Dear Florent,

> Could anybody help me with the following questions:

I'll have a shot at your two questions ...

> Is it ok in Pali to have "imissaa" not relating to any noun as in the
> following sentence. Doesn't it sound a bit rude, to write "the
> daughters of this one..."
>
> 3.Imissaa dhiitaro tamhaa vanamhaa imaani phalaani aahari.msu, aññaa
> naariyo taani khaaditu.m ga.nhi.msu.
> [of] this / daughters / [from] that / forest / these fruits / brought
> / other / women / them / to eat / took
> The daughters of this woman brought these fruits from that forest,
> other women took them to eat.

Yes, it seems OK to me. Obviously this is a sentence out of context
(as most artificial exercise questions are) and if it was a "real"
passage for translation, the object of "imassa" would have been
mentioned immediately prior. So, I don't think it's rude.

> I would also like to ask again the following question about the
> passive voice:
>
> I am now translating some sentences using the passive voice such as
> EX26 sentence 12 (p86):
>
> 12.The rice cooked by the slave woman is eaten by her son and brothers.
> odano / pakko / daasiyaa / bhuñjiiyati / tassaa / puttena / ca /
> bhaatarehi
> Daasiyaa pakko odano tassaa puttena bhaatarehi ca bhuñjiiyati.
>
> Since pakko is a past participle I turned back a few pages and found a
> very similar sentence in EX19 (p61) which I translated:
>
> 14.The rice given to them was eaten by the slaves and the beggars.
> odano / dinno / tesaana.m / bhutta.m / daasehi / ca / yaacakehi
> Tesaana.m dinno odano daasehi ca yaacakehi ca bhutto.
>
> Obviously this sentence is also in the passive but at that time this
> notion had not been introduced yet so I used the past participle
> bhutta. Is this translation correct? Should the "was" be translated as

Yes, that translation is correct. The past participle is often used
in a passive sense and auxiliary verbs like "was" ard "is" that are
necessary in English are not required in the Pali.

With metta,
John

>