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

Re: [Pali] Re: Warder Exercises - [F007]

Expand Messages
  • Jaran Jai-nhuknan
    Dear Alan and Yong Peng: I am now confused. From what Alan said, the conjugation depends on prefixes.(?) Should conjugation be considered of the based on the
    Message 1 of 46 , Sep 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Alan and Yong Peng:

      I am now confused. From what Alan said, the conjugation depends
      on prefixes.(?) Should conjugation be considered of the based on
      the word alone and not the root? Are there a lot of roots that
      change conjugation when combined with different prefixes?

      Best Regards,
      jaran



      --- Ong Yong Peng <yongpeng.ong@...> wrote:

      > Dear Alan and friends,
      >
      > thanks, Alan. Warder's lists vi+muc as Conj. III. I think that
      > is
      > because (1) we have to ignore vi (a prefix), and (2) no nasal
      > is
      > inserted at the end of 'mu' (of muc).
      >
      > I will be posting a list of verbs with their stems and
      > conjugational
      > group. I hope you can help me to vet it if time permits.
      > Thanks.
      >
      >
      > metta,
      > Yong Peng.
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Alan McClure wrote:
      >
      > vimutto [vi+muc II/pp/nom/sg] freed
      >
      > Though this seems tricky because the passive conjugation of
      > "muc" is
      > III (muccati) form with active being II (mu~ncati) form, so I
      > guess
      > we should stick with the II form in describing a past
      > participle?
      > I'm open to suggestions.
      >
      >
      >
      >




      ____________________________________________________
      Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
      http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
    • rett
      Hi Yong Peng, ... My body is tired from doing all this work... suppose I go put on my pyjamas (nipajjaami). Or go have a lie-down :-) best regards, /Rett
      Message 46 of 46 , Oct 26, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Yong Peng,

        >Dear Rett, Ole, Alan and friends,
        >
        >thanks, Rett. I am starting to understand that. How then would you
        >translate:
        >
        >kamma.m kho pana me karontassa kaayo kilanto, handaaha.m nipajjaami

        My body is tired from doing all this work... suppose I go put on my
        pyjamas (nipajjaami).

        Or go have a lie-down :-)

        best regards,

        /Rett


        >Thank you.
        >
        >
        >metta,
        >Yong Peng.
        >
        >
        >
        >--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, rett wrote:
        >
        >It's important to keep in mind that in Pali, the main verbal action
        >can be expressed by a participle, as in the above. This is a
        >fundamental point and is one of the ways in which we need to unlearn
        >modern English grammar when learning Pali grammar. I've noticed you
        >refer to the Pali idea of the 'agent' of a sentence, and you're no
        >doubt aware of how this differs from the English concept of a
        >(grammatical) 'subject'. The above is another one of these
        >differences. Despite the fact that you could read in an implied verb
        >meaning 'to be', the main verbal action (around which the clause is
        >structured) is contained in the participle 'kilanta' there.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        >Paa.li-Parisaa - The Pali Collective
        >[Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
        >[Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
        >[Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
        >Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest
        >or web only.
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.