Dear Yong Peng and Ven. Yuttadhammo,

I think I've solved the riddle of #8!
The Narada text that I have has "likhita.m" not "likhitu.m". The
former is the past participle (written) not infinitive (to write).
Thus the sentence can be meaningfully translated as:
"Let the ministers see this letter written by the king."

Metta, John

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ong Yong Peng" <yongpeng.ong@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo and friends,
>
> Bhante: thanks for your confirmation and Duroiselle's note on the
> niggahita. I was wondering why the actual text doesn't tally with its
> footnote. I will make the changes and include Duroiselle's note.
>
> As for sentence #8, I only understand it as much as you do. Ven.
> Narada might be thinking of something like that when he penned it.
> Unless you have other suggestions in mind, I will add "(in order)" in
> the third line.
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng.
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote:
>
> > 8. Raññaa likhitu.m* ida.m lekhana.m amaccaa passantu!
> > May the ministers see this letter from the king to write!
>
> I don't understand this sentence... Does it mean:
>
> "(in order) to write, may the ministers see this letter from the
> king!"