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

Re: [Pali] Saddaniiti XXV: 868

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.