Dear Rett, Nina and friends,

you are right. Thanks for the explanation, Rett. I understand what
you have written but still cannot see how 'vissajjetvaa' is not
directly related to 'garahanti'. But, I will keep that in mind. If
you can provide further examples, please do so.

Anyway, let's keep to your line of reasoning for now. I would like to
use "having spent" for vissajjetvaa, and 'discredit' for garahanti.

"Tumhaaka.m daanagga.m anaathapi.n.diko vaa visaakhaa vaa aagataa"ti
pucchitvaa, "naagataa"ti vutte satasahassa.m vissajjetvaa
katadaanampi "ki.m daana.m naametan"ti garahanti.
your / [to] alms-hall / Anaathapi.n.dika / or / Visaakhaa / or /
come / having asked / not come / on being said / one hundred
thousand / having spent / done-offering-even / what / offerings /
indeed-this / blame
Having asked "Had Anaathapi.n.dika or Visaakhaa come to your alms-
hall?", on "(They) had not come" being said, (the monks) discredit
even the offering done by spending a hundred thousand, "What offering
is this indeed!".

What do you think?


metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, rett wrote:

> It is exactly people which I think satasahassa.m (one hundred
thousand) refers to. I don't think the monks are distributing money
just because they are upset with the food offered.

I think I see what might be causing the confusion. Were you thinking
of the rule that an absolutive has the same agent as the agent of the
main clause? And therefore you assumed that the agent of vissajjetvaa
must be the same as the monks who complain (garahanti)?

In this case, I believe it's not the monks who are the agent of
vissajjetvaa, but rather the doner (whoever that may be). This is
because the direct object of the sentence, 'katadaana.m', which is
the thing being complained about, includes a participle 'kata' which
is further qualified by a subordinate clause: 'satasahaassa.m
vissajjetvaa'.