>Dear Nina and friends,
>
>thanks, Nina. I have checked out Ven. Pandita's document, but don't
>think we are dealing much with Vuddhi in this case. It is rather Sandhi
>that results in 'yajjeta.m'. I agree with you about yajjeta.m. I am not
>sure of jj either.
>
>I am thinking if it is a misprint, and should be yajjeva.m instead, for
>two reasons:
>
>1. the sentence makes more sense:
>
>Raajaa tassaa katha.m asaddahanto yajjeva.m mocetumicchasi.
>king / her / word(s) / not believing / ??? / to release-wished
>
>2. we know that yajjeva.m = yadi y'eva.m
>
>What do you think?

Hi Yong Peng, Nina and folks,

I'd like to propose a reading. Expand the scope of the following sentence's 'iti' clause (the king's speech) to include everything from yajjeta.m onwards, and read icchasi as a 2nd person present tense, rather than a third person aorist (a form I'm not even sure exists). Read yajjetam as yadi eta.m. Then you get:

The king, not believing her words [said] "if you want to release him..."

And the quotation from the king continues in the next section with (your translation)

...may (you) give treasures having the value of it, and cause (him) to
be free."

This way you keep eta.m and don't have to presume a typo. Also, the suspected thief has been referred to as eso and eta.m in the immediately preceding sentence. The only problem is the punctuation in the Roman transcription. But that sort of thing is often wrong in editions. My version would 'punctuate' as follows:

raajaa tassaa katha.m asaddahanto "yajjeta.m mocetumicchasi, tassagghanaka.m dhana.m datvaa mu~ncaapehii"ti.

Just an idea. I haven't looked at it too closely and could be totally off. What's the source?

best regards,

/Rett