Nina

Here are some more explanations and answers to your questions.

>N: Is the structure of Burmese similar to the structure of Pali?
>

No, Nina. Very different. Pali belongs to the Indo-European family while
Burmese, to Tibeto-Chinese(?). Burmese does have many Pali words
adopted under the influence of Buddhist culture; but the language
structure itself is different. Burmese is what some call an
"agglutinative" language whereas Pali is an inflectional language.
Burmese entirely lacks inflections such as declensions and conjugations
that Pali has. Moreover, word order is very important in Burmese syntax.

>What is the history of this Relational Grammar? Is it an old tradition? How is it related to the traditional grammars such as the Kaccayaana?
>
>

RG is a very old tradition. The most widely used authority of RG is
"Saasapchoyo:" a Burmese text of RG that appeared in 18th century.
However, its origins are much older; we can find its usage in
Ma.nisaarama~njuusaa .Tiikaa, an Abhidhamma commentary appearing in 15th
century Burma.

RG has two main sources: the chapter of Kaaraka in Kaccaayana and the
typical explanations of syntax in the commentarial literature. If you
search the phrase "*ti sambandho" (asterisk included) in the CSCD, you
would find many instances of word-to-word relations.

>I see that all notions you use are stemming from Pali, as indicated in the footnotes: vutta, avutta, etc. I have great trouble with the notions of acitive and inactive subjects and objects, since I do not know much about grammar.
>

Let's try to understand it by a simile. In a sentence, the main verb is
the "king". The active subject or object must be in strict agreement
with its verb, just like a minister in court who is forced to follow
every whim and desire of the king. On the other hand, an inactive
subject or object retains its own case and number regardless of the
verb, like the lord of a distant town who retains his own identity and
integrity away from the king.

>I have trouble with the ending: bhaasiiyate. I see that this ending is used
>many times in your examples.
>

Bhaasiiyate is a verb derived from bhaas (the root) + ya (passive sign)
+ te (3rd pers. singular Present Tense ending)

>Q. Nina: thus, the emphasis is on gantabba.m and on hantabba.m, on the verb,as I understand.
>

Yes, you're right.

>I still have trouble with inactive object, why inactive.
>
>

Check the verb gantabba.m first. Why is this verb of neutral gender and
singular number? There are two possible answers.
1. This sentence is in Passive voice, and there must be agreement
between the verb and the active object. The active object (not expressed
in this example) is of neutral gender and singular number so the verb
also follows suit.
2. Or this sentence is in Absolute voice, so the verb is in neutral
gender and singular (RG 2) Then both the subject and object would be
inactive.

Now think of nagara.m, the hypothetical object. It is of neutral gender,
singular number but of two possible cases, namely, nominative and
accusative. Of them, nominative would be for Passive voice while
accusative for Absolute.

>When I think how to apply the Relational Grammar, I do not know.
> [2] Com: asaadhaara.nenaati puthujjanehi asaadhaara.nena.
>N: Thai text: endowed with wisdom that is not common to ordinary people
>(putthujjanas, non-ariyans).
>

I would really like to explain, Nina. But this sentence is, in the level
of difficulty, similar to the one of Visuddhimagga Mahaa.tiikaa that you
presented in a previous post --- too difficult for many members who are
only beginners. Let's discuss such texts only after mastering the
ordinary prose with RG.

with metta

Ven. Pandita