Dear Ole, Alan and friends,

thanks again, Ole. I did read all the mails for this thread before
writing. In your message, you stated that

1. 'karontassa' qualifies 'me'.
2. 'kilanto' qualifies 'kaayo'.
3. 'kamma.m' is in the accusative (case).
4. 'kamma.m' is dependent upon 'karontassa' syntactically.

All of each I agree. Even so, it doesn't mean "karontassa me" can't
be a genitive absolute construction. Can you show us why not, besides
it is less frequent than the locative absolute. Both are used when
there two agents in a single sentence.

Furthermore, I have questions about your last point: '...the present
participle sometimes is used to denote the action which is the cause
of the action of the main verb, in the present case kilanta "tired"'.

Can you explain:
Why 'kilanta' is the main verb? as I mentioned previously, the main
verb should be 'hoti' (which is implied). 'kilanta' is very much a
qualifier of 'kaaya' (point 2 above), which you agree.

Thank you.

metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ole Holten Pind wrote:

Now the participal genitive karontassa "doing" qualifies me that
syntactically is dependent on kaaya "my body", and my kaaya
became "tired" kilanta by doing the work. kamma is accusative
syntactically dependent upon karontassa qualifying me as doing
something viz. kamma. As I explained in my previous post the present
participle sometimes is used to denote the action which is the cause
of the action of the main verb, in the present case kilanta "tired".
That is the reason why I introduced by, cf. the use of French en with
present participles.