Re: [Pali] di.t.thapubba etc. in Pali Day by Day 5/18/2005
- Venerable Bhante Pandita,
Thank you very much for your interesting explanation.
I still have a question. When looking at the two kinds of translations: one
active, one passive, is there a difference in meaning?
1. I have never before seen saints or heard the doctrine of the teacher.
2. Saints have never been seen, nor the doctrine of the Teacher heard,
Is it a matter of emphasis?
Another matter: I read through your recent post on verbal stems, but I do
not know how to put it to good use. I would need more examples. Perhaps with
the help of the dictionary which gives the stems? Please could you give tips
how to use it?
Please do not hurry, I understand the troubles with wire connections.
With many thanks and respect,
P.S. Yong Peng, you did not miss posts. I simply send this one to Ven.
Pandita's personal address. I saw the Q. in your Pali series and I thought
that Bhante would give an explanation.
op 29-05-2005 14:15 schreef Ven. Pandita op ashinpan@...:
>>> di.t.thapubba = di.t.tha + pubba [???]
>>> sutapubba = suta + pubba [???]
>> John: I admit I don't know the answer to what type of compounds these are. I
>> only know they mean "seen before"and "heard before". I've been waiting for
>> one of the Pali experts to jump in and enlighten us.
> These are of a particular type of Tappurisa compounds. Their difference
> from an ordinary Tappurisa is can be explained using some examples:
> ara~n~avaasa (= living in the forest) In this example, "living" is the
> primary sense of the whole compound; "In the forest" is only a
> qualifier. Note that "vaasa" meaning "living" is the second member.
> pacchaaratta (= the time after night) In this example, "the time after"
> is the primary sense while "night" is only a qualifier. But "pacchaa"
> meaning "the time after" is the first member.
> Now "di.t.thapubba" and "sutapubba" belong to the latter type, and
> should be literally translated as "(being) seen before" and "(being)
> heard before" The first members of them, "di.t.tha" and "suta",
> respectively carry the primary sense of each compound while the second
> member "pubba" is only a qualifier.
>> 13. Aha.m khii.naasave vaa na di.t.thapubbo, satthudhamma.m vaa na sutapubbo.
>> I / saints or / not seen before / teacher's doctrine or /not heard before
>> I have never before seen saints or heard the doctrine of the teacher.
> I think I don't agree with the format of this sentence itself. Why? Both
> "di.t.thapubbo" and "sutapubbo" are main verbs, of which the primary
> senses are denoted by their first members "di.t.tha" and "suta". Both of
> them are Past Participle Passives denoting Passive voice. Accordingly,
> the whole compounds must be viewed as passive verbs. The correct
> sentence should be in passive voice as follows:
> mayaa khii.naasavaa vaa na di.t.thapubbaa, satthudhammo vaa na sutapubbo.
> (= Saints have never been seen, nor the doctrine of the Teacher heard,
> by me)