On 12/31/08, gdbedell <gdbedell@...> wrote:

> Thanks to everyone who has commented on my translation of the introductory
> gaathaas:
>
> Ito para.m pavakkhaami, sotuuna.m mati-va.d.dhana.m;
> kriyaa-pada-kkama.m naama, vibhatt'-aadiini diipaya.m.
> But I don't understand how to interpret mati-va.d.dhana.m as a
> bahubbiihi compound (attributive in Collins' terminology):

We can take it as equivalent to "knowledge-enhancing" or "knowledge-enhancer"
(ya.m mati.m va.d.dhati, ta.m mativaa.d.dhana.m : "mati-va.d.dhana is
what enhances knowledge".)

> The
> real problem is how to construe sotuu.na.m mati-va.d.dhana.m. I agree
> it would be clearer if it were dative, but I think we can take it as what
> Collins calls 'adverbial accusative' (7. p. 22).

-which sounds plausible, though I am not sure.

> Mahinda Palihawadana suggested the following translation:
>
> I shall henceforth proclaim the order of the verb, which serves to enhance
> the understanding of those who hear (the Pali texts), explaining the
> case-endings etc.

> I have a few bones to pick with this as well. First, it seems to me that
> 'proclaim' is not really the right word.

Agreed.

> Second, I think we cannot translate vibhatti
> here as 'case-ending'.

Quite. Actually, it was an oversight on my part.

> Mahinda's version highlights three issues. The first has to do with sotuu.nam, which he
> renders as 'those who hear (the Pali texts)'.

-which would in this case mean 'learners' or 'students' as you now translate.

> The second issue has to do with sotuuna.m mati-
> va.d.dhana.m, which he renders as 'which serves to enhance the
> understanding of those who hear (the Pali texts)'. What is it which
> does this? My version has that it is A.'s teaching which has this effect.
> In Mahinda's version it is rather the content of the teaching, the
> 'order of the verb' which has this effect.

I won't be dogmatic about it. My 'feel' of the Pali language tells me
that although the verse says it is the content that enhances
understanding, what is implied in the context is that it is the
author's explication of this content that does this. So I do not
object to your interpretation.

>Again, I think Mahinda is
> probably right, but the Paali verse isn't explicit. And there is nothing
> in the Paali which corresponds to the relative pronoun 'which' or the
> verb 'serve'.

This is what the bahubbiihi samaasa does. It makes an adjective of a noun.

>The third issue has to do with kriyaa-pada-kkama.m
> naama, which he renders as 'the order of the verb'.

>My original version
> was 'the terminology of verbs'. It is appropriate because 'terminology' refers not
> just to a collection of terms, but to a system (kama.m) of terms.

I would now suggest that the appropriate translation is "the Verbal
System", without bringing in the idea of terms.

> I don't believe we can ignore naama on the grounds that kriyaa-pada-
> kkama.m is the name of the chapter (it isn't). I don't really understand
> the way naama is used here (notice that it is a bare noun stem, with no
> vibhatti),

It is an indeclinable in this context and can be translated as
'namely'. I think the construction is "kriyaapadakkama.m naama
sotuunaa.m mativa.d.dhana.m pavakkhaami". (I will describe the
enhancer of students' understanding -or knowledge-, namely the Verbal
System.)

> I now recount, to enhance the understanding of students,
> the terminology of verbs, explaining the endings, etc.

This is a satisfactory rendering, except for 'terminolgy'.

Mahinda