe 'later' is a better choice,
                  but it still must be understood as 'later in the order: first
                  person, middle person, last person'.

                  I am also dubious about 'in a single verbal expression' for
                  ekaabhidhaane. Aggava.msa explicitly understands this
                  condition to rule out mixing tenses, but maya.m pacimhaa
                  'we cooked' in his last example is clearly a single verbal
                  expression. I think we need something like 'in a single
                  situation' which suggests that the tense must be constant,
                  The term refers to meaning rather than form.

                  George

                  --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson.on@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > [Saddaniiti XXV: aakhyaatakappo : sutta 868, p. 811,28--812,6 (Smith's
                  > edn.)]
                  >
                  > 868. ekaabhidhaane paro puriso. so ca pacati tva~n ca pacasi -- tumhe
                  > pacatha, atha vaa: tva~n ca pacasi so ca pacati -- tumhe pacatha; [p. 812]
                  > so ca pacati tva~n ca pacasi aha~n ca pacaami -- maya.m pacaama, atha vaa:
                  > aha~n ca pacaami tva~n ca pacasi so ca pacati -- maya.m pacaama; eva.m
                  > sesaasu vibhattisu paro puriso yojetabbo. ekaabhidhaane ti kimattha.m ? so
                  > ca pacati tva~n ca pacissasi aha~n ca pacin ti ettha bhinnakaalattaa maya.m
                  > pacimhaa ti na bhavatii ti dassanattha.m.
                  >
                  > 868. In a single verbal expression, the subsequent is the person. He cooks
                  > and you (sg.) cook --> you (pl.) cook, or, you (sg.) cook and he cooks -->
                  > you (pl.) cook; he cooks, you (sg.) cook, and I cook --> we cook, or, I
                  > cook, you (sg.) cook, and he cooks --> we cook; so (too) for the remaining
                  > (tense) terminations the subsequent is the person to be used. What is the
                  > purpose of "in a single verbal expression" ? For the purpose of showing that
                  > there is no "we cooked" for "he cooks, you (sg.) will cook, and I cooked" in
                  > this case because of there being different tenses.
                  >
                  > Notes:
                  > 1) "ekaabhidhaane" (eka + abhidhaane -- in a single verbal expression).
                  > CPD Vol. II, p. 632 has the following remarks under the head
                  > 'ekaabhidhaana': (t.t. gr.) a single verbal expression ("pluriel
                  > d'ellipse"); . . . ("When (using) a single (verbal) expression as a
                  > substitute for all [i.e. two or more persons] the later [in the order of the
                  > paradigm is used]"), Kacc 411. . .
                  > 2) Mmd ad Kc 409 (Be) glosses "ekaabhidhaane" with "tulyaabhidhaane"
                  > (in an equal or equivalent expression).
                  >
                  > Jim Anderson, 12 October 2009
                  >
                  > The Saddaniiti project page:
                  > http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/synthesis/saddaniti.00.cdv
                  >
                • Jim Anderson
                  Dear George, Thank-you for your comments. ... It is interesting to note that S.C. Vasu, in his translation of Panini s suutra I 4.101, translates prathama as
                  Message 8 of 14 , Oct 28, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear George,

                    Thank-you for your comments.

                    > This sutta establishes a hierarchy among the person forms of
                    > finite verbs: in Indian grammar, first person (pa.thamo puriso)
                    > is what we call third person, middle person (majjhimo puriso)
                    > is what we call second person, and last person (uttamo puriso)
                    > is what we call first person. See Collins, page 16, who wisely
                    > sticks with the familiar Western terminology.

                    It is interesting to note that S.C. Vasu, in his translation of
                    Panini's suutra I 4.101, translates 'prathama' as 'lowest', 'madhyama'
                    as 'middle', and 'uttama' as 'highest' for the three persons.

                    > I don't like the use of 'subsequent' for paro here because that
                    > word tends to be understood as referring to a result; e.g. 'her
                    > subsequent embarrassment'. Maybe 'later' is a better choice,
                    > but it still must be understood as 'later in the order: first
                    > person, middle person, last person'.

                    I agree that 'subsequent' does not seem the right translation for
                    'paro' here but it is a standard one in denoting what comes after as
                    opposed to what comes before, i.e., the antecedent or prior. I have no
                    objection to 'the later'. 'paro' (beyond) is also given in PED as an
                    adverb.

                    > I am also dubious about 'in a single verbal expression' for
                    > ekaabhidhaane. Aggava.msa explicitly understands this
                    > condition to rule out mixing tenses, but maya.m pacimhaa
                    > 'we cooked' in his last example is clearly a single verbal
                    > expression. I think we need something like 'in a single
                    > situation' which suggests that the tense must be constant,
                    > The term refers to meaning rather than form.

                    The word 'ekaabhidhaane' is difficult to ascertain. The Kaccaayana
                    commentators take it to mean 'in an expression of the same (tense and
                    activity)' which suggests that the expression referred to is the one
                    that can stand for a group of other expressions having the same tense
                    and activity, e.g., 'maya.m pacaama' can stand for a combination of
                    'aha~nca pacaami, tva~nca pacasi, so ca pacati'.

                    Best wishes,
                    Jim
                  • Mahinda Palihawadana
                    ... I always thought that ekaabhidhaane meant when speaking in the lump . This is a meaning that would be applicable in a non-technical context.
                    Message 9 of 14 , Oct 28, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > > I am also dubious about 'in a single verbal expression' for
                      > > ekaabhidhaane. Aggava.msa explicitly understands this
                      > > condition to rule out mixing tenses, but maya.m pacimhaa
                      > > 'we cooked' in his last example is clearly a single verbal
                      > > expression. I think we need something like 'in a single
                      > > situation' which suggests that the tense must be constant,
                      > > The term refers to meaning rather than form.
                      >
                      > The word 'ekaabhidhaane' is difficult to ascertain. The Kaccaayana
                      > commentators take it to mean 'in an expression of the same (tense and
                      > activity)' which suggests that the expression referred to is the one
                      > that can stand for a group of other expressions having the same tense
                      > and activity, e.g., 'maya.m pacaama' can stand for a combination of
                      > 'aha~nca pacaami, tva~nca pacasi, so ca pacati'.
                      >
                      I always thought that 'ekaabhidhaane' meant "when speaking in the lump".
                      This is a meaning that would be applicable in a non-technical context.
                      (abhidhaana: speaking, telling etc. also 'name', 'word', whence
                      Abhidhaanappadiipikaa title of a "Dictionary of Synonyms".) Of course, this
                      won't give the idea of constancy of tense.

                      Mahinda

                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Mahinda Palihawadana
                      On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Mahinda Palihawadana ... The analysis of ekaabhidhaane as ekatobhidhāne kātabbe (when a unified statement has to be
                      Message 10 of 14 , Nov 1, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Mahinda Palihawadana
                        <mahipal6@...>wrote:

                        >
                        >
                        > I always thought that 'ekaabhidhaane' meant "when speaking in the lump".
                        >> This is a meaning that would be applicable in a non-technical context. Of
                        >> course, this won't give the idea of constancy of tense.
                        >>
                        >
                        >
                        > After reading the parallel rule in the grammars of Kaccaayana and
                        > Moggallaana, and the comments in Ryuupasiddhi and Payogasiddhi, ancillary
                        > works of the Kaccaayana and Moggallaana schools respectively, I wish to add
                        > a further comment on the rule under discussion.
                        >
                        > Kaccaayana’s rule (409) is: Sabbesam*ekaabhidhaane* paro puriso. The
                        > vutti shows that the rule is completed by adding ‘yojetabbo’. It seems the
                        > meaning then is: “When stating in one (verb) (the actions) of all
                        > 'persons', the later ‘person’/ the last ‘person’ (should be used).”
                        >
                        > Aggavamsa seems to have sensed a loophole here. He sees that this does not
                        > exclude the usage of one verb to indicate actions done at different times by
                        > several 'persons'. So he adds the rider
                        >
                        > “ekaabhidhaane ti kimattha.m ? so ca pacati tva~n ca pacissasi aha~n ca
                        > paci.m ti ettha bhinnakaalattaa maya.m pacimhaa ti na bhavatii ti
                        > dassanattha.m.”
                        >
                        > For what reason (is it said), “when stating in one (verb)?” (It is) to
                        > show that where “so ca pacati”, “tva~n ca pacissasi” and “aha~n ca
                        > paci.m” (are the concerned sentences) ( reducing them to) “maya.m
                        > pacimha”does not occur, because they pertain to different tenses.
                        >
                        > In view of this, he seems to take the meaning of the rule to be as follows:
                        > “When stating in one (verb) (the actions of several 'persons' done at the
                        > same time) the later ‘person’/ the last ‘person’ (should be used). “ This
                        > will prohibit the use of one verb to indicate actions done by different
                        > ‘persons’ at different times. He seems to take ‘eka’ as signifying one verb
                        > as well as one time, i.e. tense.
                        >
                        > All this becomes very clear when we look at the comment of the
                        > Ruupasiddhi :
                        >
                        > *441*.*Sabbesamekābhidhāne paro puriso*.
                        >
                        > Sabbesaṃ paṭhamamajjhimānaṃ, paṭhamuttamānaṃ, majjhimuttamānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ vā
                        > purisānaṃ ekatobhidhāne kātabbe paro puriso yojetabbo. Ekakālānamevābhidhāne
                        > cāyaṃ. So ca pacati, tvañca pacasīti pariyāyappasaṅge *tumhe pacathā*ti
                        > bhavati. Evaṃ so ca pacati, ahañca pacāmīti *mayaṃ pacāma,* tathā tvañca
                        > pacasi, ahañca pacāmi, *mayaṃ pacāma,* so ca pacati, tvañca pacasi, ahañca
                        > pacāmi, *mayaṃ pacāma*. Evaṃ sabbattha yojetabbaṃ.
                        >
                        > *Ekābhidhāne*ti kimatthaṃ? ‘‘So ca pacati, tvañca pacissasi, ahaṃ paciṃ’’
                        > ettha bhinnakālattā ‘‘mayaṃ pacimhā’’ti na bhavati.
                        >
                        > “In the case of all persons, i.e., in the case of the pa.thama and the
                        > uttama, of the majjhima and uttama, or of all three of them, when it is
                        > necessary to make a unified statement, the later ‘person’ must be used. This
                        > is (applicable) only in a statement (about actions expressed) in the same
                        > tense. In the event that the order (of sentences) is “so ca pacati” and
                        > “tvañca pacasi” it (the unified statement) is “tumhe pacatha”. Similarly
                        > “so ca pacati”, “ahañca pacāmi” becomes *“*mayaṃ pacāma”*. *Likewise* “*tvañca
                        > pacasi, ahañca pacāmi” become s “mayaṃ pacāma”, and “so ca pacati, tvañca
                        > pacasi, ahañca pacāmi” becomes “mayaṃ pacāma*”*. This usage is to be
                        > followed everywhere (i.e., without exception).
                        >
                        > Why “unified” statement? (It is because) ‘‘So ca pacati, tvañca pacissasi,
                        > ahaṃ paciṃ’’ does not become ‘‘mayaṃ pacimhā’’ due to (the verbs concerned)
                        > being of different tenses.
                        >
                        The analysis of 'ekaabhidhaane' as "ekatobhidhāne kātabbe" (when a unified
                        statement has to be made) clears up the problem as regards that word.

                        The idea of constancy of tense cannot really be got out of 'eka' in
                        'ekaabhidhaane'. I think it is a projection of the idea of oneness from
                        person to tense. Its necessity, however, is apparent in it being endorsed by
                        Buddhappiya the erudite author of Ruupasiddhi of the Kaccaayana tradition..

                        Mahinda

                        >
                        >
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Jim Anderson
                        Dear Mahinda, Thank-,ou. I very much appreciate your contribution to the discussion of Sd 868 and the time and effort you have taken to investigate further
                        Message 11 of 14 , Nov 3, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Mahinda,

                          Thank-,ou. I very much appreciate your contribution to the discussion
                          of Sd 868 and the time and effort you have taken to investigate
                          further with the help of the Ruupasiddhi. I think you've dealt
                          adequately with the difficulties of the wording in the sutta athough
                          questions still remain in my mind about 'ekaabhidhaane'. But enough
                          has been said for now and it is time to set aside these lingering
                          questions for later. It does seem though that many (if not all) the
                          grammatical suttas present some degree of difficulty. The next 3
                          suttas relate to the personal endings as well which I have started to
                          look at but here again I'm running into trouble with the term
                          'tulyaadhikara.ne' just like with 'ekaabhidhaane'.

                          Jim

                          << The analysis of 'ekaabhidhaane' as "ekatobhidhāne kātabbe" (when a
                          unified
                          statement has to be made) clears up the problem as regards that word.

                          The idea of constancy of tense cannot really be got out of 'eka' in
                          'ekaabhidhaane'. I think it is a projection of the idea of oneness
                          from
                          person to tense. Its necessity, however, is apparent in it being
                          endorsed by
                          Buddhappiya the erudite author of Ruupasiddhi of the Kaccaayana
                          tradition.. >>
                        • Mahinda Palihawadana
                          Dear Jim, Thanks. Yes, I think we have not yet hit upon an acceptable translation for ekaabhdhaane . None of the suggestions I made were meant to be accurate
                          Message 12 of 14 , Nov 4, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Jim,

                            Thanks. Yes, I think we have not yet hit upon an acceptable translation for
                            'ekaabhdhaane'. None of the suggestions I made were meant to be accurate
                            translations, only broad hints at what I thought was the meaning.

                            The reason why these suttas are difficult is the tendency of the authors,
                            who clearly follow the style and methods of the Sanskrit grammarians, to go
                            to such lengths to state a rule concisely. There s a saying that to a
                            'suutra-kaara' the reduction of a syllable is as great a joy as the birth of
                            a son. Packing so much meaning into 'eka' looks like a result of this
                            fondness for abbreviation.

                            The meaning of tulya- and bhinna- adhikara.na that I am familiar with is the
                            one that is used with reference to adjectives. An adj. which agrees with its
                            substantive in number, gender and case (e.g., 'setaani' in "setaani
                            padumaani") is aclled a "tulyaadhikara.na visesa.na". On the other hand an
                            adjective or a word doing an adjectival function, but does not agree in the
                            above-mentioned manner (e.g. 'assakassa' in "assakassa visaye": "in the
                            region of Assaka") is called a "bhinnaadhikara.na vises.na". Let us see how
                            these words occur in the next sutta of Saddaniiti.
                            Best wishes.

                            Mahinda

                            On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

                            >
                            >
                            > Dear Mahinda,
                            >
                            > Thank-,ou. I very much appreciate your contribution to the discussion
                            > of Sd 868 and the time and effort you have taken to investigate
                            > further with the help of the Ruupasiddhi. I think you've dealt
                            > adequately with the difficulties of the wording in the sutta athough
                            > questions still remain in my mind about 'ekaabhidhaane'. But enough
                            > has been said for now and it is time to set aside these lingering
                            > questions for later. It does seem though that many (if not all) the
                            > grammatical suttas present some degree of difficulty. The next 3
                            > suttas relate to the personal endings as well which I have started to
                            > look at but here again I'm running into trouble with the term
                            > 'tulyaadhikara.ne' just like with 'ekaabhidhaane'.
                            >
                            > Jim
                            >
                            >
                            > << The analysis of 'ekaabhidhaane' as "ekatobhidhāne kātabbe" (when a
                            > unified
                            > statement has to be made) clears up the problem as regards that word.
                            >
                            > The idea of constancy of tense cannot really be got out of 'eka' in
                            > 'ekaabhidhaane'. I think it is a projection of the idea of oneness
                            > from
                            > person to tense. Its necessity, however, is apparent in it being
                            > endorsed by
                            > Buddhappiya the erudite author of Ruupasiddhi of the Kaccaayana
                            > tradition.. >>
                            >
                            >
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Jim Anderson
                            Dear Mahinda, There is quite a bit more commentary on Kc 409 one could investigate and think about that might help us to better understand Sd 868 and
                            Message 13 of 14 , Nov 6, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Mahinda,

                              There is quite a bit more commentary on Kc 409 one could investigate
                              and think about that might help us to better understand Sd 868 and
                              "ekaabhidhaane" such as the Kaccaayanasuttaniddesa,
                              Kaccaayanava.n.nanaa, and the Nyaasa with its two .tiikaas but that
                              will have to be left for another time.

                              Currently, I have some other more pressing work to do and don't have a
                              lot of time left to do much research on the next few suttas (869-871)
                              which are almost the same as Kc 410-412. Aggava.msa seems to be
                              following Kaccaayana quite closely, at least for the beginning suttas
                              of this chapter. I hope to have something posted soon on Sd 869 (naame
                              payujjamaanepi tulyaadhikara.ne pa.thamo) but I don't think I'll be
                              able to translate "tulyaadhikara.ne" which is connected to "naame" (a
                              substantive or pronoun other than tumha and amha). Aggava.msa's
                              commentary is terse and this makes it necessary to investigate other
                              grammatical commentaries for more information.

                              Best wishes,
                              Jim

                              << The meaning of tulya- and bhinna- adhikara.na that I am familiar
                              with is the one that is used with reference to adjectives. An adj.
                              which agrees with its substantive in number, gender and case (e.g.,
                              'setaani' in "setaani padumaani") is aclled a "tulyaadhikara.na
                              visesa.na". On the other hand an adjective or a word doing an
                              adjectival function, but does not agree in the above-mentioned manner
                              (e.g. 'assakassa' in "assakassa visaye": "in the region of Assaka") is
                              called a "bhinnaadhikara.na vises.na". Let us see how these words
                              occur in the next sutta of Saddaniiti.
                              Best wishes.

                              Mahinda >>
                            • Mahinda Palihawadana
                              ... The Sinhala sanne text on Kaccaayana 411 explains ekaabhidhaane decisively. Its comment can be translated as follows: When expressed as a single
                              Message 14 of 14 , Nov 18, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

                                >
                                >
                                > Dear Mahinda,
                                >
                                > There is quite a bit more commentary on Kc 409 one could investigate
                                > and think about that might help us to better understand Sd 868 and
                                > "ekaabhidhaane" ...
                                >

                                The Sinhala 'sanne' text on Kaccaayana 411 explains 'ekaabhidhaane'
                                decisively. Its comment can be translated as follows:"When expressed as a
                                single statement with a single verb".
                                It also takes this as a "paribhaasaa sutta", a rule that teaches the proper
                                interpretation or application of another rule. So does the Ruupasiddhi.

                                Mahinda

                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.