Re: [Pali] Re: AN2.2 Adhikara.na Vagga (12/14)
- Dear Nina,
> Dear Jim and Yong Peng,I agree. This is turning out to be a much more difficult passage than I at
> Jim, thank you very much for your help, most useful. I was so
> intrigued by the word abhavissa, especially the 'a'prefix, and saw it
> in Warder. But analysing a sentence like this it is quite complicated.
first thought and my earlier suggestions are now in doubt and probably off
the mark. I don't know much about the usage of the conditional verb and
don't have Warder at hand. I checked Duroiselle but it doesn't offer much of
an explanation. The phrases akusala~nca hida.m...pahiiina.m and akusala.m
pahiina.m have me puzzled. How do they function grammatically with the verb
'sa.mvatteyya'? I thought of an accusative absolute but not sure.
Thanks for repeating the text passage.
- Dear Nina, Jim and Bryan,
thanks for your informed discussion. It is very interesting to note how the commentary uses bya~njana twice with different meanings, something I also noted to happen frequently in Sadd., a test of the intellect.
Also thanks to Bryan for highlighting "padabya~njana" as "letters and words", or we may still be lost in translation.
I will simply put everything together:
"(and) incorrectly arranged letter(s) and/or word(s)"
such a word of the text taken out of sequence/order
hi atthassa bya~njanattaa
for the significance and essence of the meaning
* Paraphrasing ...
"dunnikkhitta.m padabya~njana.m" is such a word of the text taken out of sequence, for the significance and essence of the meaning is called "bya~njana.m".
--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote:
I still have trouble with the translation, but I wait for Yong Peng.
> I don't think "letter" is the right translation for "bya~njana.m"
> here which is explained by "atthassa bya~njanattaa" (from the fact
> of explaining the meaning). Cf. "saattha.m sabya~njana.m". The
> comment: "padameva. . . bya~njananti" tells me that
> "padabya~njana.m" is a specific type of kammadhaaraya compound that
> resolves with the particle "eva" after the first member (both
> members are in the same case). I also think "uppa.tipaa.tiyaa
> gahita-" (incorrectly or erroneously taken) is an interpretation of
> "dunnikkhitta.m" (badly laid or put down).