Dear Flobert, Alan, Ole, Rett, and group,


14. The monkeys will not fall from the tree.
kapayo/ na paatessanti / rukkhamhaa
Kapayo rukkhamhaa na paatessanti.

> Kapayo rukkhamhaa na patissanti.

Regarding Tr. Problem #3, I'm still trying to sort this one out. Warder writes (p.137): 'A bahubbiihi compound is always equivalent to a relative (subordinate) clause: "who has/was....". "which has/was....'. But this does not seem to fit Alan's passage:"iti kho, bhikkhave, avijjuupanisaa sa'nkhaaraa, sa'nkhaaruupanisa.m vi~n~naa.na.m, vi~n~naa.nuupanisa.m naamaruupa.m, naamaruupuupanisa.m sa.laayatana.m...." I don't see the relative clauses in this passage. One would have to extend the various parts, it seems to me, e.g., "avijjuupanisaa sa.mkhaaraa dukkhassa sa.mvattanti." Then have a relative clause, "Kammic formations which are ignorance-caused conduce to suffering." Perhaps in this case the first word is bahubbiihi (but why not tappurisa?). In other words, "avijjuupanisaa sa.mkhaaraa" seems a complete statement to me: "Kammic formations [are] ignorance-caused." In this, "Ignorance-caused" sounds to me like tappurisa 3 or 5 (instr.or ablative), "caused by/from ignorance." For example, if we say: rukkhapatitaa manusaa, this is T5 (Buddhadatta/49), "the men [are] fallen from the tree." Is not this grammatical form just like 'avijjuupanisaa sa'nkhaaraa'?
Of course, I am quite a novice at compounds, and am happy to be corrected on these and other interesting Paali points of grammar by those more expert than I.-- Rene




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]