Hi – I’m slowly catching up again…

I’d like to suggest the following for 8-A-10: “The birds, having seen
the paddy in the fields, ate (it)” or “The birds saw the paddy in the
fields and ate (it)”.

It seems to me that “khettesu viihi.m” belong with the closer “disvaa”
rather than the farther “khaadi.msu” – although I believe both
translations are technically correct.

> 10. Saku.naa khettesu viihi.m disvaa khaadi.msu.
> birds / in fields / paddy / having seen / ate
> Having seen (it), the birds ate the paddy in the fields.

In 8-A-12, I translated “agaami” as “went” rather than “came”. Is there
some way to distinguish the two?

Also, “muni.m” should be “sage” rather than “jewel” (which would be
“ma.ni.m” I believe).

Here’s my translation: “Having eaten the food with the guests, the chief
went to see the sage.”

> 12. Adhipati atithiihi saddhi.m aahaara.m bhuñjitvaa muni.m
> passitu.m agaami.
> chief / with guests / food / having eaten / jewel /
> to see / came
> Having eaten the food with the guests, the chief came to
> see the jewel.

In 8-A-13, I believe “~naatino” should be “of the relative” (or “to the
relative”, but I don’t think that makes sense here).

So I think the translation should be “I lived for a long time in my
relative’s house.”

> 13. Aha.m mayha.m ñaatino ghare cira.m vasi.m.
> I / my / with relative / at home / for a long time / lived
> I lived at home with my relative for a long time.

In 8-A-14, I believe “a.t.thiihi” should be “by/with/from the bones”,
although I find this awkward to translate (several suggestions to
follow…).

Also, I translated “magge” as “in/on the road” – which I modified to
“down the road”. I think either is okay.

At any rate, this is what I came up with “The dogs, having taken the
bones, ran down the road” or “The dogs took the bones and ran down the
road.”

The problem with this is that I’m treating “bones” as accusative rather
than instrumental/ablative. Perhaps a more literal translation would
be: “The dogs with the bones, having taken (them), ran down the road” or
“The dogs with the bones took (them) and ran down the road” – or (using
“magge” as “to the roads”) “The dogs with the bones took (them) and ran
to the roads.”

> 14. Sunakhaa a.t.thiihi gahetvaa magge dhaavi.msu.
> dogs / from guests / having taken / (to) roads / ran
> The dogs seized from the guests and ran to the roads.

In 8-A-15, “arose” would be a better form than “arised”: “Having heard
the Dhamma, faith arose in the householders.”

Note: in the “Guide to Exercises” in the back of the book, “laymen” is
given instead of “householders” for two of the exercises. I like
“laymen” better, but it’s not the definition given in the vocabulary…

> 15. Dhamma.m sutvaa gahapatiina.m Buddhe saddha.m uppajji.
> Dhamma / having heard / to householders / in Buddha /
> faith / arised
> Having heard the Dhamma, faith in the Buddha arised in
> the householders.

Comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated.

Thanks.

Charles



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]