Dear Rett,
thank you very much. Very appropriate after the discussions on double
accusative.
See my notes below.
op 26-01-2005 22:54 schreef rett op rett@...:

> aja.m gaama.m nayati, Yaññadatta.m kambala.m
> yaacati braahmano, samiddha.m dhana.m bhikkhati,
> raajaana.m etad abravi icc aadisu ajaadayo
> kathitakamma.m naama, gaamaadayo akathitakamma.m
> naama.
> I believe that "'goat' and so on" refers to the
> first obect in each example, i.e. goat,
> Yaññadatta, the rich man, the king.
>
> Likewise "'village' and so on" would refer to the
> second object in each example, i.e. village,
> blanket, money, this.
>
> Do kathitakamma/akathitakamma correspond to
> vuttakamma/avuttakamma in Bhante Pandita's
> Relational Grammar doc ?

N: I also went to p. 4 of his grammar. Good topic for discussion. Here there
is the question of something that transforms into something else, if I
understood correctly. The novice is made a monk. The terms pakati and vikati
are brought in. It is not easy, but the examples help.

R: Further, "he leads the goat to the village";

> here the goat is the direct object / because of
> its greater desirability (icchitatarattaa) to be
> attained (pattum) through the action of leading
> (nayanakiriyaaya) which has a dual object
> (dvikammikaaya), 'village' however, because of
> the lack of exertion, is the indirect object,
> this method (applies) to the others as well.

N: icchita: asked for, expected. What do you think of this? Thus, what is
most obvious or to be expected. This seems to fit with your explanations. He
leads the goat, but not the village and this is obvious.
Nina.