Re: Pali Word by Word 2003/51 [026]

> >
>>thanks. The PED refers atthika to attha, which can be gain, profit or
>>(sometimes) wealth. In this case, atthika will be profitable, good,
>>proper.
>
>Since Cone's dictionary supersedes the PED, I guess the PED is wrong
>about that, at least in the context of this particular passage.

To add to that. There is also a 'natthikavaada'. This only makes
sense if you break it up na-atthi-ika. 'Na' makes sense in the
context 'na atthi' (where atthi is a finite verb) but if the orginal
was attha (a noun), its negation in the compound would be
_an_atthikavaada, as per the usual negative prefix a-/an-.

So I think the existience of a term natthikavaada, supports (in
reverse) the interpretation that here the derivation is from atthi,
not attha.