>
>1. I translate devamanussaana.m as "of men and gods", rather than "of gods and men". This is because in Pali, the emphasis is on the last term. Or, rather the sequence is opposite to English. For example, candasuriya = sun and moon, rather than "moon and sun".
>
>
>
>

Dear Yong Peng, all,

I have thought about this rule based on reading about it in Warder.
However, is this always the case? Here is an example with comments below:

*katama~nca , bhikkhave, naamaruupa.m?*

And what, bhikkhus, is ‘mentality and materiality?

*vedanaa, sa~n~naa, cetanaa, phasso, manasikaaro – *

Experience, perception, intention, contact, attention;

*ida.m vuccati naama.m. *

This is called ‘mentality.

*cattaaro ca mahaabhuutaa, catunna~nca mahaabhuutaana.m upaadaayaruupa.m.*

lit: And the four great elements and the derived form of the four great
elements

And the four great elements and the derived material phenomena.

*ida.m vuccati ruupa.m. *

This is called ‘materiality.

*iti ida~nca naama.m, ida~nca ruupa.m. ida.m vuccati, bhikkhave,
naamaruupa.m.*

Thus, this ‘mentality’ and this ‘materiality’ together, are called,

bhikkhus, ‘mentality and materiality'

If we look at the compound 'naamaruupa.m' by itself, then we might be
tempted to say "materiality and mentality", "form and name" or "body and
mind," based on the rule of the emphasis being on the second component
of a two part noun. This is actually what I did at first. But then I
noticed that this issue of what "naama.m" means is taken up first in the
explanation afterwards. If we think in English, would we say regarding
something similar to a Dvanda?:

This is body and mind
and what is mind?
and what is body?

I don't think so. We might ask what "mind" is first if we are going to
pass over the issue of "body" altogether. But, if we are going to
explain both, then we would start with explaining "body" and then move
on to "mind." There is a certain logic to this order. In the above
passage, the Buddha first explains "mentality" and then moves on to
"materiality." This order would thus correspond to "mentality and
materiality" if the logic of the order in which to explain them is the
same as English, and then the compound would have to be "ruupanaama.m"
if we translated the last term as being the one of emphasis. This is
obviously not the case. One might argue that the logic of the order in
which to explain things in Pali is backwards from that of English.
However, I am not convinced. When speaking of lists, the Buddha always
seems to speak of them in the order which makes sense in English, and
not _backwards_. This being the case, it would seem to imply that the
word of primary emphasis would be explained first, and in the above case
would have to be "naama.m" or "materiality", even though it does have
the first place in the compound and not the second.

What do you all think? Am I misguided?

Metta,

Alan