Dear Mahinda,

> > J: For the suffixes are of many kinds on account of (their)

occurences

> > in various ways in ?nouns, primary derivatives, compounds,

secondary

> > derivatives, and verbs.
> >

> > MP:I would prefer 'occuring' to 'occurences'.

I like 'occuring' better.

As for 'naamanaama' ,it

> > probabaly stands for "nouns that are names", i.e. what we call

common

> > nouns and proper nouns in English grammar.Indian grammaians seem

to have

> > regarded all words that take case-endings ( are declined) as nouns

and all

> > words that take personal endings (are conjugated) as verbs. By

the way,

> > there are a few comments on this in Collins' Pali Grammar, p.17.

I don't have Collins' book but I have since found an explanation of
"naamanaama" on pp. 879-80 (Smith's editon) in the 27th pariccheda on
word classes. Aggava.msa divides "naamanaama" into four subgroups:
saamuuhika (collective nouns), pacceka, vikappa, paa.tipakkhika
(antonyms?) with about two examples given for each.

I'm having a problem with introductory verse 9. Trying to decide on
whether the subject of "viditvaa" is "vi~n~nuu" (I'm leaning towards
this one) in paada d of verse 10 or "pariyattaabhiyuttaana.m" (gen.
pl.) on the same line as "viditva". I think "saddalakkha.na.m" should
probably be construed like "saddasattha" or "vyaakaara.na", i.e., a
system of grammar.

Jim