Ole Holten Pind wrote:

>Dear Alan,
> The main difficulty is how to construe the genitives of
>the first clause: sama.nassa gotamassa is syntactically dependent upon vutta
>of the compound vuttavaadino n. pl. qualifying the subject of the clause
>viz. mayam, which is also qualified by the present participle
>byaakaramaanaa:
>
>"How, moreover, shall we (assaama) propound (vaadino) what the ascetic
>Gotama has said (vutta), when we make statements about him (byaakaramaanaa),
>and not impute to him (abbhaacikkheyyaama) something false (abhuutena)
>(abbhaacikkhati is constructed with instr.)." The rest is syntactically
>unproblematic.
>
>Ole Pind
>
>

Dear Dr. Pind,

Thank you very much for your help. I believe that I understand what is
going on here now. I have included my gloss below, and after it a more
literal and then a more idiomatic translation. I hope that I have taken
all of your comments into consideration. Unfortunately, I think that
the last part which is "unproblematic" is giving me touble. Such is life.

Regarding the last part (which I have marked below), I am pretty sure
that I have the sense correct, but am not sure that I have translated it
100% correctly. Perhaps you,(or anyone else) might be able to verify if
it is indeed correct, or if I have somehow botched my translation attempt.

katha.m [inter adv] how
byaakaramaanaa [byaa+kar VI/ppres/nom/pl] while answering/explaining
pana [indec] moreover
maya.m [per pro/nom/1^st pl] we
vutta [vac I/pp] said
vaadino [adj/m/nom/pl] asserting
vuttavaadino [tappurisa] asserting what is said
ca [indec] and
(e)va [indec] indeed
sama.nassa [m-a/gen/sg] of the recluse
gotamassa [m-a/gen/sg] Gotama
assaama, [as I/opt/1^st pl] we should be


na [neg] not
ca [conj] and
sama.na.m [m-a/acc/sg]recluse
gotama.m [m-a/acc/sg]Gotama
abhuutena [adj/inst/sg] by something flase/ falsely
abbhaacikkheyyaama, [abhi+aa+cikkh I/opt/1^st pl] we would slander


dhammassa [m-a/gen/sg] of the Dhamma
ca [conj] and
anudhamma.m [n-a/acc/sg] full truth, essense
byaakareyyaama, [byaa+kar VI/opt/1^st pl] we should answer/explain

[THIS LAST PART IS WHAT I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH]

na [neg] not
ca [conj] and
ko ci [inter pro+indec/m/nom/sg] any one/someone
saha [indec] together
dhammiko [adj/m/nom/sg] lawful/just
sahadhammiko [kammadhaaraya] reasonable, justified
vaada [m-a] speech, talk
anuvaado [anu+vad I/ger] to be blamed, censurable, worthy of reproach
vaadaanupaato [tappurisa] worthy of reproach with speech
gaarayha.m [adj/n/acc/sg] contemptible/low
.thaana.m [n-a/acc /sg] condition
aagaccheyyaa''[aa+gam I/opt/3^rd sg] he may approach
gaarayha.m .thaana.m aagaccheyyaa = come to be blamed/deserve blame
ti? [indec/enc] end quote

Lit: How, moreover, should we be asserting what is said by the recluse
Gotama, while explaining [his teachings] so that we would not slander
him by falsehood; and how should we explain the Dhamma in all of its
parts so that not any one [of us] would deserve blame, or be worthy of
any justified reproach.


Idiomatic: How, moreover, should we assert what is said by the recluse
Gotama, when explaining [his teachings], so as not to slander him with
falsehoods; how should we explain the Dhamma in its fullness so that no
one [of us] could deserve blame or justifiably reproached.



With metta,

Alan