[Pali] Re: Grammar question
- Hi Brian and Everyone,
>This is getting into an area that I'm just starting to learn about,
>Thanks for the informative response. I'm still a little fuzzy on the
>concept of the adverbial function of the ablative having no
>pertinence to subject or object, only to the verb.
but don't have a command of yet, which is part of why I find your
questions so interesting and challenging. I hope any errors I make
will be pointed out.
Basically the idea is that according to the traditional grammarians,
all the cases except for the genitive, establish a relationship
between a noun and a verb. The genitive can establish a relation
between nouns. But I'm not entirely sure how strictly this holds.
Here are some examples from Ong Yong Peng's "Pali Day by Day" post of
today. They all seem to work according to the idea I presented above.
//9. Planting trees in the fields and gardens men try to collect
ropetvaa / rukkhe / khettesu ca / uyyaanesu ca / manussaa /
ussahanti / sa.mharitu.m / dhana.m
Khettesu ca uyyaanesu ca rukkhe ropetvaa manussaa dhana.m
In 9, the locative plurals 'in fields' (khettesu) and 'in gardens
(uyyanesu) must be read with the verb 'planted' (ropetvaa), not with
the object 'trees (rukkhe). In response to the question 'planted
where?': in fields and gardens. It doesn't say 'trees (which are) in
//10. The husband brought a gem for the wife from the city.
saamii / aahari / ma.ni.m / bhariyaaya / nagarasmaa
Saamii nagarasmaa bhariyaaya ma.ni.m aahari.
Here in 10, the ablative 'from the city' (nagarasmaa) must be read
with the verb 'brought' (aahari). In response to the question
'brought from where?' Brought from the city. The dative 'for the
wife' (bhariyaaya) is also read with the verb. Brought to whom? to
the wife. (or alternatively as a stand-alone adverbial 'for the sake
of the wife', but this also relates to the verb: 'brought why?': for
the sake of the wife)
//1. Balavantehi bhuupatiihi arayo paraajitaa honti.
by powerful kings / enemies / defeated / are
The enemies are defeated by the powerful kings.
Here,in 1, the instrumental answers the question 'defeated by who?'
Again, relating to the verb (as agent).
//2. Maya.m cakkhuuhi bhaanumantassa suriyassa rasmiyo oloketu.m
we / with eyes / of radiant sun / rays / to see / are not
We are not able to see the rays of the radiant sun with (our)
Here, in 2, the accusative 'rays' (rasmiyo) is the object of the
verb.( to see what? the rays). And the instrumental 'with eyes'
(cakkhuuhi) also clearly relates the word to the verb in the same way.
However the genitive links nouns: 'the sun's rays' (suriyassa
rasmiyo). 'Who or what's rays?': the sun's.)
So after all of this I am very sceptical of the possibility that one
can say 'the monks (who are) from the mountains' with 'sama.naa
pabbatehi'. It seems to be a congruence error. I could be wrong, but
it smells funny to me. That's why I tried to change it to 'the monks
(who have) come from the mountains'. (sama.naa pabbatehi aagataa).
There, even though 'come' (aagata) is a nominalised form (past
passive participle), it has a verbal sense which can trigger the
>Thanks again for your help, and please don't worry about tone. CrispThanks, I'm glad you see it that way. I can't bring myself to sugar
>is good. The fact that you're volunteering help tells me you're
every message with praise, expressions of gratitude etc. But consider
every message I send to be prefaced with 'thank you all for being
here, participating and helping'. Because that's how I feel about