Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo, Yong Peng et al,

Probably shouldn't waste any more time on such a simple sentence! But
... :-)

> 11. Yo pa.thama.m aagaccheyya so pa.n.naakaara.m labheyya.
> He who would come first should receive the prize.

Perhaps this is technically correct, but it certainly still sounds
awkward or stilted to a native English speaker ... well at least to
this one!

> Who first should come, he the prize should receive.

This is indeed poetic and pretty, and if we were translating verse,
this would be a good choice.

The one who comes first should receive the prize.
Simple, clear, and also non-sexist (since we've now removed the "he"
altogether. I'll bet there are some women on this list who would like
to think that they could get there first and win the prize too!)

With metta to all,
John

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ven. Yuttadhammo" <buffer@...> wrote:
> Dear Yong Peng et al,
>
> > I agree that it may take two or more readings for someone to get the
> > meaning of the sentence. But, I don't think we should compromise and
> > simplify it. Besides, I think it is right in syntax. If only someone
> > can check up on English grammar. Furthermore, it correctly reflects
> > the moods in Pali. What we can do is to alter the first 'should'
> > into 'would', so that it reads:
> >
> > He who would come first should receive the prize.
>
> >> 11. Yo pa.thama.m aagaccheyya so pa.n.naakaara.m labheyya.
> >> He who should come first should receive the prize.
>
> Maybe the problem really comes from a change in the first place,
> putting "he" with "who", where it would maybe be better left where it
> was in the Pali:
>
> Who first should come, he the prize should receive.
>
> It's nice and poetic, and somewhat clearer in meaning.
>
> Suma"ngalaani,
>
> Yuttadhammo