Dear Dimitri,
I am glad you mention it. See below:

op 23-02-2003 09:33 schreef äÍÉÔÒÉÊ áÌÅËÓÅÅ×ÉÞ é×ÁÈÎÅÎËÏ (Dimitry A.
Ivakhnenko) op koleso@...:

> nvg> N: We have to take the whole:
> subhaasita-dubbhaasita-anamatthama~n~naatu.m
>
> nvg> I start at the back: ma~n~naatu.m: to think,
>

D: There is no such form in Pali canon.

>
> Here 'a~n~naatu.m' is derived from a~n~naata, past participle of
> 'aajaanaati'.
>

N: so, it would be: known, but, it can also mean: unknown.
starting again: > subhaasita-dubbhaasitaanamatthama~n~naatu.m
thus: attham a~n~naatum: the meaning is known (or unknown) of what is
well-spoken and ill-spoken.
There is still something here. We have the ending a~n~naatu.m, why this
after attham ? The m could just be inserted before following a, because it
is a sandhi, but still the u.m ending is starnge.
With appreciation,
Nina.