Dear Yong Peng, all,

Sorry to be a pain, but what do you think of:

pp: past participle
prp: present participle
potp: potential participle


I know it is the opposite of what you have suggested, but perhaps the order
would make more sense to the beginner?? This is the only reason I suggest
it. If you really prefer your abbreviation suggestions more, then I will
switch to using yours. Just let me know.

Metta,

Alan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ong Yong Peng" <yongpeng.ong@...>
To: <Pali@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 2:22 PM
Subject: [Pali] Re: Warder Exercises - [F008]


> Dear Alan and friends,
>
> I am proposing the following:
>
> pp: past participle
> ppr: present participle
> ppot: potential participle
>
> I find this rather easy to remember. But, I leave it to you to decide.
>
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng.
>
>
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Alan McClure wrote:
>
> Would you be opposed to prp instead since ppr could also mean (p)ast
> (p)a(r)ticiple as easily as it could mean (p)resent (p)a(r)ticiple?
> prp would more clearly be (pr)esent (p)articiple.
>
>> ppr: present participle
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
> [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
> [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
> Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
> Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or
> web only.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>