Dear Alan and Yong Peng:

I am now confused. From what Alan said, the conjugation depends
on prefixes.(?) Should conjugation be considered of the based on
the word alone and not the root? Are there a lot of roots that
change conjugation when combined with different prefixes?

Best Regards,
jaran



--- Ong Yong Peng <yongpeng.ong@...> wrote:

> Dear Alan and friends,
>
> thanks, Alan. Warder's lists vi+muc as Conj. III. I think that
> is
> because (1) we have to ignore vi (a prefix), and (2) no nasal
> is
> inserted at the end of 'mu' (of muc).
>
> I will be posting a list of verbs with their stems and
> conjugational
> group. I hope you can help me to vet it if time permits.
> Thanks.
>
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng.
>
>
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Alan McClure wrote:
>
> vimutto [vi+muc II/pp/nom/sg] freed
>
> Though this seems tricky because the passive conjugation of
> "muc" is
> III (muccati) form with active being II (mu~ncati) form, so I
> guess
> we should stick with the II form in describing a past
> participle?
> I'm open to suggestions.
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs