Dear Ven. Dhammanando and friends,

Bhante:

thanks for raising the point. Having checked with Exercise 8-A, do
you think I can translate the sentence as follows?

Faith arose in the king after hearing the Doctrine from the sage.
saddha.m / uppajji / narapatino / sutvaa / Dhamma.m / munismaa
Munismaa Dhamma.m sutvaa narapatino saddha.m uppajji.
Lit: To the king, faith arose after hearing the Doctrine from the
sage.

The sentence I referred to is:
Dhamma.m sutvaa gahapatiina.m Buddhe saddha.m uppajji.
Dhamma / having heard / to householders / in Buddha / faith / arose
Having heard the Dhamma, faith in the Buddha arised in the
householders.

The nominative is conveniently missing from the sentence. Is this a
proper construct in Pali? Please correct me if I am wrong.


metta,
Yong Peng

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Dhammanando Bhikkhu wrote:
> 15. Faith arose in the king after hearing the Doctrine from
> the sage.
> saddhaa / uppajji / narapatino / sutvaa / Dhamma.m /
> munismaa
> Munismaa Dhamma.m sutvaa saddhaa narapatino uppajji.
>
It is unclear in the translation whether it was faith or the king
that heard the Dhamma. (It is of course clear semantically, but the
syntax might yield either meaning). I suggest using the "so ...
tassa ... " formula to remove the ambiguity:

So narapati muninaa dhamma.m sutvaa,
he / the king / from the sage / the Doctrine / having heard
tassa saddhaa uppajji.
for him / faith / arose

The locative tasmi.m might replace tassa, but tassa is more usual.