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

Re: ahudeva

Expand Messages
  • cheangoo@hotmail.com
    Thanks, Piya I guess the aorist of huu is very irregular. Bopth PED and Warder (pg 26) give the sorist of atthi/asmi as: 1st sg = aasi.m or ahosi.m 3rd and
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 11, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, Piya

      I guess the aorist of huu is very irregular. Bopth PED and Warder
      (pg 26) give the sorist of atthi/asmi as: 1st sg = aasi.m or ahosi.m
      3rd and 2nd sg. = ahosi

      Mettaa,
      Khaik-Cheang Oo

      In Pali@y..., Piya Tan <libris@s...> wrote:
      > Cheang Oo,
      >
      > Let me try to give a bit of amateur help:
      >
      > ahudeva = ahu (aor.) + eva, "there was indeed"
      > eva is usually left untranslated here.
      >
      > Earlier in the same paragraph, we have "Ahu kho so bhante
      samayo", "There was a time,
      > Venerable Sir..."
      >
      > P.
      >
      > cheangoo@h... wrote:
      >
      > > Hi there,
      > >
      > > Can anyone out there help me with the word "ahudeva" in the
      > > following line from La.tukikopamasutta [M.N. 66]
      > > 'i.ngha tumhe, bhikkhave, eta.m divaavikaalabhojana.m
      pajahathaa'ti.
      > > Tassa mayha.m, bhante, ahudeva a-n-nathatta.m, ahudeva
      domanassa.m -
      > > ....
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > > Khaik-Cheang Oo
      > >
      > >
      > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      > > Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily
      digest or web only.
      > > [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net/pali
      > > [Discussion] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pali
      > > [Send Message] pali@y...
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Kumara Bhikkhu
      According to my teacher, ahu is another form for ahosi . When eva is added behind, the sandhi requires a d in between, making it ahudeva , which means
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 12, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        According to my teacher, "ahu" is another form for "ahosi". When "eva" is
        added behind, the sandhi requires a "d" in between, making it "ahudeva",
        which means something like "was indeed".

        This:
        Tassa mayha.m, bhante, ahudeva a~n~nathatta.m, ahudeva domanassa.m....
        can be rather literally translated as
        To me, bhante, there was change (of mind), there was grief....
        Bhikkhu Bodhi quite skillfully made it:
        Venerable Sir, I was upset and sad....

        As Piya pointed out, the emphatic "eva" is usually left untranslated.


        peace

        Kumaara Bhikkhu
        another amateur

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <cheangoo@...>
        To: <Pali@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, 12 September, 2001 7:39 AM
        Subject: [Pali] Re: ahudeva


        > Thanks, Piya
        >
        > I guess the aorist of huu is very irregular. Bopth PED and Warder
        > (pg 26) give the sorist of atthi/asmi as: 1st sg = aasi.m or ahosi.m
        > 3rd and 2nd sg. = ahosi
        >
        > Mettaa,
        > Khaik-Cheang Oo
        >
        > In Pali@y..., Piya Tan <libris@s...> wrote:
        > > Cheang Oo,
        > >
        > > Let me try to give a bit of amateur help:
        > >
        > > ahudeva = ahu (aor.) + eva, "there was indeed"
        > > eva is usually left untranslated here.
        > >
        > > Earlier in the same paragraph, we have "Ahu kho so bhante
        > samayo", "There was a time,
        > > Venerable Sir..."
        > >
        > > P.
        > >
        > > cheangoo@h... wrote:
        > >
        > > > Hi there,
        > > >
        > > > Can anyone out there help me with the word "ahudeva" in the
        > > > following line from La.tukikopamasutta [M.N. 66]
        > > > 'i.ngha tumhe, bhikkhave, eta.m divaavikaalabhojana.m
        > pajahathaa'ti.
        > > > Tassa mayha.m, bhante, ahudeva a-n-nathatta.m, ahudeva
        > domanassa.m -
        > > > ....
        > > >
        > > > Thanks,
        > > > Khaik-Cheang Oo
      • Peter Masefield
        ... Maybe some people do leave the particle eva untranslated, but the real question is whether, when they do, they are correct to do so. Although the
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 13, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Kumara Bhikkhu wrote:

          > As Piya pointed out, the emphatic "eva" is usually left untranslated.

          Maybe some people do leave the particle eva untranslated, but the real question is
          whether, when they do, they are correct to do so.

          Although the commentaries frequently dismiss certain minor particles, especially in
          verses (where they are often used for "padding out the words" to fit the metre),
          stating that that particle concerned is "a mere particle" (nipaatamatta.m), I have
          never seen such dismissal in the case of eva; and, as a matter of fact, I invariably
          do translate the particle eva, since it is a very important, and useful, particle.

          Its meanings are varied, depending on the context in which it appears, with result
          that "x-eva" can denote such ideas as "that same x", "x itself", "already x",
          "simply x", "x alone" and so on.

          In the case in point it probably means "For that same I (tassa mayha.m), Lord
          (bhante), there most certainly/indeed was (ahu-d-eva)…" or, alternatively, "For that
          same I (tassa mayha.m), Lord (bhante), there was simply (ahu-d-eva)…".

          Peter Masefield.
        • Kumaara Bhikkhu
          That does sound reasonable. I suppose Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi could have translated it as: Venerable Sir, I was *quite* upset and sad.... metta, Ven K ... From:
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 17, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            That does sound reasonable.

            I suppose Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi could have translated it as:
            Venerable Sir, I was *quite* upset and sad....

            metta,
            Ven K

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Peter Masefield <masefiel@...>
            To: <Pali@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, 13 September, 2001 7:07 PM
            Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: ahudeva


            > Kumara Bhikkhu wrote:
            >
            > > As Piya pointed out, the emphatic "eva" is usually left untranslated.
            >
            > Maybe some people do leave the particle eva untranslated, but the real
            question is
            > whether, when they do, they are correct to do so.
            >
            > Although the commentaries frequently dismiss certain minor particles,
            especially in
            > verses (where they are often used for "padding out the words" to fit the
            metre),
            > stating that that particle concerned is "a mere particle"
            (nipaatamatta.m), I have
            > never seen such dismissal in the case of eva; and, as a matter of fact, I
            invariably
            > do translate the particle eva, since it is a very important, and useful,
            particle.
            >
            > Its meanings are varied, depending on the context in which it appears,
            with result
            > that "x-eva" can denote such ideas as "that same x", "x itself", "already
            x",
            > "simply x", "x alone" and so on.
            >
            > In the case in point it probably means "For that same I (tassa mayha.m),
            Lord
            > (bhante), there most certainly/indeed was (ahu-d-eva)." or, alternatively,
            "For that
            > same I (tassa mayha.m), Lord (bhante), there was simply (ahu-d-eva).".
            >
            > Peter Masefield.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.