Reply to Yong Peng as regards Absolute voice

Dear Yong Peng

There are things to be cleared up as regards Absolute voice. We check
the example sentence first.

First with the main verb "gantabba.m" It is a future participle
(potential participle or gerundive if you like) but what we should note is:

1.Future participles cannot be used in Active voice but only in Passive
and Absolute voices. It means we can have the subject only of inactive
type hence "mayaa" in Instrumental case.

2. Concerning future participles, the senses of propriety (arahattha) or
ability (sakkattha) are only extensions. The primary sense is still that
of Passive or Absolute voice. It means that it is up to the speaker or
author to choose between two voices. In other words, passive voice is
used to emphasize on the object while absolute voice would be chosen to
emphasize on the verb. We can't say that it must be absolute voice
because it is a future participle.

with metta

Ven. Pandita

>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.
>