Dear Bh. Nyanatusita,

I would like to correct what I wrote in my previous message:

> In "Juutan~ ca ta.m pamaada.t.thaanan~ caa ti
> juuti-pamaada.t.thaana.m", the commentary is describing a
> kammadhaarya compound. This is known from the "ta.m" in
> "juuta~nca ta.m". Juuta.m qualifies pamaada.t.thaana.m in the
> same way that suraa, meraya, and majja do. So it seems to
> me that your interpretation agrees with the commentary and
> that it is Walshe and Bodhi who have misinterpreted the
> compound.

Regarding my "Juuta.m qualifies pamaada.t.thaana.m in the same way
that suraa, meraya, and majja do", I'm probably mistaken in taking
"juuta.m" as the qualifier, I think it should be the other way around
i.e. "pamaada.t.thaana.m" is the qualifier (visesana.m). The
Saddaniiti grammar (III 749ff) divides the kammadhaaraya compound into
nine subtypes. I think the one that fits "juutappamaada.t.thaana.m"
the best is the "visesanuttarapado kammadhaarayo" where the last
member of the compound is the qualifier. Examples given in Sadd. are:
Saariputtatthero, Buddhaghosaacariyo, buddhavaro (buddho ca so varo
ca). In cases where the first member is the qualifier, the following
are given as examples: mahaapuriso (great person), niiluppala.m (blue
lotus).

Jim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com