Re: Kattaba and adisvaa

Dear Florent and group,

>
>
>I thought that kattabba was a Future Passive Participle but here it
>seems to be used as a noun.

FPPs can be used that way. It's typical of participles in general that they can stand alone as nouns.

añña.m kattabba.m adisvaa > "...not seeing anything else to do..."

>Since adisvaa is an absolutive I translated it by "not having seen".
>However Buddhadatta in a note p89 writes "not seeing" which to me
>looks more like a Present Active Participle and then should it not
>rather be (I am guessing) "apassantaa"?

Absolutives can also express action occurring simultaneously with the action of the main verb. Your alternative (substituting /apassantaa/) doesn't look wrong to me, though I can't say for sure if it would be idiomatic. Nice observation.

best regards,

/Everett Thiele

>
>
>I am having troubles with the following sentence:
>
>Corehi pahariiyamaanaa purisaa añña.m kattabba.m adisvaa a.tavi.m
>dhaavi.msu
>[by] thieves / being beaten / men / and / other / should be done / not
>having seen / [to] forest / ran
>
>which I translated by:
>
>Not having seen what else should be done, the men being beaten by the

thieves ran into the forest.