Dear Peter,

I see the problem that you are referring to, and it is indeed
confusing for those new to Pali.

In English we can use the conjunction "and" to link nouns (and noun
phrases) and also to link verbs and verbal phrases. E.g.
(1) I ate an apple and an orange - two nouns linked with "and".
(2) I ate an apple and went home - two verbal phrases linked with "and".
In Pali one could use "ca" for the first example, but generally "ca"
is not used for linking verbs or verb phrases. In example (2) the
Pali would be constructed with an absolutive, such that it appears as
follows:
Having eaten an apple I went home.

Thus in two of the examples you mention:
14. Khettaṃ kasituṃ kassako kuddālaṃ ādāya gehā nikkhamati.
To plough the field, the farmer takes the hoe and leaves the house.

This could also have been translated as:
The farmer, having taken the hoe to plough the field, leaves the house.

16. Narā gāmamhā nikkhamitvā nagare vasituṃ icchanti.
The men wish to leave the village and live in the city.
Literally:
The men wish, having left the village to live in city.
Or:
The men wish to live in the city after leaving the village.

This use of the absolutive for connecting verb phrases is extremely
common in the Pali suttas. E.g. note the stock phrase:
Atha kho bhagavā pubbaṇhasamayaṃ nivāsetvā pattacīvaram ādāya
sāvatthiṃ piṇḍāya pāvisi.
Often translated:
Then, when it was morning, the Blessed One dressed, and taking his
bowl and outer robe, went into Savatthi for alms.

Note the two absolutives "nivasetvaa" (having dressed) and "aadaaya"
(having taken) preceding the main verb "paavisi" (he entered).
In English, there is some flexibility in translating this:
... having dressed, having taken his bowl and robe, he entered ...
... (he) dressed, took his bowl and robe, and entered ...
Thus the translator can choose what seems most fluent in English,
rather the the more stilted "having this, having that" construction.

Hope this makes sense.
Metta,
John

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Peter,
> this lesson deals witgh the infinitive, in order to... But what is
> your problem?
>
> You wrote before; the past participle (absolutive) is sometimes
> translated
> >> in the present tense (e.g., Q. 14, 25, etc.) and sometimes as an
> >> infinitive (e.g., Q. 16, 22, etc.). Yet the word-by-word translation
> >> renders it in the past.,
> I do not find the Q. you are referring to.
>
> Nina.
> Op 20-jan-2009, om 1:02 heeft Peter Bowen het volgende geschreven:
>
> > Here is the link for the answers to which I refer:
> >
> > http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/pali.php?palidd=a10&code=unicode
> >
> > Any help that you (or others) could give me as I try to learn Pali
> > would be much appreciated.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>