From: John Kelly
Message: 10058
Date: 2006-02-23
> As the suffixes clearly show in the Pali example below, only oneaction occurs in the
> future.I don't think the above statement is necessarily true. If I were to
>--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "abhinavagupta" <abhinavagupta@...> wrote:and the force of the
>
> Hello,
>
> With respect, may I point out that in John's example below the sense
> main verb (aanessanti) is being greatly weakened to the point ofbeing non-distinct from
> the gerunds.action occurs in the
>
> As the suffixes clearly show in the Pali example below, only one
> future.but was unable to see by
>
> Below are the links to the earlier discussions. I looked in these
> whose authority one may ascribe `futureness' to gerunds. So, if youwould share where
> this is coming from I'd greatly appreciate it.
>
> Thanks for your patience.
>
>
> > > 5.Addhaa te dhanuuni aadaaya vana.m pavisitvaa miga.m maaretvaa
> > > aanessanti.
> > > certainly / they / bows / having taken / forest / having entered /
> > > deer / having killed / will bring
> > > Having taken the bows, entered the forest and killed the deer, they
> > > certainly will bring it.
> >
> > Certainly they will take their bows, enter the forest, kill the deer,
> > and bring it back.
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/9544>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/9547>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/9556>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/9563>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/9566>
>