At 01:19 PM 17-10-01 -0700, John Kelly wrote:

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

I must first confess that I'm no expert, but I'm learning from my teacher
who seem to be quite an expert. So, I thought I could share what I've
learnt and discovered.

>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.

I think you've answered you question.

>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?

I made a similar mistake in my exercise book. My version was
Having got down to the water, the washerman calls his son to wash
the cloths.
Wrong, says my teacher. Why? My teacher's most common answer to something
like that is "That's how it is in Pali." If I recall correctly, he didn't
explain much. I suppose he I'll be able to figure it out myself -- for this
case at least.

Well, I didn't manage then. But now that you brought it up, I've made
another attempt; this time I'm better equipped as I've finished the book.
Here's what I've come out with:
[Note: This may spoil your fun of doing the same yourself.]

First of all,
Udaka.m otaritvaa vatthaani dhovitu.m...
is not
Having stepped into the water to wash clothes...
The meaning is actually something like
To step into the water then wash clothes...
Of course it would sound more English to say
To step into the water and wash clothes...

The notion of the infinitive "tu.m" applies not only to "dhovati" but also
"otarati". If there were to be more "tvaa" verbs before that, the "tu.m"
covers all them as well.

Although we learn from the book that "tvaa" is translated as "having...",
in many cases it cannot be applied that way. It's function is just to
indicate sequence of actions (in most cases, at least). A direct
translation may well be "then". [To those who know Chinese, I think it can
be directly translated as liao3 (in Mandarin hanyu pinyin)]

E.g.
bhuñjitvaa pivitvaa sayitu.m
will have to be translated as
to eat, drink and sleep
and certainly not
having eaten and drunk to sleep (!)

Actually, the following question (#13) gives us an idea of this as well.
Tathaagata.m passitvaa vanditu.m upaasako vihaara.m pavisati.
is translated as
The lay devotee enters the monastery to see the Buddha and worship
him.
It would certainly wouldn't be right to translate it as:
Having seen the Tathaagata (Buddha) to pay respect (worship), the
lay devotee enters the vihaara (monastery).

Back to #12, a somewhat literal translation would be:
To step into the water and wash clothes, the washerman calls his son.
This of course sound pretty strange in English. A better translation would
be that given in the answer key, which is just an inversion of the above:
The washerman calls his son to step into the water and wash clothes.


Like to add that, in my opinion, your alternative answer:
Having stepped into the water to wash clothes, the washerman calls
his son.
would be possible if the Pali were:
Vatthaani dhovitu.m udaka.m otaritvaa rajako putta.m pakkosati.
That nonetheless, in Pali, poses an ambiguity. To tie that first portion to
'rajako', it would be safer to say:
Vatthaani dhovitu.m udaka.m otaranto rajako putta.m pakkosati.

>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)?

As above, the given answer is a more accurate translation.

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

Again, I must make it clear that I'm still very much in the primary stage
of learning Pali. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate corrections if any.
I must also thank John Kelly for bringing it up. I've certainly learnt.

peace

Ven. Kumaara