Dear Nina, Jim and friends,

I notice that Duoiselle Chpt.5 §166 has declension of bhava.m, so
should bhaavaya.m be declined according to bhava.m or araha.m? Thanks.

metta,
Yong Peng

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ong Yong Peng wrote:
I take it that 'bhaavaya.m' is declined similarly to araha.m [see
Duroiselle Chpt.5 (167)]
>
> Araha.m > Dat. Sing. > Arahato
>
> Thus,
> bhaavaya.m > Dat. Sing. > bhaavayato