Dear Yong Peng,

I looked at this again, and re-read the section on attan in Warder
Chapter 22, and think you are quite right. If the alternative word
"saka" (also meaning "own") had been used in this sentence, then it
would take the accusative plural agreeing with "putte". But "attan"
should be in the genitive plural in this case, so I withdraw my
original suggestion.

Thank you.
With metta,
John

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ong Yong Peng" <yongpeng.ong@...> wrote:
> Dear John and friends,
>
> thanks for your recent reminder about this and a few subsequent
> posts. I must have missed them earlier. They all have been corrected
> except for the following.
>
> In this case, attan is used as a reflexive pronoun. And I think the
> word should be declined agreeing with tassa, hence attaana.m. Please
> correct me if I am wrong.
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng.
>
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly wrote:
>
> I was wondering about the following:
>
> > Exercise 17-B: Translate into Pali.
> >
> > 5. The ministers taking their own sons went to the palace to see
> > the king.
> > amaccaa / ga.nhantaa / (tassa) / attaana.m / putte / gami.msu /
> > paasaada.m / passitu.m / raajaana.m
> > Attaana.m putte ga.nhantaa amaccaa raajaana.m passitu.m
> > paasaada.m gami.msu.
>
> Shouldn't "attaana.m" be "attaano" instead - accusative plural to
> agree with "putte"?