saddhim < (Re: Pali Day by Day 1/14/2005 [D093])

Hi Rett,

I don't know the answer to your question about what de Silva bases
her advice on.

I do agree with your proposed definition:
"the crucial definition of the usage of saddhi.m and saha would
actuallybe that they mark someone participating in the action of the
verb, doing it together with the agent."
There is a sense of "accompaniment" with the use of these words.

Rett, I very much appreciate the clarity of thought and precision
you bring to your posts. It is a gift to all of us! :-) Thank you.

I also enjoyed your two "fanciful" examples, and concur with your
conclusions. In the latter case, if the meaning was turned around
to be, "The boulder, together with the wall of mud, crushed the
hut", then perhaps "saddhi.m" would be used?

With metta, John

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, rett <rett@...> wrote:
> Hi John and group,
>
> >
> >On page 8 of Lily de Silva's Pali Primer, she
states: "Saddhi.m/saha
> >meaning 'with' is also used with the instrumental case. They are
> >not normally used with the nouns denoting things."
>
> Thanks, that's very helpful. Do you know if that advice is traced
to
> any of the traditional grammatical literature? Or is it a well-
known
> observation?
>
> To try to test this further with a somewhat fanciful example, I
> wonder what how it would work if the sentence was spoken by a
> man-eating ogre wanting to say: I'm eating Devadatta with Kappa.ta.
>
> I think here you probably still can't use saddhim to describe a
> composite 'meal' even though the components are people instead of
> things. Saying aha.m devadatta.m kappa.tena saddhi.m khadaami,
would
> mean I, together with kappa.ta, eat devadatta. If so then perhaps
the
> crucial definition of the usage of saddhi.m and saha would
actually
> be that they mark someone participating in the action of the verb,
> doing it together with the agent.
>
> So to take another fanciful example, in a fable from the 'land of
> rocks' you could use saddhi.m in sentences like 'the boulder went
to
> town with the pebble'. Of course here the normally inanimate rocks
> are just borrowing linguistic functions restricted to animate
> objects because of the fictional context. But suppose you had the
> following: "The boulder crushed the hut together with the wall of
> mud". Here you have a non-animate agent of the sentence, and the
> verbal action is non-intentional. Would saddhi.m be appropriate
here?
> My feeling is no, and you would just have to render it as 'the
> boulder AND the wall of mud'. This even sounds better in English.
>
> Perhaps the English 'I eat/drink A with B' could be simply be
> rendered into Pali along the lines of 'I eat/drink A and B'? Aha.m
> yaagu.m madhuna.m ca pibaami.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> /Rett