Dear Yong Peng,

But what if I wanted to express "in the tank belonging to others"?
Would it be aññesa.m vaapiya.m? In this case does aññesa.m just stay a
pronoun and not become an adjective?

Regards,

Florent

> Dear Florent, Ole and friends,
>
> Florent, a~n~na is an adjective, so it follows the rule of
> adjectives, i.e. it is declined in case, gender and number of the
> succeeding word.
>
> In this case, the succeeding word is
>
> vaapiya.m - locative, feminine, singular: in/on/at the tank.
>
> Therefore, a~n~nissa.m should also be locative, feminine, singular:
> in/on/at the other.
>
> Hence, a~n~nissa.m vaapiya.m: in/on/at the other tank.
>
> Then, the next question is why a~n~nissa.m? I believe it is a typo,
> it should be a~n~nassa.m, unless (as you suggested) a~n~na can also
> be declined like ima. Otherwise, it should be corrected as
>
> a~n~nassa.m vaapiya.m: in/on/at the other tank
>
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng.
>
>
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, flrobert2000 wrote:
>
> > The reading is ok. vaapii (cf. Sanskrit vaapii) is feminine, and so
> is the loc. aññissa.m of añña: other, different.
>
> according to Buddhatdatta añña is declined as ya (p49) and the
> closest form I found in his declension table (and also in Pali
> Lookup) was aññesa.m and not aññisa.m. Hence my choice of a gen.
> plural which I rendered by "in the tank belonging to others". By
> looking again at the table I found the form aññassa.m/aññaaya.m for
> this pronoum in the feminine locative singular, but not aññissa.m.
> Always according to Buddhadatta, aññissa.m would be correct if it was
> similarly declined as the demonstrative pronoum ima.
>