Dear Yong Peng, Nina, and frineds,

I have followed with interest the recent messages on
the ambiguity of the meaning of the gerund in certain
situations.

YP> 12. Udaka.m otaritvaa vatthaani dhovitu.m rajako
putta.m pakkosati.
YP> The washerman calls (his) son to descend into the
YP> water and wash clothes.
N> I am somewhat puzzled. Can it be: After the
N>washerman has descended into
N>the water to wash the clothes he calls his son. ?
YP> 13. Tathaagata.m passitvaa vanditu.m upaasako
YP> vihaara.m pavisati.
YP> The lay devotee enters the monastery to see and
YP> pay respect to the Buddha.
N>: Can it be : After the lay devotee has seen the
N> Buddha, he enters the monastery to pay respect to
N> him.
N> What do you think?

J: I struggled with this a lot when I first went
through the Pali Primer, but I eventually concluded
from de Silva's answers, and now confirmed by other
examples I have seen in other places, that the gerund
generally is a subordinate clause to the verb that
follows it most closely, and is used for describing a
sequence of actions - the action indicated by the
gerund followed by the action of the verb following
it.

So, in #12 above: otaritvaa is followed by dhovitum,
so going down into the water and washing are the
linked actions in this case. Thus, I agree with YP's
answer.
Similarly, in #13: passitva is followed by vanditu.m,
hence seeing and paying respect are the linked
actions. And again, YP's answer would be preferred
over the alternative offered by Nina.

If anyone has any information that indicates I'm way
off-track here, I'd love to hear it. This is a most
interesting aspect of the Pali language.

Metta,
John


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com