On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Noah Yuttadhammo <yuttadhammo@...>wrote:

>
>
> Dear Mahinda,
>
> Thank you, that is quite clear. I was trying to ask as much... would
> paccaya then somehow be cognate to "paccaagacchati"?
>
> Dear Ven. Y.,
>

No, not to paccaagacchati, which is pa.ti-aa-gacchati and means 'returns'.
As paccaya is 'pa.ti+aya', it is cognate with a'paticca' which is to be
analysed as 'pa.ti+i+cca' , i- being the root and -cca being the (extended)
absolutive suffix. In usage it has almost lost the absolutive significance
and carries the adverbial meaning
'dependently'.


To add a further comment on Aggava.msa�s etymology-based definition of
�paccaya�, it appears that he attached great significance to the meaning of
this word as �dependence� or �relationship�. His first definition seems to
be based on the fact that in making words what affixes we use depends on
what kind of form we want the words to have. If we want words to describe a
past action we use affixes proper for past time. And so on. On the other
hand, the second definition is based on the fact that even with all the
other elements of a word (e.g., prefixes, root), we will not have a
completed word without a terminating affix. So it is correct to say that the
completion of the word depends on the �paccaya�. A �paccaya� cannot have
meaning independently, nor can a prefix or root function in language (at
least in a language like Pali), except in relationship with a �paccaya�.

Best wishes.

Mahinda


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