Dear Mahinda,

> In that case we shall have to construe the words of the stanza as:
>
> jinamate dhaatusaddo itthili'ngattane mato;
>
> satthe (dhaatusaddo) pulli'ngabhaavasmi.m (mato);
>
> kaccaayanamate (dhatusaddo) dvisu (li'ngesu) (mato).
>
> That is, we have to take 'mato' as implied at the end of the clauses
> beginning with 'satthe' and 'kaccaayanamate' - which is fine. When

so> taken,' itthilingattane' and 'pulli'ngabhaavasmi.m' become
parallel,
which > is also fine.

Great! That's exactly how I understand the wordng in the verse.

> The problem to be sorted out then is how to square this
> with the prose passage that follows. Let's see if we can do that
> satisfactorily.

The prose part that follows deals with gender anomalies of the word
'dhaatu' such as in 'gotamidhaatuuni' (Ap 542, Thii-a 156) in the
Canonical texts and their commentaries. This is in anticipation of
someone sooner or later noticing just such an anomaly and using that
to dispute the first line of the verse. The only word I find
problematic is 'jinamate' in both the verse and the prose part. It's
as if Aggava.msa is projectng words into the Buddha's mind. Other than
that, I think the verse is compatible with the prose part in the way I
understand it.

Jim