Dear George, John and Ole,

thanks very much for the useful explanations. Giving the context is
extremely helpful, and I am totally supportive of Pali exercises on
sentences directly from the original texts.

In the first sentence/phrase: di.t.thaa bho satta jiivasi, I was
caught by "bho satta". By pointing out the context, George helped to
ease the effort in understanding. 'di.t.thaa' here, again as George
pointed out, is an indeclinable interjection. Hence, the phrase in
English is: How wonderful, O honourable being, (you) live.

For the second sentence/phrase: jaya.m vera.m pasavati, I was caught
by 'jaya.m', which as George pointed out, may have been potentially
mistranslated as 'victory'. While I had gone through the lesson, it
slipped my mind that Warder had just introduced present participle in
this very lesson. I knew it cannot be a noun, as George has explained.
After Gunnar pointed out that the printing is correct, I checked with
Alan McClure's answers, and realised that 'jaya.m' is a present
participle, hence: (He), who is conquering, produces hatred.

Alan had done a great job with the grammatical analysis of Warder's
exercises. He stopped at Exercise 11. Unfortunately, Alan is currently
pursuing other interests, and is not able to work on the remaining
exercises.

metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, gdbedell wrote:

However, Warder doesn't give us any context for these snippets, which
may be why Yong Peng was puzzled.

Also I can't agree that context is everything. Take the other snippet
that puzzled him:

jaya.m vera.m pasavati

There is a noun stem jaya- meaning 'winning, victory', but jaya.m
cannot be that noun because it is masculine and would be jayo in the
nominative singular. Thus he suggested there might be a misprint
here. As pointed out by Gunnar, this snippet occurs in Dhammapada 201:

jaya.m vera.m pasavati dukkha.m seti paraajito
upasanto sukha.m seti hitvaa jayaparaajaya.m

I found eight online translations of this: six of them render jaya.m
as 'winning' or 'victory', so Yong Peng is not alone. Presumably
context is responsible for the misunderstanding or disregard of what
the Pali words say. The other two render it as 'winner' or 'victor'.
This is perhaps better (since it refers to a person rather than an
action), but still makes no grammatical sense. If jaya.m is taken as
a present participle (stem jayant-) then we can understand it as
nominative, but it must be an attribute of a covert pronoun, and
translated as 'winning, he generates hatred'. It is not very clear in
this case that the winning and the generating must be simultaneous.