Dear Florent and group,

>
>I wonder if I did not make a mistake in the following sentence and if
>it should not be tassaa instead of taaya?
>
>7.My mother-in-law went to the city without her retinue and returned
>with a sister.
>mayha.m / sassu / gantvaa / nagara.m / vinaa / taaya / parisaaya /
>paccaagami / saddhi.m / bhaginiyaa
>Mayha.m sassu taaya parisaaya vinaa nagara.m gantvaa bhaginiyaa
>saddhi.m paccaagami.

You are right that /vinaa/ takes instrumental (or ablative) but I don't think you need a pronoun there at all. Just /parisaaya/ by itself is enough. The word 'her' in the English should be left untranslated, and even if you want to include the idea, it can't be translated with /tassaa/ if it is referring to the mother in law's retinue. You would have to use /attano/ in that case.

Compare:

He raised his (own) son:

So attano sutam posi.

NOT: So tassa suta.m posi. This says that he raised someone else's (tassa) son.

This applies in all genders in the third person.

Note that: Aha.m mayha.m suta.m posi | is okay. The restriction only applies to the third person.

best regards,

/Rett