> 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.

Hi Yong Peng and Group,

I managed to find an (indisputable) example where an absolutive has a different agent than the agent of the sentence's main verb. Again, this happens in a complex sentence with a subordinate clause. The example is below.

Two interesting observations can be made about this construction.

1) By splitting two words that belong together grammatically, and putting them at the beginning and end of the subordinated clause respectively, the author effectively puts the clause in parentheses. If this is systematically used it would be a neat feature of Pali prose style. It's worth keeping an eye out for. See the example below.

2) This amounts to an exception (or rather further definition) of the rule that absolutives have the same agent as the agent of a sentence's main verb. A subordinate clause with a participle can use absolutives to qualify that participle. Again, if this is unclear, it should become clear through the example below.

From the Dhammapada-a.t.thakathaa, story 130 Mahaakaa.la-upaasakavatthu
(PTS III, 149)

Here's the relevant passage, which I will then run through bit by bit, so that hopefully even beginners will be able to follow it without it taking too much time.

The context is that one evening some thieves broke into a house but were discovered and fled. They tossed bags of stolen goods here and there (presumably to hold up the pursuers and lighten their load). That same evening a layperson (upaasaka) by the name of Mahaakaa.la had spent the whole night at the temple listening to a Dhamma-talk.

eko pana vihaaramagga.m gahetvaa Mahaakaa.lassa ratti.m dhammakatha.m sutvaa paato va pokkhara.nitiire mukha.m dhovantassa purato bha.n.dika.m cha.d.detvaa palaayi.

"One [thief], however, having taken the road leading to the temple, threw a bundle [of stolen goods] in front of Mahaakaa.la who was washing his face on the bank of a lotus pond early in the morning, after listening to Dhamma-talk during the night."

Let's look at the kernal first:

Eko bha.n.dika.m cha.d.detvaa palaayi.

"One (of them), having discarded a bundle (of stolen goods), fled".


In answer to the question 'where did he discard the bundle' the answer is 'in front of M': mahaakaa.lassa purato.

Eko - mahaakaa.lassa purato - bha.n.dika.m cha.d.detvaa - palaayi.

"One, having discarded a bundle in front of M, fled."


Now we can expand the sentence by describing what M. was doing at the time:

Mahaakaa.lassa mukha.m dhovantassa purato

"in front of Mahaakaa.la (who was) washing his face"

Now we have a participle, dhovantassa, 'washing' which describes M. This participle introduces a new verbal action and can be further qualified by expressions telling when, why, how he was washing his face and so on. As it is the sentence tells us that he was 'washing his face on the bank (tiire) of a lotus pond (pokkhara.ni) early in the morning (paato va) after listening (sutvaa) to Dhamma-talk (dhammakathaa) during the night (ratti.m)'

Mahaakaa.lassa ratti.m dhammakatha.m sutvaa paato va pokkhara.nitiire mukha.m dhovantassa purato

Notice in the above how the words _mahaakaa.lassa_ and _dhovantassa_, which go together grammatically, are split, and mark the beginning and end of the clause. I think this helps the reader pick out the subordinated clause, and isn't just a liberty with word order. It actually follows the normal SOV sentence order, except that the 'verb' is in participle form: Subject-object-'verb': mahaakaa.lassa(S) ... mukha.m(O) dhovantassa(V). An entire sentence has been 'participlized' so to speak, to fit into an adverbial clause explaining where the thief threw the bundle.

So the whole sentence can be divided into two 'zones' governed by two verbs. Each 'zone' has its own agent. In the following, everything inside brackets [] is the zone, or clause where M is the agent and the verbal action is 'washing'. Everything outside the brackets is the clause where 'Eko', the one thief, is the agent and fleeing is the main action:

eko pana vihaaramagga.m gahetvaa [Mahaakaa.lassa ratti.m dhammakatha.m sutvaa paato va pokkhara.nitiire mukha.m dhovantassa purato] bha.n.dika.m cha.d.detvaa palaayi.

In the above the absolutives _gahetvaa_ and _cha.d.detvaa_ have the one (eko) thief as their agent, and lead up to the verb _palaayi_.

The absolutive _sutvaa_ has Mahaakaa.la as its agent and leads up to the particple _dhovantassa_.


I hope that this example clarifies what I meant, and that you find it convincing and applicable to our previous discussion of vissajjetvaa.

best regards,

/Rett