Dear Ven. Pandita, Nina and friends,
this is interesting. Please correct me where I am wrong. We are
dealing heavily with linguistics here, hence unfamiliar terms like
absolute voice and inactive object/subject.
In English there are just two voices: passive and active.
[Subject: student]
The student writes a report. (Active)
A report is written by the student. (Passive)
In the first sentence, 'student' the subject is active. In the second
sentence, 'student' the subject is passive, 'report' the object is
active.
The potential participle is also known as gerundive. It denotes
something should be done or is fit to be done[1]. Hence, the subject
is inactive, and is always in the Instrumental case.
For example:
Future: I shall go. Aha.m gamissaama. - active
Potential participle: I should go. Mayaa gantabba.m. - inactive
When saying "I should go" in potential participle, it does not
mean "I shall go later", but "I have to go or it will be too late".
This is absolute voice, the emphasis is on the verb, not the subject,
and there is no object.
However, this distinction is not clear in English, hence the
confusion.
metta,
Yong Peng.
[1]
http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/latin/grammar/gerundive.htm
--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ven. Pandita wrote:
>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.