Re: Pali Day by Day 3/25/2005 [D134] Relational Grammar.

Dear Ven Pandita,

I've been puzzling over the assertion you made in this post from a
couple of weeks ago, in particular where you say:

>From (2) we know that "iti" is understood after "sara.na.m". In other
> words, "sara.na.m" is an idiomatic representation of "sara.nanti". The
> word "sara.nanti" can be viewed as an indeclinable compound having the
> instrumental case and related to "gacchaami" in Adverbial (ADV)
> relation. But the word "sara.na.m" itself is of nominative case.
>
> Then the sentence can be translated as "That I rely on the Venerable
> Gotama as refuge".

My understanding is that "sara.nanti" is simply a sandhi by
assimilation of "sara.na.m" and "ti" (for "iti"). Thus sarana.m is
still accuative but is set in direct quotes, and not instrumental at
all. Also, I didn't comprehend your statement that "sara.nanti" can
be viewed as an indeclinable compound having the instrumental case.
By definition an indeclinable doesn't have any cases, is it not?

Seeking to understand, with respect,
John

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ven. Pandita" <ashinpan@...> wrote:
> Dear Nina
>
> You wrote:
>
> > Dear Yong Peng,
> > As Gunnar said, pi: also, I think.
> > But I would say: I go to the Buddha for refuge. Or: I take my refuge
> > in the Buddha.
> > We have two accusatives, and the Co (to the Khuddakapaa.tha) I quoted
> > talks at length about these. They say that gacchami does not take two
> > accusatives. I also find it difficult to apply here Relational
Grammar.
>
> It is in such a case that we have to rely on commentaries. I have
chosen
> a slightly different context here because the commentary is much
clearer
> than that of Khuddakapaa.tha and definitely a genuine work of
> Buddhaghosa. I won't claim that the explanation of Buddhaghosa is
> absolutely correct but, at least, we should know how he understood such
> a usage.
>
> esaaha.m bhavanta.m gotama.m sara.na.m gacchaami dhamma~nca
> bhikkhusa'ngha~nca. (Vin-3.6)
>
> We would go to the commentary first.
>
> 1. esaahanti eso aha.m. (Sp - 1.171) (= The phrase "esaaha.m" means
> "That I")
> 2. bhavanta.m gotama.m sara.na.m gacchaamiiti bhavanta.m gotama.m
> sara.nanti gacchaami. (ibid) (= The sentence "bhavanta.m gotama.m
> sara.na.m gacchaami" means " (I) rely on the Venerable Gotama as refuge)
>
> (1) is not so difficult to translate but we would miss the
commentator's
> real intent if we don't notice that he indicates by (1) the fact that
> "essaha.m" is a Sandhi combination of "eso" and "aha.m".
> >From (2) we know that "iti" is understood after "sara.na.m". In other
> words, "sara.na.m" is an idiomatic representation of "sara.nanti". The
> word "sara.nanti" can be viewed as an indeclinable compound having the
> instrumental case and related to "gacchaami" in Adverbial (ADV)
> relation. But the word "sara.na.m" itself is of nominative case.
>
> Then the sentence can be translated as "That I rely on the Venerable
> Gotama as refuge".
>
> with metta
>
> Ven. Pandita