Here is what I can think of the sentence you have given, "Ajaa etena
mayaa gantabba.m"
[Before going on, let me take this opportunity to ask Rett a question:
Rett, Did you get my reply (dated 2/9/2005) to your message (both offlist)?]
First of all, I think "Ajaa" is misspelt. Fortunately, I get the correct
version (I presume) from the next message, Pali Day by Day 2/17/2005
[D116], in which you have given "Ajja etena maggena mayaa gantabba.m"
Assuming that the latter is correct, I would try to analyze it using the
concepts and terminology of RG.
First, let's see the main verb, which is obviously "gantabba.m". It is a
Future Participle derived from *the root gam plus the suffix tabba*
Future Participles can be used with both Passive and Absolute voices
(See RG - 2). Either of them can be assumed here for the sake of further
analysis but let's begin with Passive voice since Absolute voice is
rather rare in Pali literature. Taken as a passive verb, it should be
literally translated, "should be gone (to)".
[Here we should note that the Pali root "gam", in contrast with the
English verbs "go, move, etc.", is of use as a transitive verb; its
object is usually the destination of one's movement]
As a Passive verb, "gantabba.m" needs an active object (RG - 2). Where
is it? Nowhere. The absence of the active object here is an illustration
of a very important concept in RG, so I think I should explain it only
at the final stage; I would ignore it now and go on to other words.
Now "mayaa"; it is a first person pronoun in instrumental singular. It
is the inactive subject of "gantabba.m". So:
mayaa ---> gantabba.m (ISV) [ See the Inactive Subject relation in RG - 9]
Trs: --- should be gone (to) by me ---
maggena ---> gantabba.m (IMP) [See the Implemental relation in RG - 9]
Trs: --- should be gone (to) by road
etena ---> maggena (IAD) [ See the Identical Adjective relation in RG - 15]
Trs: --- by (this) road
ajja ---> gantabba.m (LOV) [ See the Locus-Verb relation in RG - 12]
Trs: --- should be gone (to) today
When all words are combined, the translation would become:
". . . should be gone (to) by this road by me"
Here we should note that:
1. All other words except the main verb in the sentence are not
independent --- each of them must be somehow related to some other word.
2. When two words are correctly related, these two alone must make sense
irrespective of other words.
3. A note on "ajja". It is in fact an indeclinable but we in Burma view
indeclinables (nipaatas) as nouns with nominal cases invisible yet
inferable from the context. Here we rely on the sense of "ajja" to view
it as a noun with Locative case and to define its relation accordingly.
Now I would discuss the missing active object of "gantabba.m". In actual
Pali writing, such a word is omitted when the author feels certain that
it would be obvious from the context. If you are to translate such a
sentence, it would be your responsibility to find and give it in your
translation. Explicitly mentioning the words missing in the original
Pali is called the Principle of Text Insertion (paa.thasesa).
Suppose there have been two places mentioned in this context, namely,
Raajagaha and Naalandaa. Then the hidden active object must be Raajagaha
because it agrees with "gantabba.m" in gender, case and number (RG -1)
--- in this case, neutral gender, nominative case and singular number
(Naalandaa is improper here since it is of feminine gender and fails to
agree with Naalandaa). You see, the gender, etc., of "gantabba.m" are
clues to help you interpret the sentence.
Then the complete translation would become:
"Raajagaha should be gone to by this road by me"
I have strictly followed the style of Pali hence the unnatural form of
English in the tranlated version.However, after getting the exact
translation, you can polish it afterwards as much as you like.