On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 20:24 -0400, Jim Anderson wrote:

> "pa.ticca" is an absolutive and is used in the two etymologies to
> explain the sense of the prefix "pati" in "paccaya". "pa.ticca" also
> contains the root "i".

Sorry, yes, I got that. I guess I just assumed that the reason for
using the verb eti was to explain the "ya" part.

> How the forms "pa.ticca" and "paccaya" are
> arrived at, I'm sure, are explained in the grammatical suttas.

Okay... I suppose I should have waited to just jump in :)

> In the
> second article on "eti" in CPD one will see our two etymologies from
> the Saddaniiti quoted and included under sense 3: to evolve, arise
> (right near the end). I think your "pa.ticcaya" is probably
> non-existent in Pali.

Of course! I didn't mean to suggest anything else... but do you think
there is any merit to the idea of i = ya? Or am I just reading too much
into this?

> I found two more etymologies on the word
> "paccaya" in the Padaruupasiddhi (Ruup 362) with further explanations
> given in its .tiikaa. Here, "eti" is glossed with "aagacchati" and
> "pa.ticca" with "nissaaya".
>
> << PS Is the Palistudy group still up and going? >>
>
> Yes it is and you're still a member.

Can you activate this email account again?

Thanks,

Yuttadhammo