Dear Tzungkuen,

t> Thanks for your help very much. Wihtout you and other friends in this group,
t> I don't know what to do with my question.

Why don't you look up the commentary?

t> I still have problem with this verse:
t> ' 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';

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

Indeed. Bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation is unusual.

That's how it is explained in Atthakatha

Accanta.m mataputtaamhi'iti ettha anta.m atiita.m accanta.m,
bhaavana'pu.msakam'eta.m. Ida.m vutta.m hoti- yathaa putta'mara.na.m
anta.m atiita.m hoti, eva.m mata'puttaa aha.m, idaani mama puna
putta'mara.na.m naama natthi.

anta - having an end, ended;
atiita - past, gone by;

therefore 'accanta.m' here means 'complete, gone by, finished';

Thus the first half according to commentary is:

'Gone by is the death of sons'

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

t> purisaa and antikaa is respectively nominative and plural of purisa and
t> antika
t> but etad is singular. Can 'etad' qualify ' purisaa antikaa' ?
t> And Is it proper to translate ' purisaa antikaa ' as 'Men are of end '?

There is an explanation in the PED ('antika' article):

'men are (to me) at the end for that, i.e. men do not exist any more
for me, for the purpose of begetting sons.'

The commentary continues:

Purisaa etadantikaati purisaapi me etadantikaava. Yo me
puttamara.nassa anto, purisaanampi me esevanto, abhabbaa aha.m idaani
purisa.m gavesitunti.

antikaa purisaa - final men;
'etad' refers to the previous clause.

Thus the second half is translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi according to
commentary as:

'with this, the search for men has ended'.

With metta,
Dimitry