Dear Ole Holten Pind and Ttzungkuen Wen and all
How are you?
Ole Pind wrote:
"Kaccayana sutta 310 states that the genitive case is used in
the sense of the instrumental case."
Kaccayana sutta 310 states as follows:
310. Kamma kara.na nimittatthesu sattamii.
Sattamii is the locative case, not the genitive case.
However, Kaccayana sutta 308 states the following:
308. Cha.t.thii ca.
Tatiyaasattamiinam atthe ca kvaci cha.t.thiivibhatti hoti.
"In some cases, the genitive case occurs in the sense of the
instrumental case and locative case."
Best wishes,
Suan Lu Zaw
www.bodhiology.org
--- In
Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ole Holten Pind" <oleholtenpind@...>
wrote:
Dear Dr. Pind
Thanks very much for your clarification. Now I understand the point.
Does Kaccaayana-vyaakara.na, which you're editing now, has a rule
saying that
genitive case also denotes agent in a sentence?
Not exactly, but Kaccayana sutta 310 states that the genitive case
is used in
the sense of the instrumental case. This rule is based on the
assumption among
indigenous grammaians that a word in the instrumental case in
construction with
a ta-participle is used to denote the agent.
The idea that e.g. enclitic me or no are instrumentals is due to a
flawed
analysis of Pali usage.
By the way, when will you finish your work on Kaccaayana-
vyaakara.na,? I can't
wait to see it.
It is more or less finished. Hopefully, I shall see it published in
about 6
months.
With best wishes
Ole Pind
with metta
Tzung-Kuen
Ole Holten Pind <oleholtenpind@...> â¬î¹¢?說?æ
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra:
Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
Pali@yahoogroups.com] Pâ¬î¹¢?î¹¢ç
îegne
af Ttzungkuen Wen
Sendt: 20. september 2005 00:50
Til:
Pali@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: SV: SV: SV: [Pali] How to analyze 'Cirssuta' ?
Dear Dr. Pind
In your first reply, you takes 'no' in the sentence to be of
genetive case,
functioniing as an agent. Could we just explain it as an
instrumental case,
which also denotes an agent?
This I regard as not possible, although respectable grammars like
the one by
Geiger revised by Norman claim that no represents acc. instr. dat,
and gen.
However, in Sanskrit nas > pali no is never used as an enclitic form
of the
instrumental case, and we have no reason to believe that pali
differs from
Sanskrit in this particular respect. Besides it is very common to
find, in the
pali canon, genitive substantives constructed with ta-participles as
denoting
the agents of the verbal actions denoted by the participles.
Ole Pind
Cirassutaa no, aavuso aananda, bhagavato sammukhaa dhammii kathaa.
(M I 160)
with metta
Tzung-Kuen
Ole Holten Pind <oleholtenpind@...> â¬î¹¢?î¹¢é¤è¿?
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra:
Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
Pali@yahoogroups.com] P?vegne af
Ttzungkuen Wen
Sendt: 19. september 2005 07:52
Til:
Pali@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: SV: SV: [Pali] How to analyze 'Cirssuta' ?
I look for the example you gave, and find CSCD
reads 'cira.madi.t.thaa' not
'ciradi.t.thaa'
Does it mean anything important?
No. The CSCD records the Burmese reading as opposed to the Sinhalese
one.
Syntactically it makes no difference. It is possible, however, to
find
examples of compounds with cira.m, which merely indicates the
adverbial
status of the complement.
Best wishes,
Ole Pind