On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

>
>
> Dear Mahinda,
>
> Not only does Aggava.msa give these three paccayas, but also Kaccaayana (Kc
>
> 433) and Moggallaana (Mg V 1-3) in their respective grammars. I don't think
>
> in these particular examples you can call them desideratives. If you look
> at
> the comparable Paa.ninian suutra 3: 1.5 there is no mention of the
> desiderative for jugupsate, titik.sate, & cikitsati with the suffix "san".
>

Verbs given in Panini 3.1.5 (and 3.1.6) are desiderative in form but have
(developed?) other meanings. Traditionally too it is so explained. This
does not negate the fact that Pali titikkha- and jiguccha- derive from
titiksa- (= ti-tij-sa) and jugupsa- in both of which the real �paccaya� is
�sa-. Pali grammarians do not acknowledge this. Instead they have enlarged
the list of �paccayas�, even going so far as to incorporate splinters of the
root in the �paccaya� (*kha* being from j+sa, *cha* from p+sa). Why? At
first I thought this was to save the student the trouble of going to another
language for the structure of a Pali word. But now I see an even more
formidable, ideological reason. A virtual roadblock. The Pali tradition has
it that Maagadhii (Pali language) is the �muulabhaasaa� ('root' or original
language) which the Buddha himself used. (Search CSCD under �muulabhaasaa�).
The very notion of derivation from an earlier linguistic stratum would then
be sacrilege.

Best wishes.

Mahinda

>
>
>
>

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