Kumara Bhikkhu wrote:

> As Piya pointed out, the emphatic "eva" is usually left untranslated.

Maybe some people do leave the particle eva untranslated, but the real question is
whether, when they do, they are correct to do so.

Although the commentaries frequently dismiss certain minor particles, especially in
verses (where they are often used for "padding out the words" to fit the metre),
stating that that particle concerned is "a mere particle" (nipaatamatta.m), I have
never seen such dismissal in the case of eva; and, as a matter of fact, I invariably
do translate the particle eva, since it is a very important, and useful, particle.

Its meanings are varied, depending on the context in which it appears, with result
that "x-eva" can denote such ideas as "that same x", "x itself", "already x",
"simply x", "x alone" and so on.

In the case in point it probably means "For that same I (tassa mayha.m), Lord
(bhante), there most certainly/indeed was (ahu-d-eva)…" or, alternatively, "For that
same I (tassa mayha.m), Lord (bhante), there was simply (ahu-d-eva)…".

Peter Masefield.