Dear Jim and friends,

sorry for the confusion. Compounds is an area where I am lacked of
practice. Previously I have looked at Duroiselle. Now, I have looked
at Warder. And I believe you are right that 'tappaccayaa' is a
Tappurisa compound. I think that tappaccayaa is tad+paccayaa. What is
causing the confusion is paccayaa, which kept me stuck and thinking,
and now I think it is an adverb: by reason of, on account of
[according to PED paccaya].

The compound is highly likely a genitive tappurisa as you previously
suggested: tassa paccayaa, giving us "on account of this", "by reason
of this". Of course, in this case, tassa+paccayaa is reduced to
tad+paccayaa (the prefix is in the stem form), giving us tappaccayaa.

What do you think? Thanks.

metta,
Yong Peng

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Jim Anderson wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you taking 'tappaccayaa' to
be a compound word (correct) or two words (incorrect) each with its
own inflectional ending like for instance 'etamattha.m'? Note
that 'tadattha' is a compound word. The base form of the pronoun
is 'ta'. I don't know for sure if the added consonant was a 'd' when
it was assimilated to the 'p' of paccaya or if the doubling is due to
some other influence. I can't offer much more help as my knowledge is
limited.