Re: the usage of ya.m in AN 1.1.7

Dear Tzumgkuen,

It seems to me that 'ya.m' in this sentence agrees with 'ekasadda.m'. What
appears problematic here, as I see it, is why the text has "yatha-y-ida.m"
rather than "yathaa'ya.m". I wonder whether it can be explained thus: Though
'saddo' is formally masculine, it evokes the sense of a neuter word. A sound
after all is a 'thing'. Hence "yathaa ida.m". I would translate the
sentence literally as follows. "Monks, I do not perceive even one other
sound that (so) overwhelms the mind of a male as (does) this, (namely) the
voice of a woman." I do not know whether the grammar of such passages has
been commented upon by some authority in the past.

Mahinda

On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM, <tzungkuen@...> wrote:

> Dear friends
>
> According to A.K. Warder's grammar book, the relative pronoun should
> agree with the word it denotes in gender and number. If so why in the
> following sentence the relative pronoun is "ya.m" rather than "yo".
> Did ancient grammarians explain this before?
>
> Naahaṃ, bhikkhave, a~n~na.m ekasaddampi samanupassaami ya.m eva.m
> itthiyaa citta.m pariyaadaaya tit.t.hati yathayida.m, bhikkhave,
> purisasaddo.
>
> with much metta
>
> Tzungkuen
>
>


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