Dear Yong Peng, Mahinda, and Nina,

<< thank you for the interesting discussion on the non-vikara.na suffix. It
is noteworthy to know the Pali grammarians creatively added a new category
of suffixes which help their students in understanding Pali verbs without
additional labour on Sanskrit. However, to make up any excuse, worse if it's
an ideological one, to deny the further study of the subject, is
unacceptable and also unthinkable. Even so, this is interesting to me. As an
amateur sociologist, I am interested in the study of extreme ideas,
especially political and religious ideologies, and their effects on various
functions of society. >>

J:
In considering the two kinds of verbal suffixes (vikara.na and novikara.na)
as stated by Aggava.msa, I would think that the category "novikara.na" is a
catch-all to include the remaining verbal suffixes, excluding the 17
vikara.na ones. So it seems that we might include among the novikara.na
suffixes the tense-suffixes (tyaadivibhattis -- the 96 beginning with the
3rd person sing,, present tense vibhatti suffix "ti"). I think translating
"paccaya" as "suffix" is fine. "affix" is another possibility but it is not
as familiar as "suffix" to most. In the traditional grammar we will see that
original suffixes are often replaced by substitutes (aadesas) and I wonder
if these substitutes can be called suffixes as well. We would also have to
find out if the term "aagamas" (inserted letters or augments) might be
considered as "paccayas". E.g., is the aagama "i" in "bhaasita.m" also a
suffix?

<< I have referred to Warder's Lesson 30 for the discussion of desiderative
verbs. I note that in Charles Duroiselle's grammar §505, the author
mentions -sa- to be the characteristic suffix for similar conjugation, very
much as Mahinda has explained. However, in Ven. Buddhadatta's NPC3 Chapter
3, which we have just completed in another thread, he describes desiderative
conjugation much similar to what we see here in Saddaniti. I believe it may
all be a matter of preference, the choice of following the Pali or the
Sanskrit tradition.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/13640

I pick up the term "conjugational suffix" in Warder's as I browse through
it. I think the term definitely refers to vikara.na, but not sure if it
should also include novikara.na. The verb vikaroti, as Nina already noted,
means change or alter. So, vikara.na literally means modifier. But, we have
to proceed with Saddaniiti to arrive at a suitable English equivalent which
makes sense in its grammatical context.

In Appendix 1 of his grammar, Steven Collins has novikara.na-paccaya simply
as verbal suffix, which is not helpful in our discussion. >>

J:
I think you're right in taking "vikara.na" as meaning modifier. But that
seems to be the case with all suffixes in general. Maybe it is better to
leave the term "vikara.na" untranslated. With a translation like
"conjugational suffix", we're still left in doubt as to whether it includes
any or all of the novikara.na suffixes.

I'd like to bring attention to an interesting fact I recently noticed about
the derivation of the verb "viima.msati" and the noun "viima.msaa".
Apparently, the Sanskrit equivalents are "miimaa.msati" and "miimaa.msaa".
The "m" is changed to a "v" according to Sd 944. Up until now, I had always
thought the "vii-" was the prefix "vi" with the "i" lengthened. Btw, the
reduplicative syllable at the beginning of the desideratives is called
"abbhaasa".

I think it's important for those who are inclined to be skeptical of the
traditional Pali grammars to at least give them the benefit of the doubt.
The grammars have so much to offer in furthering our understanding of the
Pali language and studying them is like studying with the masters
themselves.

Best wishes,
Jim