Dear Dimitry

Thanks for your help very much. Wihtout you and other friends in this group,
I don't know what to do with my question.
I still have problem with this verse:
' Accanta.m mataputtaamhi, purisaa etadantikaa;

> As I understand here on the first glance:
> - accanta.m is translated as an archaic form of first person participle
> 'gotten past';

But PED says that 'accanta' is a noun meaning 'the end', not a participle of
verb.

> - purisaa etadantikaa = those men (were) final.

purisaa and antikaa is respectively nominative and plural of purisa and
antika
but etad is singular. Can 'etad' qualify ' purisaa antikaa' ?
And Is it proper to translate ' purisaa antikaa ' as 'Men are of end '?

With metta

Tzunguken

-----------------------------------------------------------------
< ¨C¤Ñ³£ Yahoo!©_¼¯ > www.yahoo.com.tw