Dear Yong Peng,
Thank you.
Op 21-jun-2009, om 15:08 heeft Ong Yong Peng het volgende geschreven:

> Sa`nkhepato pana duvidhaava naamapaccayo aakhyaatapaccayo caati.
> So, from the collection [given above], moreover, [is] the two-fold
> noun-suffix and verb-suffix.

------
N: I would translate sa`nkhepato: in short, in brief.

>
> Y.P.: Tatraapi aakhyaatapaccayaa duvidhaa
> vikara.napaccayanovikara.napaccayavasena.
> There, the verbal suffixes, two-fold too, [are] through the
> influence of vikara.na-suffix and non-vikara.na-suffix.

------
N: Meanwhile I forgot what vikara.na is, perhaps it was explained
already.
--------

>
> Y.P.: Tattha vikara.napaccayo akaar-aadi-sattarasa-vidho agga-hita-
> g-gaha.nena pannarasa-vidho ca.
> There, the vikara.na-suffix [is] seventeen-fold akaar-and-so-on,
> and fifteen-fold with the foremost useful taking.

-------
N: Is it possible to read aggahita as: a-gahita, not taken? From
ga.nhati.
-------

>
> Novikara.napaccayo pana kha cha saadi-neka-vidho.
> The non-vikara.na-suffix, however, kha, cha, sa-and-so-on [is] many-
> fold.
>
> Ye ruupa-nipphattiyaa upakaarakaa attha-visesassa jotakaa vaa
> ajotakaa vaa lopaniiyaa vaa alopaniiyaa vaa, te saddaa paccayaa.
> Those words, which [are] self-expanatory or not self-explanatory or
> suitable for elision or not suitable for elision, of a variety of
> meanings, from the effective endings of the form, are suffixes.
>
> * lopaniiya = lumpaniiya?

-------
N: I think both are correct. What should be elided.

>
> Y.P:Pa.ticca kaara.na.m ta.m ta.m, entiiti paccayaatha vaa;
> Because each and every action, the suffix now [is] "enti" or;
>
> Pa.ticca saddanipphatti, ito etiiti paccayaa.
> Because [of] the word-ending, now "eti" [is] the suffix.

-------
N: I am wondering whether it is said here that the 'n' is added
before the suffix ti. The suffix is eti.
Nina.



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