Alan,

That is very insightful, and keeps the translation a "living" one, appreciable to the modern reader. Of course, this means the translator has to be on his toe, to be circumspect.

We can always improve on translations, though we are very much less likely to improve on the Pali texts.

Sadhu

Piya

--- Alan McClure <alanmcclure3@...> wrote:

>
>
> >
> >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
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Click here to rescue a little child from a life of poverty.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/rAWabB/gYnLAA/i1hLAA/b0VolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
> [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
> [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
> Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
> Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest
> or web only.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>