Dear Alan, Yong Peng, and all,

YP said:

> >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".

Alan said:

> 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:

I agree with you here, Alan. Note, Yong Peng, that the above is not a
"rule" at all, it is just something to keep in mind when translating
as being sometimes the case. Quoting from the section on Dvanda
compounds in Warder, p.97: "The more important or leading object, if
any, sometimes occupies the second position, which is normally the
dominant position in Pali (cf. the tappurisa compound). In English
the order may then be reversed." Notice here the key words "if any",
"sometimes", "normally", and "may".

Thus when translating one should use one's common sense and make the
rendering fit the idiom of the language one is translating too. For
me, "gods and humans" sounds a lot more natural in English (probably
because of the higher status of gods). Similarly, as Alan points out,
"mentality-materiality", "mind and matter" or similar are more natural
translations of naamaruupa, especially given the order of analysis
following in the sutta.

With metta to all,
John

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, 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
>