Re: [Pali] Re: ahudeva
- That does sound reasonable.
I suppose Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi could have translated it as:
Venerable Sir, I was *quite* upset and sad....
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Masefield <masefiel@...>
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
> whether, when they do, they are correct to do so.
> Although the commentaries frequently dismiss certain minor particles,
> verses (where they are often used for "padding out the words" to fit the
> 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
> do translate the particle eva, since it is a very important, and useful,
> Its meanings are varied, depending on the context in which it appears,
> that "x-eva" can denote such ideas as "that same x", "x itself", "already
> "simply x", "x alone" and so on.
> In the case in point it probably means "For that same I (tassa mayha.m),
> (bhante), there most certainly/indeed was (ahu-d-eva)." or, alternatively,
> same I (tassa mayha.m), Lord (bhante), there was simply (ahu-d-eva).".
> Peter Masefield.