Dear Bhante,

>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 have noticed too that "atthi" is often used in the sense "there are"
as well as "there is". This is clearly idiomatic. Have you noticed
how a very similar idiom has now crept into the English language?
It's quite common now to hear many people, even educated ones, say
"there's lots of ...", etc., when more grammatically correct would be
"there're lots of ...".

Metta, John

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ven. Yuttadhammo" <buffer@...> wrote:
> > 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