--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson_on@...>
wrote:

>
> 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
> >
>

Dear Jim and Piya,
Dear Jim and Piya.
Regarding citta-gu: There is no problem as to the meaning, the
constituent words or the type of samaasa. The only question is what
is the root and what is the ending (suffix). It was customary to
treat the root as cit- meaning to shine, appear bright, be
visible/perceptible (also perceive etc.). citra/citta then means,
(what is) bright, evident, noteworthy, whence a spot, spotted,
brindled. If this is right (it is disputed, as often happens in the
minefield of etymology), then –ra is the suffix. It is so treated by
grammarians/linguists like Thumb. Whitney, Macdonell, Burrows. The
latter in his work on the Sanskrit Language gives the following (and
several other) words as having this suffix: ugra,vajra, udra,
k.sudra, k.sipra, ajra, g.rdhra (whose Pali equivalents are ugga,
vajira, udda, khudda(ka), khippa, ajira, gijjha. As far as I am
concerned, this seems convincing and sufficient for understanding
the word and its formation. I do not see any other important
implications. It is much more difficult to connect the word to the
root ci. to gather.

Mahipaliha