>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?

I think that's basically right. Interestingly, Burlingame is way off here in his translation (Harvard Oriental Series). He must have misread daanagga as daanaggha, and not paid much attention to the following context. (That said, Burlingame is still very helpful as an aid in reading Dhp-a, and his English style is pleasant to read).

I'll keep an eye out for another example of this sort of construction, and post it if/when I find one.

best regards,

/Rett