Dear Rett,

I always very much appreciate the thoughtful questions you raise and
your analytical thinking on issues raised in this Pali forum.

Thank you.

With metta,
John

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, rett <rett@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >The use of the genitive in construction with ta-participles is
common in the
> >language of the Pali canon. This use is recorded as early as Vedic
Sanskrit.
> >I believe that the reason why the enclitic pronouns vo, me, no etc.
have
> >been considered instrumentals in Pali is because this syntactical
function
> >has not been recognised. Panini mentions it at A II.3:67. He also
records
> >the use of the genitive with so-called future participles at A
II.3:71 to
> >denote the agent. There are more than just a handful of such
examples in the
> >canon where one would expect the instrumental, like, for instance,
> >akara.niiyo Maarassa A IV 109: Maara is unable to attack him (viz. the
> >monk), Maara is also quoted saying: akara.niiyo mayham (sic). For
once the
> >pronoun is not enclitic.
> >
>
> Hi Ole and group,
>
> I was aware of genitives being optionally used with the future
passive participles (fpp), but it is fairly new to me that they are
used with past passive participles (ppp or -ta participle).
>
> I looked at A II 3:67 (and 68), but they seem to be restricted to a
couple of very specific instances, and evam me sutam wouldn't appear
to be covered by those rules. 67 is restricted to the sense of the
present tense, the example given being ( tr to pali) rañño puujito.
'worshiped by the king'.
>
> 68 is a bit cryptic (to me) but refers to expressing location. Ex
(tr. to pali) idam etesa.m sayitam. 'this is their sleeping (place?)'
>
> So my question would be whether the non-enlitic-pronominal cases in
the pali canon are all examples of these two rules, or whether there
are further usages of genitive with -ta that aren't noted by Panini.
The latter wouldn't surprise me, since there are obviously a number of
syntactic facts that weren't noted by the ancient grammarians. These
must have been learned by writers in a more natural way through their
reading.
>
> Finally I'd wonder what those further uses of the genitive with
ppp's are, since I doubt that it is simply optional and can be
substituted for the instrumental whenever one please.
>
> I'm just asking in case this has been studied and you know of some
of the results offhand. I'm not asking anyone to put their lives on
hold to study the question, though, as usual, if anyone comes across
examples in their reading I'd love to hear about them.
>
> best regards,
>
> /Rett
>