Dear Piya,

My understanding of the ancient grammars is still very limited. The
following is how I believe one of these grammars could explain it and
I could be wrong on some points.

Kacc-v 656 doesn't include CI in the list of roots it gives but the
list ends with 'iccevamaadiihi dhaatuuhi' leaving it open to include
other roots. This makes it possible to include the root CI. I don't
see any problem (at least not yet) in adding the suffix 'tra' to CI
according to this sutta but with 'ta' one would have to account for
the doubling of the /t/ in 'citta'. We can compare this with the
example of the derivation of 'sutta' from SU + ta where the doubling
has occurred.

Re: << and "tra" (instrument?), as in mantra? >>

The explanation at As 83 doesn't take citta (CI + ta) as an instrument
(kara.nasaadhana) but only as an agent or a patient. But note
that 'citta' from CIT + ta in Kacc-v 656 is shown as an instrument in
addition to its function as an agent. As 83 only has the latter.

I think 'cetiya' is a taddhita noun derived from either CI + ta (pp)
or CI + taa (fem. suff.) + the secondary suffix 'iya'. Some research
would be needed to be clearer on this, e.g., one would have to check
through the taddhitakappa to identify the correct sutta dealing
with 'iya'. Often, different suffixes can have the same form and get
confused.

In order to easily understand the meaning of the Buddhavacana one
mustn't be confused about the letters and the words. This is the main
reason for studying the ancient grammars.

Best wishes,
Jim

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Piya Tan" <dharmafarer@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> What about CI + tra? Where "ci" (to heap up) has to do with
> accumulating (from which we get cetiya (a pile heaped up; a
> shrine); and "tra" (instrument?), as in mantra?
>
> Does any ancient grammar explain it in this way?
>
> Metta,
>
> Piya
>