Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo and friends,

Bhante: thanks again. This sure is a hard one. I shall correct it as
follows:

"Puttaa m'atthi dhana.m m'atthi - Iti baalo vihaññati.
sons / I have / wealth / I have / thus / fool / perishes
'I have sons, I have wealth', the fool thus perishes.

I shall also include your comments in the footnote.

metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote:
> 13. "Puttaa m'atthi* dhana.m m'atthi - Iti baalo vihaññati.
> Sons have I, wealth have I; thus the fool perishes.
>
> * me-atthi: lit. to me have.

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.