Mahinda,

Thanks for the interesting and details explanation, which is very helpful.
It's really
difficult to identify the word without its context.

When you say it is related to the Sanskrit form, it makes perfect sense.

Now I see why it is rare in the Canon (at least I could not find them in the
CSCD),
but only in the Comys.

With mudita,

Piya Tan

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM, mahipaliha <mahipal6@...> wrote:

> Piya Feb 10 says
>
>
> <Regarding citta-gu, it is similarly formed as paara,guu etc. I think
> <-GUU can mean either
> <(1) literally, "gone" as in Paara,guu (gone across), that is,
> crossed over
> <suffering, doubt, etc.
>
> Actually, citta-gu is not similarly formed as paara-gu. The meaning
> ('having spotted cows': cittaa gaavo yassa) makes that clear. To
> take it as so formed makes it hard to assign a meaning to the word.
> If we still doubt the meaning `having spotted cows' we can compare
> the identical compound (citra-gu, with the common phonological
> variation of tra for Pali tta) used in a Sanskrit text (Bhaagavata
> Puraa.na x.61.13 as the name of a son of Krishna), which is
> translated as `having bridled cows'. In any case, what reason is
> there to doubt the given meaning?
>
> One may ask, what then is �gu? It is obviously the unaccented or
> weak form of go. The word go and its derivative gava occur with
> extreme frequence in Indo-Aryan languages, reflecting the fact that
> cattle rearing was a favourite occupation of the early (self-styled)
> Aryans. It has always been explained as a word going back to Indo-
> European. Cognate words are Greek bous, Latin bovii (from which
> English `bovine') Armenian kov, German Kuh (compare English `cow'),
> Avestan gaaus etc. etc. Apparently the original IE word had an
> initial guttural-labial pronounciation, something like kw, of which
> Indo-Iranian/Indo-Aryan retained the guttural k/g element only,
> while some other languages retained the labial only. (This is of
> course a simple layman's explanation. showing my elementary grasp of
> a complex linguistic phenomenon.)
>
> When we understand the gradation au/o/u as the three levels of the
> same vowel, many problems of grammar in Pali and Sanskrit disappear.
> Vowel gradation (or ablaut) was of course known to ancient
> grammarians who used the terms gu.na (middle or normal grade) and
> v.rddhi (strong grade) in dealing with the phenomenon. They did not
> use a specific technical term for the weak grade, apparently
> assuming the so-called weak grade to be the normal grade. We have
> the strong grade vowel in the form gaavo (nom. pl.), the middle
> grade in gona.m (gen. pl.) and the weak grade in this form gu- This
> form of course occurs rarely, both in Sanskrit and Pali, whence
> probably the misunderstandings.
>
> Best wishes
> Mahipaliha
>
>
>



--
The Minding Centre
Blk 644 Bukit Batok Central #01-68 (2nd flr)
Singapore 650644
Website: dharmafarer.googlepages.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]