Re: Saddaniiti XXV: 869 (pa.thamapuriso)

Dear Jim,
I agree with most of what you say, esecially the observation about the
subject being 'embeded' in the verbal endings- which ends the lingering
doubt about the commonality between the "agent word" and the "action word".
I hope the group appreciates the fact that we are here confronted with the
philosophical and other principles of classical Indian grammar, which are
replete with the conceptions of Skt grammarians. The word 'dabba' (dravya)
and 'kaaraka are' important examples.
I think we still have to find a word good enough to translate 'adhikarana'
in the compound 'tulyaadhikara.na'.
I trust the Pali group will excuse me for mentioning a personal fact. I
could not save the life of the beloved patient for whom I was caring, thus
ending another chapter of my life.

With best wishes,
Mahinda

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

>
>
> I still have trouble seeing the meaning of 'mport' for the 'attha' in
> 'atthapa~ncaka.m' and 'tikattho'. I'm seeing 'object' or 'property'
> instead. E.g., the nominative case inflection of 'so puriso' has some
> properties in common with the 3rd person termination of 'gacchati'
> especially in their function of the agen-kaaraka. The subject 'so
> puriso' seems to stand in apposition to 'ti' in the verb. Unlike
> English verbs, Pali verbs have its subject embedded within. The noun
> or pronoun (in the nominative) then describes this subject in greater
> detail. I also wonder if one can read the idea of governor in
> adhikara.na, i.e., the personal termainations govern the subject in
> the nominative.
>
>
> > 'gacchati' (pa.thama-purisa predicate), of which padhaanadabba,
> sankhyaa,
> > and kaaraka of of the predicate seem to be given as similar to
> dabba,
> > sankhyaa and kaaraka of the subject. All this is tentative; it is a
> bit
> > hazy to me yet.
> > Is the reading 'ekattha.m' right? Could it be 'ekatta.m' (oneness)?
>
> Yes, the reading is definitely 'ekatta.m'. 'ekattha.m' is my mistake.
> I have since gone over the passage several times and noticed 3
> omissions. I submit below, my corrected version:
>
> apica so puriso gacchatiityaadiisu so purisoti pade sakattha-dabba-
>
> li"nga-sa"nkhyaa-kaarakavasena atthapa~ncaka.m labbhati, gacchatiiti
> aakhyaatapadepi sakattha-padhaanadabba-appadhaanadabba-
> sa"nkhyaa-kaarakavasena atthapa~ncaka.m labbhati. tattha sabbesa.m
> gamanakriyaa sakattho naama, purisassa gamanakriyaa padhaanadabba.m
> naama, purisadabba.m appadhaanadabba.m naama, ekatta.m
> sa"nkhyaa naama, vaacakattaa kaarako naama, tesu appadhaanadabba-
> sa"nkhyaa-kaaraka-sa"nkhaatena tikatthena so purisoti pade dabba-
>
> sa"nkhyaa-kaarakasa"nkhaato tikattho samaano hoti. tena tulya.m
> samaana.m adhikara.na.m attho yassaati vacanatthena
> tulyaadhikara.nanti veditabba.m.
> -- from Kaccaayanatthadiipanii, pp.539-40 on Kc 410
>
> Best wishes,
> Jim
>
>
>


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