Greetings all,
I have some comments and questions on some of the
(translate to English) exercises in the Pali Primer -
Lesson 10.

First, #4.
Yaacako maatulassa kuddaalena aavaa.ta.m kha.nitu.m
icchati.
Ans: The beggar wishes to dig a pit with his uncle's
hoe.

However, since maatulassa is an alternative form of
the dative, couldn't this also be translated as:
The beggar wishes to dig a pit with a hoe for his
uncle.

I think the first translaton (and the one given by
Yong Peng and the PP Key) is the most logical, but I
just wanted to note the ambiguity.

Then on #12
Udaka.m otaritvaa vatthaani dhovitu.m rajako putta.m
pakkosati.
Ans: The washerman calls his son to step into the
water and wash clothes.
Why not alternatively?: Having stepped into the water
to wash clothes, the washerman calls his son.

This is really a question of does the absolutive
(otaritvaa) apply to the subject (rajako) or the
object (putta.m) of the sentence? Is there any
quiding rule in Pali, or is it just a matter of
interpretation?

Similarly, on #22.
Pupphaani sa.mharitvaa udakena aasi~ncitu.m upaasako
kumaare ovadati.
Ans: The lay devotee advises the boys to collect
flowers and sprinkle them with water.
Why not alternatively?: The lay devotee, having
collected flowers, advises the boys to sprinkle them
with water.

Same question as above - does the absolutive
(sa.mharitvaa) apply to the subject (upaasako) or the
object( kumaare)?

I would appreciate some thoughts on this from those
more knowledgable in Pali.

Thanks,
John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com