On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

>
>
> Dear Mahinda,
>
> Thank you for your interpretation of 'mata.m' as a PPP which you also
> suggested in message #13355, Feb. 24. The problem I have with it is
> the need to insert "to be" (not found in the Pali) in order for the
> PPP to function grammatically.
>

Dear Jim,

But even in the example you quote "eva.m me suta.m", isn't the verb 'to be'
not implied, although it is not 'physically' there? Another common example
is kata.m kara.niiya.m :"done (is) what has to done".

Certainly, there can be different interpretations. I only indicated what
seems to me to be the more likely sense.

Sorry I forgot all about the earlier communication. Apologies - and regards.

Mahinda

>
>
>
>
>
>

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