Dear Rett,

Thank you for the explanation. It makes much more sense this way. I
got a bit confused because usually Buddhadatta indicates it this way
when the pronoun can be omitted:

My mother-in-law went to the city without (her) retinue and returned
with a sister.

With metta,

Florent

> >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
>