Dear Ven. Dhammanando and friends,

Bhante:

thanks for your thorough explanation. Having read it, I have a
feeling that the two sentences may either be an example of a
recursive error, or that they represent one form of sentence
construct that is unique in Pali. I would be glad if other members
can offer their views too.

It is always possible for a sentence to have an implied nominative,
such as

23. Paasaada.m upasa'nkamanta.m sama.na.m disvaa bhuupaalassa
citta.m pasiidati.
palace / approaching / monk / having seen / king's / mind
/ pleases
The king is delighted seeing the monk approaching the palace.
Lit: Seeing the monk approaching the palace pleases the king's
mind.

[ http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/palidd/paliload.php?page=a12 ]

It so happen that the two sentences we are looking at have an
absolutive. I would like to make another attempt at them.

Dhamma.m sutvaa gahapatiina.m Buddhe saddha.m uppajji.
Dhamma / having heard / to householders / in Buddha / faith /
arose
To the householders, hearing the Dhamma gave rise to faith in the
Buddha.

Faith arose in the king after hearing the Doctrine from the sage.
saddha.m / uppajji / narapatino / sutvaa / Dhamma.m / munismaa
Munismaa Dhamma.m sutvaa narapatino saddha.m uppajji.
Lit: To the king, hearing the Doctrine from the sage gave rise to
faith.

What do you think? Please correct me if I am wrong.


metta,
Yong Peng

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Dhammanando Bhikkhu wrote:
I don't see how the change of saddhaa to accusative saddha.m is an
improvement. Saddhaa is not an object (kamma) that is being acted
upon, but an actor (kattaa) that is doing something (i.e. arising).
The difficulty in translating this sentence is that the king is also
an actor, so we have a stated nominative, 'faith', and an implied
nominative, 'king', and we have to find a way to make it clear what
is doing what: it is the king who hears, and it is faith that arises.