In his discussion of the nominative case (Lesson 1, page 14) Warder observes that a noun
in the nominative may serve as an attribute of the subject.
(a) braahma.no mahaamatto hoti
'the priest is a minister'
(b) braahma.no mahaamatto passati
'the priest (who is) a minister sees'
Though it is true that in a sentence like (a), 'usually the "subject" stands first' (Introduction,
page 8) and in one like (b), 'the attribute usually follows the agent' (page 14), Pali word
order is flexible, and (a) could be 'the minister is a priest', and (b) 'the minister (who is) a
priest sees'. Moreover, since hoti can be an existential verb as well as a copula, (a) could
be 'there is a priest (who is) a minister' or 'there is a minister (who is) a priest'.
In his discussion of the accusative case (Lesson 2, page 17) he observes that a noun in the
accusative may serve as an attribute of an object.
(c) khattiyo braahma.na.m mahaamatta.m passati
'the warrior sees the priest (who is) a minister'
The attribute might also precede the object, so that (c) would be 'the warrior sees the
minister (who is) a priest'. There are also constructions with two accusative objects
(Lesson 3, page 21), as in (d).
(d) upaasaka.m braahma.na.m dhaareti
'he accepts the lay disciple as a priest'
which could also be 'he accepts the priest as a lay disciple', 'he remembers the lay disciple
(who is) a priest', or 'he remembers the priest (who is) a lay disciple'.
In examples like these, Pali grammar permits a certain amount of ambiguity. The meaning
of a sentence is not determined entirely by the grammar. The context in which the
sentence occurs or considerations of plausibility may rule out some of the grammatically
possible meanings. But the grammar of a sentence is fixed and observable; the context
may not be sufficient in every case, and plausibility is a subjective matter. What happens
in the world is not necessarily plausible.