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

Saddaniiti XXV: 869 (pa.thamapuriso)

Expand Messages
  • Jim Anderson
    [Saddaniiti XXV: aakhyaatakappo : sutta 869, p. 812 (Smith s edn.)] 869. naame payujjamaanepi tulyaadhikara.ne pa.thamo. so gacchati. pisaddena
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 16, 2009
      [Saddaniiti XXV: aakhyaatakappo : sutta 869, p. 812 (Smith's edn.)]

      869. naame payujjamaanepi tulyaadhikara.ne pa.thamo. so gacchati.
      pisaddena appayujjamaanepi: bhaasati vaa karoti vaa.
      tulyaadhikara.neti kim ? tena ha~n~nase tva.m devadattena.

      869. When a noun having the same substratum is being used also, (there
      is) the third person termination. "so gacchati" (he goes).
      "appayujjamaanepi" (when not being used also) (is included) with the
      word "pi": "bhaasati vaa karoti vaa" ((one) speaks or acts). Why
      "tulyaadhikara.ne" ? "tena ha~n~nase tva.m devadattena" (you are
      harmed by this Devadatta).

      Notes:
      1) "naame" (noun): I think this term is taken in the general
      sense of including substantives as well as pronouns. It could also be
      taken in the sense of a name (saama~n~na). In the example "so
      gacchati", "so" is the naama spoken of. In this sutta "naame" excludes
      "tumha" and "amha" which are dealt with in the next two suttas (Sd
      870-1).
      2) "tulyaadhikara.ne" (having the same substratum).Even after
      reading some of the commentaries on Kc 410 (which corresponds to Sd
      869), I still do not fully understand the meaning of the term in this
      sutta. The best I can come up with so far is that it shows that the
      noun has to be in syntactic agreement with the finite verb, i.e.,
      agreement in kaaraka and number. The personal terminations of the
      finite verb denote one of three kaarakas (kattu, kamma, or bhaava)
      depending on whether the verb is active, passive, or impersonal. In
      the example of "so gacchati", the third person termination "ti" of the
      active verb denotes the agent-kaaraka and "so" is an agent-kaaraka in
      the nominative case. So "ti" and "so" are linked together in syntactic
      agreement since both have the same kaaraka and are in the singular. We
      could say that "so" belongs to the same substratum as "ti". There is
      also some suggestions in the commentaries that the subject (e.g.,
      "so") is a dependent word (upapada), presumably dependent on the
      finite verb since the verb can still function without the "so"
      although it will be less informative.
      The following definition of "tulyaadhikara.na" is found in K.V.
      Abhyankar's A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, 1986, p. 189: "having
      got the same substratum; denoting ultimately the same object;
      expressed in the same case; the same as samaanaadhikara.na in the
      grammar of Paa.nini. cf. Kaat. II 5.5."
      3) "bhaasati vaa karoti vaa" ((one) speaks or acts) is from Dhp 1
      & 2.
      4) "tena ha~n~nase tva.m devadattena" (you are harmed by this
      Devadatta): because this is a passive sentence with the agent put in
      the instrumental case and the object or patient "tva.m" put in the
      nominative, "devadattena" does not have the same substratum as
      "ha~n~nase" which is the passive of hanati with the 2nd person
      singular, middle voice termination. However, "tva.m" has the same
      substratum as the verb and is covered by the next sutta (tumhe
      majjhimo).

      Jim Anderson, 16 November 2009

      The Saddaniiti project page:
      http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/synthesis/saddaniti.00.cdv
    • Mahinda Palihawadana
      ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 18, 2009
        On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

        >
        >
        > JA: The following definition of "tulyaadhikara.na" is found in K.V.
        > Abhyankar's A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, 1986, p. 189: "having got the
        > same substratum; denoting ultimately the same object; expressed in the
        > same case; the same as samaanaadhikara.na in the grammar of Paa.nini. cf.
        > Kaat. II 5.5."
        >
        > After reading several word-by-word paraphrases in Sinhala (a class of
        > exegetical works known as sanne) on the relevant suttas of Kaccaayana and
        > Ruupasiddhi, I think that the definition of �adhikara.na� in Monier
        > Williams Skt Dictionary gives the most useful hint as to the import of �
        > tulyaadhikara.na� (although it provides no etymologically adequate reason
        > for this definition: this may be because the word had acquired so many
        > shifts of meaning in the course of its development).
        >
        > MW gives, inter alia, this sense for �adhikara.na�: �relationship of
        > words in a sentence (which agree together either as adjective and
        > substantive, or as subject and predicate, or as two substabtives in
        > apposition).�
        >
        > It seems to me then that in Pali grammar �tulyaadhikara.na�/ �
        > samaanaadhikara.na� means � grammatically compatible, concordant�. There
        > are three conspicuous aspects of this compatibility or concordance. (1) In
        > the case of an adjective and substantive, agreement in number, gender and
        > case; (2) in the case of subject and predicate, agreement in voice and
        > number; (3) in the case of two substantives in apposition, agreement in
        > case and number.
        >
        > The Sinhala sanne works ( many of which were authored by very scholarly
        > monks) quote this definition of �tulyaadhikara.na�: �tulya.m samaana.m adhikara.na.m
        > attho yassa, ta.m tulyaadhikara.na.m� � which implies that �
        > adhikara.na� was understood as �attha�: �sense� or, more likely,
        > �import�. In that case, �tulyaadhikara.na� means, having same or similar
        > import�: comparable with "having same or similar base/substratum" in terms
        > of Abhyankar's definition.
        >


        > JA: "bhaasati vaa karoti vaa" ((one) speaks or acts) is from Dhp 1&
        > 2.4)
        >
        > This is given in the sutta 869 as an example where the substantive is not
        > explicit but is �implied� : appayujjamaana. Bhaasati = (one) speaks;
        > karoti = (one) acts.
        >
        > Mahinda
        >
        >
        > The Saddaniiti project page:
        > http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/synthesis/saddaniti.00.cdv
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mahinda Palihawadana
        On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Mahinda Palihawadana ... Mahinda ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 18, 2009
          On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Mahinda Palihawadana
          <mahipal6@...>wrote:

          >
          >
          > (2) in the case of subject and predicate, agreement in voice and
          >> number......
          >>
          > I am sorry, this should be corrected to "agreement in number".

          Mahinda

          >
          >> The Saddaniiti project page:
          >> http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/synthesis/saddaniti.00.cdv
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jim Anderson
          Dear Maninda,
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 19, 2009
            Dear Maninda,

            << The Sinhala sanne works ( many of which were authored by very
            scholarly monks) quote this definition of 'tulyaadhikara.na': "tulya.m
            samaana.m adhikara.na.m attho yassa, ta.m tulyaadhikara.na.m" -
            which implies that ' adhikara.na' was understood as 'attha': 'sense'
            or, more likely, 'import'. In that case, 'tulyaadhikara.na' means,
            having same or similar import": comparable with "having same or
            similar base/substratum" in terms of Abhyankar's definition. >>

            The above quoted definition is very similar to the one in the
            Padaruupasiddhi.tiikaa, p.183 (Burmese edn.): "kriyaapadena saha
            tulya.m samaana.m adhikara.na.m attho etassaati tulyaadhikara.na.m". I
            was aware of 'attho' being a synonym of 'adhikar.na.m'. I'm rather
            doubltul that 'attho' here means 'sense' or 'import'. Abh 785 gives 9
            meanings for 'attho'. So the question is: what is the meaning of
            'attho' in the context of the .tiikaa gloss on 'adhikara.na.m'? Abh
            868 gives 3 meanings for 'adhikara.na.m': vivaado, aadhaaro, and
            kaara.na.m. Among these, only 'kaara.na.m' (cause, reason) is given as
            a menaing for both 'adhikara.na.m' and 'attho'. This may be a possible
            meaning in our case but I'm not so sure in view of the following..

            The Kaccaayanatthadiipanii (a fairly recent commentary) has something
            very interesting to say about 'tulyaadhikara.na.m' but doesn't give a
            meaning for 'attho' itself. But in my opinion, it seems to fit the
            meaning of 'vatthu' (subject-matter?). Here's an extract from
            pp.539-40 (Thai script edn.) of the text showing the usage of 'attho':

            apica so puriso gacchatiityaadiisu so purisoti
            sakattha-dabba-li"nga-sa"nkhyaa-kaarakavasena atthapa~ncaka.m
            labbhati, gacchatiiti aakhyaatapadepi
            sakattha-padhaanadabba-appadhaanadabba-sa"nkhyaa-kaarakavasena
            atthapa~ncaka.m labbhati. tattha sabbesa.m gamanakriyaa sakatthonaama,
            purisassa gamanakriyaa padhaanadabba.m naama, purisadabba.m
            appadhaanadabba.m naama, ekattha.m sa"nkhyaa naama, vaacakattaa
            kaarako naama, tesu appadhaana-sa"nkhyaa-kaarakasa"nkhaatena
            tikatthena purisoti pade dabba-sa"nkhyaa-kaarakasa"nkhaato tikattho
            samaano hoti. tena tulya.m samaana.m adhikara.na.m attho yassaati
            vacanatthena tulyaadhikara.nanti veditabba.m.

            Best wishes,
            Jim
          • Mahinda Palihawadana
            ... The Kaccaayanatthadiipanii (a fairly recent commentary) has something very interesting to say about tulyaadhikara.na.m but doesn t give a meaning for
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 20, 2009
              On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

              >
              >
              >
              >

              The Kaccaayanatthadiipanii (a fairly recent commentary) has something
              very interesting to say about 'tulyaadhikara.na.m' but doesn't give a
              meaning for 'attho' itself. But in my opinion, it seems to fit the
              meaning of 'vatthu' (subject-matter?). Here's an extract from
              pp.539-40 (Thai script edn.) of the text showing the usage of 'attho':

              apica so puriso gacchatiityaadiisu so purisoti
              sakattha-dabba-li"nga-sa"nkhyaa-kaarakavasena atthapa~ncaka.m
              labbhati, gacchatiiti aakhyaatapadepi
              sakattha-padhaanadabba-appadhaanadabba-sa"nkhyaa-kaarakavasena
              atthapa~ncaka.m labbhati. tattha sabbesa.m gamanakriyaa sakattho naama,
              purisassa gamanakriyaa padhaanadabba.m naama, purisadabba.m
              appadhaanadabba.m naama, ekattha.m sa"nkhyaa naama, vaacakattaa
              kaarako naama, tesu appadhaana-sa"nkhyaa-kaaraka-sa"nkhaatena
              tikatthena purisoti pade dabba-sa"nkhyaa-kaarakasa"nkhaato tikattho
              samaano hoti. tena tulya.m samaana.m adhikara.na.m attho yassaati
              vacanatthena tulyaadhikara.nanti veditabba.m.
              Dear Jim,
              This seems to me to me to clarify the matter. I would like to mull over it
              carefully. Right now I am busy caring for a seriously ill patient.
              On the face of it, it appears to give a meaning like 'import' for 'attha',
              does it not? It speaks of 5 kinds of 'attha' in both 'puriso' (subject) and
              'gacchati' (pa.thama-purisa predicate), of which padhaanadabba, sankhyaa,
              and kaaraka of of the predicate seem to be given as similar to dabba,
              sankhyaa and kaaraka of the subject. All this is tentative; it is a bit
              hazy to me yet.
              Is the reading 'ekattha.m' right? Could it be 'ekatta.m' (oneness)?
              Let us study this passage to understand these atthas more precisely. Best
              wishes.

              Mahinda

              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jim Anderson
              Dear Mahinda, ... over it ... attha , ... (subject) and I still have trouble seeing the meaning of mport for the attha in atthapa~ncaka.m and
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 23, 2009
                Dear Mahinda,

                > Dear Jim,
                > This seems to me to me to clarify the matter. I would like to mull
                over it
                > carefully. Right now I am busy caring for a seriously ill patient.
                > On the face of it, it appears to give a meaning like 'import' for
                'attha',
                > does it not? It speaks of 5 kinds of 'attha' in both 'puriso'
                (subject) and

                I still have trouble seeing the meaning of 'mport' for the 'attha' in
                'atthapa~ncaka.m' and 'tikattho'. I'm seeing 'object' or 'property'
                instead. E.g., the nominative case inflection of 'so puriso' has some
                properties in common with the 3rd person termination of 'gacchati'
                especially in their function of the agen-kaaraka. The subject 'so
                puriso' seems to stand in apposition to 'ti' in the verb. Unlike
                English verbs, Pali verbs have its subject embedded within. The noun
                or pronoun (in the nominative) then describes this subject in greater
                detail. I also wonder if one can read the idea of governor in
                adhikara.na, i.e., the personal termainations govern the subject in
                the nominative.

                > 'gacchati' (pa.thama-purisa predicate), of which padhaanadabba,
                sankhyaa,
                > and kaaraka of of the predicate seem to be given as similar to
                dabba,
                > sankhyaa and kaaraka of the subject. All this is tentative; it is a
                bit
                > hazy to me yet.
                > Is the reading 'ekattha.m' right? Could it be 'ekatta.m' (oneness)?

                Yes, the reading is definitely 'ekatta.m'. 'ekattha.m' is my mistake.
                I have since gone over the passage several times and noticed 3
                omissions. I submit below, my corrected version:

                apica so puriso gacchatiityaadiisu so purisoti pade sakattha-dabba-
                li"nga-sa"nkhyaa-kaarakavasena atthapa~ncaka.m labbhati, gacchatiiti
                aakhyaatapadepi sakattha-padhaanadabba-appadhaanadabba-
                sa"nkhyaa-kaarakavasena atthapa~ncaka.m labbhati. tattha sabbesa.m
                gamanakriyaa sakattho naama, purisassa gamanakriyaa padhaanadabba.m
                naama, purisadabba.m appadhaanadabba.m naama, ekatta.m
                sa"nkhyaa naama, vaacakattaa kaarako naama, tesu appadhaanadabba-
                sa"nkhyaa-kaaraka-sa"nkhaatena tikatthena so purisoti pade dabba-
                sa"nkhyaa-kaarakasa"nkhaato tikattho samaano hoti. tena tulya.m
                samaana.m adhikara.na.m attho yassaati vacanatthena
                tulyaadhikara.nanti veditabba.m.
                -- from Kaccaayanatthadiipanii, pp.539-40 on Kc 410

                Best wishes,
                Jim
              • Mahinda Palihawadana
                Dear Jim, I agree with most of what you say, esecially the observation about the subject being embeded in the verbal endings- which ends the lingering doubt
                Message 7 of 15 , Nov 23, 2009
                  Dear Jim,
                  I agree with most of what you say, esecially the observation about the
                  subject being 'embeded' in the verbal endings- which ends the lingering
                  doubt about the commonality between the "agent word" and the "action word".
                  I hope the group appreciates the fact that we are here confronted with the
                  philosophical and other principles of classical Indian grammar, which are
                  replete with the conceptions of Skt grammarians. The word 'dabba' (dravya)
                  and 'kaaraka are' important examples.
                  I think we still have to find a word good enough to translate 'adhikarana'
                  in the compound 'tulyaadhikara.na'.
                  I trust the Pali group will excuse me for mentioning a personal fact. I
                  could not save the life of the beloved patient for whom I was caring, thus
                  ending another chapter of my life.

                  With best wishes,
                  Mahinda

                  On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

                  >
                  >
                  > I still have trouble seeing the meaning of 'mport' for the 'attha' in
                  > 'atthapa~ncaka.m' and 'tikattho'. I'm seeing 'object' or 'property'
                  > instead. E.g., the nominative case inflection of 'so puriso' has some
                  > properties in common with the 3rd person termination of 'gacchati'
                  > especially in their function of the agen-kaaraka. The subject 'so
                  > puriso' seems to stand in apposition to 'ti' in the verb. Unlike
                  > English verbs, Pali verbs have its subject embedded within. The noun
                  > or pronoun (in the nominative) then describes this subject in greater
                  > detail. I also wonder if one can read the idea of governor in
                  > adhikara.na, i.e., the personal termainations govern the subject in
                  > the nominative.
                  >
                  >
                  > > 'gacchati' (pa.thama-purisa predicate), of which padhaanadabba,
                  > sankhyaa,
                  > > and kaaraka of of the predicate seem to be given as similar to
                  > dabba,
                  > > sankhyaa and kaaraka of the subject. All this is tentative; it is a
                  > bit
                  > > hazy to me yet.
                  > > Is the reading 'ekattha.m' right? Could it be 'ekatta.m' (oneness)?
                  >
                  > Yes, the reading is definitely 'ekatta.m'. 'ekattha.m' is my mistake.
                  > I have since gone over the passage several times and noticed 3
                  > omissions. I submit below, my corrected version:
                  >
                  > apica so puriso gacchatiityaadiisu so purisoti pade sakattha-dabba-
                  >
                  > li"nga-sa"nkhyaa-kaarakavasena atthapa~ncaka.m labbhati, gacchatiiti
                  > aakhyaatapadepi sakattha-padhaanadabba-appadhaanadabba-
                  > sa"nkhyaa-kaarakavasena atthapa~ncaka.m labbhati. tattha sabbesa.m
                  > gamanakriyaa sakattho naama, purisassa gamanakriyaa padhaanadabba.m
                  > naama, purisadabba.m appadhaanadabba.m naama, ekatta.m
                  > sa"nkhyaa naama, vaacakattaa kaarako naama, tesu appadhaanadabba-
                  > sa"nkhyaa-kaaraka-sa"nkhaatena tikatthena so purisoti pade dabba-
                  >
                  > sa"nkhyaa-kaarakasa"nkhaato tikattho samaano hoti. tena tulya.m
                  > samaana.m adhikara.na.m attho yassaati vacanatthena
                  > tulyaadhikara.nanti veditabba.m.
                  > -- from Kaccaayanatthadiipanii, pp.539-40 on Kc 410
                  >
                  > Best wishes,
                  > Jim
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Nina van Gorkom
                  Dear Mahinda, Op 23-nov-2009, om 23:38 heeft Mahinda Palihawadana het volgende ... N:I sympathize with you. So lonng as we are in samsara we keep on ending
                  Message 8 of 15 , Nov 24, 2009
                    Dear Mahinda,
                    Op 23-nov-2009, om 23:38 heeft Mahinda Palihawadana het volgende
                    geschreven:

                    > I trust the Pali group will excuse me for mentioning a personal
                    > fact. I
                    > could not save the life of the beloved patient for whom I was
                    > caring, thus
                    > ending another chapter of my life.
                    -------
                    N:I sympathize with you. So lonng as we are in samsara we keep on
                    ending chapters of our life. But it is good that Dhamma is the best
                    medicine.
                    Nina.




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Mahinda Palihawadana
                    Dear Nina, I thank you very much. As you say this is the way with all beings in samsara. Mahinda ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Message 9 of 15 , Nov 24, 2009
                      Dear Nina,

                      I thank you very much. As you say this is the way with all beings in
                      samsara.

                      Mahinda

                      On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:

                      >
                      >
                      > Dear Mahinda,
                      > Op 23-nov-2009, om 23:38 heeft Mahinda Palihawadana het volgende
                      > geschreven:
                      >
                      >
                      > > I trust the Pali group will excuse me for mentioning a personal
                      > > fact. I
                      > > could not save the life of the beloved patient for whom I was
                      > > caring, thus
                      > > ending another chapter of my life.
                      > -------
                      > N:I sympathize with you. So lonng as we are in samsara we keep on
                      > ending chapters of our life. But it is good that Dhamma is the best
                      > medicine.
                      > Nina.
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Jim Anderson
                      Dear Mahinda, My condolences to you on the loss of a loved one. I lost a sister three years ago and for a week or two after her death, I took the opportunity
                      Message 10 of 15 , Nov 27, 2009
                        Dear Mahinda,

                        My condolences to you on the loss of a loved one. I lost a sister
                        three years ago and for a week or two after her death, I took the
                        opportunity to study amd reflect on some of the text on mara.nassati
                        in Vism VIII.

                        As for finding the right meaning for 'tulyaadhikara.ne' in Sd 869, I
                        think that will have to wait for another time and we'll just have to
                        leave it at 'having the same substratum' for now. Although there are
                        many commentaries on the same sutta in Kaccaayana, they all have their
                        particular way of explaining the sutta and it would take a
                        considereable amount of time to go over them all, corroborate, and
                        uuderstamd as a harmonious whole. These comentaries range from the 7th
                        to the 20th century.

                        I have come to greatly appreciate the Indian system of explaining
                        grammar. I've been receiving batches of page images from Florent in
                        Burma. Just received another 60 pages yesterday. This is the
                        Niruttisaarama~njusaa.tiikaa, a 17th cent. commentary on the Nyaasa. I
                        hope some day to have it all transcribed into romanized Pali in
                        addition to another .tiikaa on the Nyaasa Florent sent in the spring.

                        Best wishes,
                        Jim

                        > Dear Jim,
                        > I agree with most of what you say, esecially the observation about
                        the > subject being 'embeded' in the verbal endings- which ends the
                        lingering > doubt about the commonality between the "agent word"
                        and the "action word".
                        > I hope the group appreciates the fact that we are here confronted
                        with the > philosophical and other principles of classical Indian
                        grammar,which are > replete with the conceptions of Skt grammarians.
                        The word 'dabba' (dravya) > and 'kaaraka are' important examples.
                        > I think we still have to find a word good enough to translate
                        'adhikarana' > in the compound 'tulyaadhikara.na'. > I trust the Pali
                        group will excuse me for mentioning a personal fact. I
                        > could not save the life of the beloved patient for whom I was
                        caring, thus > ending another chapter of my life.
                        >
                        > With best wishes,
                        > Mahinda
                      • Ong Yong Peng
                        Dear Mahinda, my condolences and sympathy to you on your loss of a loved one. metta, Yong Peng. ... I trust the Pali group will excuse me for mentioning a
                        Message 11 of 15 , Nov 27, 2009
                          Dear Mahinda,

                          my condolences and sympathy to you on your loss of a loved one.

                          metta,
                          Yong Peng.


                          --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Mahinda Palihawadana wrote:

                          I trust the Pali group will excuse me for mentioning a personal fact. I could not save the life of the beloved patient for whom I was caring, thus ending another chapter of my life.
                        • ashinpan
                          Dear Jim ... I would like to suggest a working principle to be used in the meantime. It is what is understood by this term in the Burmese tradition. In the
                          Message 12 of 15 , Nov 30, 2009
                            Dear Jim

                            You wrote:

                            > As for finding the right meaning for 'tulyaadhikara.ne' in Sd 869, I
                            > think that will have to wait for another time and we'll just have to
                            > leave it at 'having the same substratum' for now. Although there are
                            > many commentaries on the same sutta in Kaccaayana, they all have their particular way of explaining the sutta and it would take a
                            > considereable amount of time to go over them all, corroborate, and
                            > uuderstamd as a harmonious whole. These comentaries range from the 7th > to the 20th century.

                            I would like to suggest a working principle to be used in the meantime. It is what is understood by this term in the Burmese tradition.

                            In the sentence "puriso bhatta.m pacati", "puriso" refers to a particular man so that man is the substratum of "puriso". The verb "pacati" refers to the action of that man, so he is also the substratum of "pacati". Then "puriso" and "pacati" have the same substratum.

                            On the contrary, in the sentence "purisena bhatta.m paciiyate", the verb "paciiyate" refers to the effects that rice undergoes while being cooked. So "paciiyate" has the same substratum as "bhatta.m" (rice), not "purisena" (man).

                            Then there is also another option possible. In the sentence "purisena gaama.m gacchiiyate", the verb "gacchiiyate" indicates the action in itself, so its substratum is neither that of "purisena" (man) nor that of "gaama.m" (village). Such sentences are called Absolute Voice ("bhaava") and rarely found in Pali texts.

                            with metta

                            Ven. Pandita
                          • Nina van Gorkom
                            Venerable Pandita, ... N: I do not understand the word substratum very well. Is it foundation? ... N: Looking at the locative paciiyate and gacchiiyate, is
                            Message 13 of 15 , Dec 1, 2009
                              Venerable Pandita,
                              Op 1-dec-2009, om 5:50 heeft ashinpan het volgende geschreven:

                              > In the sentence "puriso bhatta.m pacati", "puriso" refers to a
                              > particular man so that man is the substratum of "puriso". The verb
                              > "pacati" refers to the action of that man, so he is also the
                              > substratum of "pacati". Then "puriso" and "pacati" have the same
                              > substratum.
                              ------
                              N: I do not understand the word substratum very well. Is it foundation?
                              -------
                              >
                              > On the contrary, in the sentence "purisena bhatta.m paciiyate", the
                              > verb "paciiyate" refers to the effects that rice undergoes while
                              > being cooked. So "paciiyate" has the same substratum as
                              > "bhatta.m" (rice), not "purisena" (man).
                              >
                              > Then there is also another option possible. In the sentence
                              > "purisena gaama.m gacchiiyate", the verb "gacchiiyate" indicates
                              > the action in itself, so its substratum is neither that of
                              > "purisena" (man) nor that of "gaama.m" (village). Such sentences
                              > are called Absolute Voice ("bhaava") and rarely found in Pali texts.
                              -------
                              N: Looking at the locative paciiyate and gacchiiyate, is this a
                              absolute locative , like in Latin an absolute ablative? It usually is
                              in the genetive. But does the extra i not denote a passive?
                              When (or because) the man cookes the rice, when (or because) the man
                              goes to the village?
                              With respect,
                              Nina.



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • ashinpan
                              Nina ... In classical Pali grammars, content is treated as the locus (location) of the language that refers to it. So havin the same substratum means that
                              Message 14 of 15 , Dec 1, 2009
                                Nina

                                You wrote:
                                >
                                > Venerable Pandita,
                                > Op 1-dec-2009, om 5:50 heeft ashinpan het volgende geschreven:
                                >
                                > > In the sentence "puriso bhatta.m pacati", "puriso" refers to a
                                > > particular man so that man is the substratum of "puriso". The verb
                                > > "pacati" refers to the action of that man, so he is also the
                                > > substratum of "pacati". Then "puriso" and "pacati" have the same
                                > > substratum.
                                > ------
                                > N: I do not understand the word substratum very well. Is it foundation?

                                In classical Pali grammars, content is treated as the locus (location) of the language that refers to it. So "havin the same substratum" means that both "puriso" and "pacati" have the same location, i.e., the same referent.

                                > N: Looking at the locative paciiyate and gacchiiyate, is this a
                                > absolute locative , like in Latin an absolute ablative? It usually is
                                > in the genetive. But does the extra i not denote a passive?
                                > When (or because) the man cookes the rice, when (or because) the man
                                > goes to the village?

                                Both these words are not nouns but only conjugated passive verbs with 3rd pers. sing. attanopada endings.

                                with metta

                                Ven. Pandita
                              • Nina van Gorkom
                                Venerable Pandita, Thank you very much, it is clear now. Warder lesson 28 deals with the reflexive or middle conjugation, attanopada. With respect, Nina. ...
                                Message 15 of 15 , Dec 2, 2009
                                  Venerable Pandita,
                                  Thank you very much, it is clear now. Warder lesson 28 deals with the
                                  reflexive or middle conjugation, attanopada.

                                  With respect,
                                  Nina.
                                  Op 2-dec-2009, om 7:43 heeft ashinpan het volgende geschreven:

                                  > In classical Pali grammars, content is treated as the locus
                                  > (location) of the language that refers to it. So "havin the same
                                  > substratum" means that both "puriso" and "pacati" have the same
                                  > location, i.e., the same referent.
                                  >
                                  > > N: Looking at the locative paciiyate and gacchiiyate, is this a
                                  > > absolute locative , like in Latin an absolute ablative? It
                                  > usually is
                                  > > in the genetive. But does the extra i not denote a passive?
                                  > > When (or because) the man cookes the rice, when (or because) the man
                                  > > goes to the village?
                                  >
                                  > Both these words are not nouns but only conjugated passive verbs
                                  > with 3rd pers. sing. attanopada endings.



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