Dear Charles, Rett, Gunnar, Timothy, Lothar and friends,

thanks. The corrections are as follow:

3. Rev. Sir, I should like to ask a question from you.
bhante / aha.m / iccheyyaami / pucchitu.m / pañha.m / tvayaa
Bhante, aha.m tvayaa pañha.m pucchitu.m iccheyyaami.
Alt: Bhante, aha.m ta.m pañha.m pucchitu.m iccheyyaami.

4. Well, you should not be angry with me thus.
saadhu / tva.m / na kujjheyyaasi / mayi / eva.m
Saadhu, eva.m mayi (tva.m) na kujjheyyaasi.

5. I shall not go to see your friend until I receive a letter
from you.
aha.m / na gaccheyyaami / passitu.m / te / mitta.m /
yaava…taava / aha.m / labheyyaami / lekhana.m / tayaa
Yaava tayaa lekhana.m labheyyaami taava aha.m te mitta.m
passitu.m na gaccheyyaami.
Alt: Yaava tava lekhana.m labheyyaami taava aha.m te mitta.m
passitu.m na gaccheyyaami.


metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, rett wrote:

However according to Speijer's _Sanskrit Syntax_ (section 47), it's
common, for example, to use ablative or genitive of the person
adressed in verbs of asking, and in verbs of teaching it's also
possible to use locative of the thing taught. So the ablative in the
original example was probably okay (assuming Pali follows Sanskrit
usage there).

The examples from English are only ways to explain the concept, not
attempts to formally describe the structure of English. The important
point is that Pali does allow double accusatives with certain verbs,
and 'pucchati' is one of them. (again, assuming Pali follows the
Sanskrit usage).