Jim and all,

This sutta establishes a hierarchy among the person forms of
finite verbs: in Indian grammar, first person (pa.thamo puriso)
is what we call third person, middle person (majjhimo puriso)
is what we call second person, and last person (uttamo puriso)
is what we call first person. See Collins, page 16, who wisely
sticks with the familiar Western terminology.

The subject of a third person plural verb form must be a group
of people each of whom would take a third person singular form
by itself (though Aggava.msa does not exemplify this case).
The subject of a second person plural verb form must be a
group of people at least one of whom would take a second
person singular verb form by itself, but the others might take
third person forms. The subject of a first person plural verb
form must be a group of people at least one of whom would
take a first person singular verb form by itself, but the others
might take either second or third person forms.

Aggava.msa's use of the verb pacati 'cook' is not important.
This verb is commonly used in examples. The hierarchy
applies to all verbs which allow first or second person subjects.
It also applies to pronouns, but since this chapter is about
finite verbs we can assume that Aggava.msa is not talking
about pronouns here even though some appear in his examples.

I don't like the use of 'subsequent' for paro here because that
word tends to be understood as referring to a result; e.g. 'her
subsequent embarrassment'. Maybe 'later' is a better choice,
but it still must be understood as 'later in the order: first
person, middle person, last person'.

I am also dubious about 'in a single verbal expression' for
ekaabhidhaane. Aggava.msa explicitly understands this
condition to rule out mixing tenses, but maya.m pacimhaa
'we cooked' in his last example is clearly a single verbal
expression. I think we need something like 'in a single
situation' which suggests that the tense must be constant,
The term refers to meaning rather than form.

George

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson.on@...> wrote:
>
> [Saddaniiti XXV: aakhyaatakappo : sutta 868, p. 811,28--812,6 (Smith's
> edn.)]
>
> 868. ekaabhidhaane paro puriso. so ca pacati tva~n ca pacasi -- tumhe
> pacatha, atha vaa: tva~n ca pacasi so ca pacati -- tumhe pacatha; [p. 812]
> so ca pacati tva~n ca pacasi aha~n ca pacaami -- maya.m pacaama, atha vaa:
> aha~n ca pacaami tva~n ca pacasi so ca pacati -- maya.m pacaama; eva.m
> sesaasu vibhattisu paro puriso yojetabbo. ekaabhidhaane ti kimattha.m ? so
> ca pacati tva~n ca pacissasi aha~n ca pacin ti ettha bhinnakaalattaa maya.m
> pacimhaa ti na bhavatii ti dassanattha.m.
>
> 868. In a single verbal expression, the subsequent is the person. He cooks
> and you (sg.) cook --> you (pl.) cook, or, you (sg.) cook and he cooks -->
> you (pl.) cook; he cooks, you (sg.) cook, and I cook --> we cook, or, I
> cook, you (sg.) cook, and he cooks --> we cook; so (too) for the remaining
> (tense) terminations the subsequent is the person to be used. What is the
> purpose of "in a single verbal expression" ? For the purpose of showing that
> there is no "we cooked" for "he cooks, you (sg.) will cook, and I cooked" in
> this case because of there being different tenses.
>
> Notes:
> 1) "ekaabhidhaane" (eka + abhidhaane -- in a single verbal expression).
> CPD Vol. II, p. 632 has the following remarks under the head
> 'ekaabhidhaana': (t.t. gr.) a single verbal expression ("pluriel
> d'ellipse"); . . . ("When (using) a single (verbal) expression as a
> substitute for all [i.e. two or more persons] the later [in the order of the
> paradigm is used]"), Kacc 411. . .
> 2) Mmd ad Kc 409 (Be) glosses "ekaabhidhaane" with "tulyaabhidhaane"
> (in an equal or equivalent expression).
>
> Jim Anderson, 12 October 2009
>
> The Saddaniiti project page:
> http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/synthesis/saddaniti.00.cdv
>