> 13. "Puttaa m'atthi* dhana.m m'atthi - Iti baalo vihaññati.
> sons / have I / wealth / have I / thus / fool / perishes
> Sons have I, wealth have I; thus the fool perishes.
>
> * me-atthi: lit. to me have.

Dear Yong Peng,

I don't think that "me-atthi" lit. means "to me have", but rather "of
me there is". Again, this is the case of where Pali differs from
English. In English we say "I have sons." In Pali they say "There
are sons of me." (here "there is sons of me"). I don't understand why
"atthi" is still singular, when puttaa is clearly nominative plural
(i.e. the subject of the verb atthi). I think it must be idiomatic, I
suppose to fit with the meter. The strictly correct grammar should, I
think, be:

puttaa me santi, dhana.m m'atthi.

Another note, that this verse is taken from the Dhammapada v. 62.

kata~n~nutaaya,

Yuttadhammo