Dear Yifer,

> For the first word of SN verse 800, It sounds to me
> "Atta.m." is skipped in Norman's translation.

No, he hasn't skipped it. The point is, there are two ways
of construing atta.m in this verse.

1) The Mahaaniddesa glosses atta.m pahaaya as attadi.t.thi.m
pahaaya.
2) The Suttanipaata Atthakathaa takes atta.m as being a past
participle of aadadaati. Norman has chosen to follow the
Atthakathaa and so translated it as "what has been taken up."

Actually the meaning ends up being the same, for "what is
taken up" refers to the sixty-two wrong views.

> "anupaadiyaano" has been translated as "not taking it up " by
> Norman, is that right?

Yes.

> Is there any explanation to call a devata yakkha?

You might check the entry for yakkha in Malalasekera's
Dictionary of Pali Proper Names. There are many sorts of
beings who are on occasion called yakkhas, besides actual
yakkhas. In the Upaali Sutta even the Buddha is called a
yakkha!

Best wishes,

Dhammanando