Dear Nina
I have some comments again.
>thank you very much for the explanations. It will take me time to absorb direct and indirect subject and object. I will need many examples.
>
>>Bhaasiiyate is a verb derived from bhaas (the root) + ya (passive sign) + te (3rd pers. singular Present Tense ending) N: Looking at Warder, p. 51, I am confused: pahiiyati, the ending is in ti not in te.
>>
I think you know that there are two categories of verbal endings,
namely, Attanopada and Parassapada endings, for each tense and mood. In
actual usage, Attanopada is generally used for Passive and Absolute
voices while Parassapada, for Active voice.
In this case, the 3rd pers. sing. ending for Present tense is "ti" for
Parassapada, "te" for Attanopada. I can't say anything about Warder, but
you may check with other grammars, New Pali Course, for instance.
You said you would need many examples, so here is one. This is the
sentence of A'nguttara Nikaaya that you and Ven. Yuttadhammo have been
discussing at length. I haven't been able to follow all threads of your
discussion but I think it is a prime example because you have thoroughly
read and digested it.
Cha, bhikkhave, aanisa.mse sampassamaanena alameva bhikkhunaa
sabbadhammesu anodhi.m karitvaa anattasa~n~na.m upa.t.thaapetu.m.
[Com: anodhi'm karitvaati "ettakaava sa'nkhaaraa aniccaa, na ito pare"ti
eva'm siima'm mariyaada'm akatvaa]
The keystone of this sentence is "ala.m", an indeclinable meaning
"possible, fit, proper, etc." I have already said in one previous post
that indeclinables are viewed as nouns with invisible cases.
The key relation in this sentence is:
upa.t.thaapetu.m ---> ala.m (NIO/PUR) [Nominal Identity (Ordinary) and
Purposive relations. See RG - 16]
The translation would be: "(It) is possible to bring about. . . (for
PUR) / Bringing about is possible . . . ( for NIO)"
This is the most difficult part. If you can define the relation above,
the rest would be easy enough.
When dealing with such a long and complex sentence, it is generally
easier to go backwards. So:
anattasa~n~na.m --->. upa.t.thaapetu.m (IOV --- Inactive Object
relation. See RG - 7)
Tr.: "to bring about the perception of non-self"
Tr ( for all) "It is possible to bring about the perception of non-self
. . . (or) Bringing about the perception of non-self is possible . . ."
karitvaa ---> upa.t.thaapetu.m (ADV --- Adverbial relation. See RG - 16)
Tr.: "having made . . ., to bring about"
(It seems not to make sense, but it would become meaningful
when other words are added later)
anodhi.m ---> karitvaa (IOV --- Inactive Object relation. See RG - 7)
Tr.: "having made no distinction / having made no discrimination"
sabbadhammesu ---> karitvaa (LOV --- Locus-Verb relation. See RG - 12)
Tr.: "having made (no distinction / no discrimination) . . . among all
dhammas"
(AND)
sabbadhammesu ---> upa.t.thaapetu.m (LOV --- Locus-Verb relation. See RG
- 12)
Tr.: ". . . to bring about (the perception of non-self) on all dhammas"
[You may note here that 'sabbadhammesu' is related to two words. It can
be rather difficult to reflect such relationships in English translatiions]
When we sum up what we've finished, the translation would become:
"It is possible to bring about the perception of non-self on all
dhammas, having made no distinction(discrimination) among all dhammas
(i.e., among them)"
(OR)
"Having made no distinction(discrimination) among all dhammas, bringing
about the perception of non-self on all dhammas( i.e. on them) is
possible "
The remaining part is a Relative clause (RG - 19), which is governed by
the present participle "sampassamaanena". We would analyze it word by word:
bhikkhunaa ---> sampassamaanena (ASV - Active Subject relation. See RG 5
& 19)
bhikkhunaa ---> karitvaa / upa.t.thaapetu.m (ISV - Inactive Subject
relation. See RG - 9)
sampassamaanena ---> upa.t.thaapetu.m (DEF - Definitive relation. See RG 19)
Trs.: (As / While / When) the monk observes . . ., (it is possible)
for him to bring about . . .
(OR)
sampassamaanena ---> bhikkhunaa (IAD - Identical Adjective relation. See
RG -15)
bhikkhunaa ---> karitvaa / upa.t.thaapetu.m (ISV - Inactive Subject
relation. See RG - 9)
[bhikkhunaa ---> sampassamaanena (ASV)? NOT CORRECT!!! Relations must be
mono-directional only]
Trs.: (It is possible) for a monk who observes . . . to bring about . . .
Note: You would notice that "bhikkhunaa" has been translated as "for a
monk (for him)" even though it is the Inactive subject of "karitvaa" and
"upa.t.thaapetu.m". It is meant to circumvent the fact that English
syntax does not allow a subject in such a place (If it does, I don't
know it).
aanisa.mse ---> sampassamaanena (IOV - Inactive Object relation. See Rg - 7)
Trs. " observes the benefits . . ."
bhikkhave ---> ? (standalone Vocative. no relation required)
Trs. "O monks!"
cha ---> aanisa.mse (IAD - Identical Adjective relation. See RG - 15)
Trs. "six benefits"
Then the relative clause ("Cha, bhikkhave, aanisa.mse sampassamaanena
bhikkhunaa") can be translated as:
"O monks! When (While / As) a monk observes six benefits . . ."
(OR)
"O monks! A monk, who observes six benefits, . . ."
When we combine it with the main clause, the whole sentence would come
out in 4 versions:
1. "O monks! When (While / As) a monk observes six benefits, it is
possible for him to bring about the perception of non-self on all
dhammas, having made no distinction(discrimination) among all dhammas
(i.e., among them)"
2. "O monks! When (While / As) a monk observes six benefits, bringing
about the perception of non-self on all dhammas is possible for him,
having made no distinction(discrimination) among all dhammas (i.e.,
among them)"
3. "O monks! It is possible for a monk who observes six benefits to
bring about the perception of non-self on all dhammas, having made no
distinction(discrimination) among all dhammas (i.e., among them)"
4. "O monks! Bringing about the perception of non-self on all dhammas is
possible for a monk who observes six benefits, having made no
distinction(discrimination) among all dhammas (i.e., among them)"
Now you might be tempted to ask, "Which is the correct one?" My answer
would be that all are correct grammatically and syntactically. You
choice would have to depend on the context, on how you interpret it.
with metta
Ven. Pandita