From: Mahinda Palihawadana
Message: 14045
Date: 2009-11-01
>The analysis of 'ekaabhidhaane' as "ekatobhidhāne kātabbe" (when a unified
>
> I always thought that 'ekaabhidhaane' meant "when speaking in the lump".
>> This is a meaning that would be applicable in a non-technical context. Of
>> course, this won't give the idea of constancy of tense.
>>
>
>
> After reading the parallel rule in the grammars of Kaccaayana and
> Moggallaana, and the comments in Ryuupasiddhi and Payogasiddhi, ancillary
> works of the Kaccaayana and Moggallaana schools respectively, I wish to add
> a further comment on the rule under discussion.
>
> Kaccaayana’s rule (409) is: Sabbesam*ekaabhidhaane* paro puriso. The
> vutti shows that the rule is completed by adding ‘yojetabbo’. It seems the
> meaning then is: “When stating in one (verb) (the actions) of all
> 'persons', the later ‘person’/ the last ‘person’ (should be used).”
>
> Aggavamsa seems to have sensed a loophole here. He sees that this does not
> exclude the usage of one verb to indicate actions done at different times by
> several 'persons'. So he adds the rider
>
> “ekaabhidhaane ti kimattha.m ? so ca pacati tva~n ca pacissasi aha~n ca
> paci.m ti ettha bhinnakaalattaa maya.m pacimhaa ti na bhavatii ti
> dassanattha.m.”
>
> For what reason (is it said), “when stating in one (verb)?” (It is) to
> show that where “so ca pacati”, “tva~n ca pacissasi” and “aha~n ca
> paci.m” (are the concerned sentences) ( reducing them to) “maya.m
> pacimha”does not occur, because they pertain to different tenses.
>
> In view of this, he seems to take the meaning of the rule to be as follows:
> “When stating in one (verb) (the actions of several 'persons' done at the
> same time) the later ‘person’/ the last ‘person’ (should be used). “ This
> will prohibit the use of one verb to indicate actions done by different
> ‘persons’ at different times. He seems to take ‘eka’ as signifying one verb
> as well as one time, i.e. tense.
>
> All this becomes very clear when we look at the comment of the
> Ruupasiddhi :
>
> *441*.*Sabbesamekābhidhāne paro puriso*.
>
> Sabbesaṃ paṭhamamajjhimānaṃ, paṭhamuttamānaṃ, majjhimuttamānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ vā
> purisānaṃ ekatobhidhāne kātabbe paro puriso yojetabbo. Ekakālānamevābhidhāne
> cāyaṃ. So ca pacati, tvañca pacasīti pariyāyappasaṅge *tumhe pacathā*ti
> bhavati. Evaṃ so ca pacati, ahañca pacāmīti *mayaṃ pacāma,* tathā tvañca
> pacasi, ahañca pacāmi, *mayaṃ pacāma,* so ca pacati, tvañca pacasi, ahañca
> pacāmi, *mayaṃ pacāma*. Evaṃ sabbattha yojetabbaṃ.
>
> *Ekābhidhāne*ti kimatthaṃ? ‘‘So ca pacati, tvañca pacissasi, ahaṃ paciṃ’’
> ettha bhinnakālattā ‘‘mayaṃ pacimhā’’ti na bhavati.
>
> “In the case of all persons, i.e., in the case of the pa.thama and the
> uttama, of the majjhima and uttama, or of all three of them, when it is
> necessary to make a unified statement, the later ‘person’ must be used. This
> is (applicable) only in a statement (about actions expressed) in the same
> tense. In the event that the order (of sentences) is “so ca pacati” and
> “tvañca pacasi” it (the unified statement) is “tumhe pacatha”. Similarly
> “so ca pacati”, “ahañca pacāmi” becomes *“*mayaṃ pacāma”*. *Likewise* “*tvañca
> pacasi, ahañca pacāmi” become s “mayaṃ pacāma”, and “so ca pacati, tvañca
> pacasi, ahañca pacāmi” becomes “mayaṃ pacāma*”*. This usage is to be
> followed everywhere (i.e., without exception).
>
> Why “unified” statement? (It is because) ‘‘So ca pacati, tvañca pacissasi,
> ahaṃ paciṃ’’ does not become ‘‘mayaṃ pacimhā’’ due to (the verbs concerned)
> being of different tenses.
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>