Dear Yong Peng,
Op 31-mrt-2010, om 13:27 heeft Ong Yong Peng het volgende geschreven:

> 1. subordinate clause:
> akusala~nca hida.m pahiina.m ahitaaya dukkhaaya sa.mvatteyya
>
> subject: akusala.m (neuter singular)
> main verb: sa.mvatteyya (Optative Parassapada 3rd person singular)
>
> 2. main clause:
> naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m
>
> subject: aha.m (1st person pronoun singular)
> main verb: vadeyya.m (Optative Parassapada 1st person singular)
>
> Note: Ven. Buddhadatta list the form 'vadeyya.m' as Attanopada.
>
> With two Optatives, the clauses relate to each other with a
> condition, expressed by the subordinate clause and indicated by
> sace. So, I like to agree that 'ca' in clause 1 assumes the
> conditional meaning. However, I am always happy to discuss any
> alternative theory.

-------
N: Yes, this is clear. This is again the text:
Akusala.m, bhikkhave, pajahatha. Sakkaa, bhikkhave, akusala.m
pajahitu.m. No ceda.m, bhikkhave, sakkaa abhavissa akusala.m
pajahitu.m, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m - 'akusala.m, bhikkhave,
pajahathaa'ti.

There is still the form: abhavissa that we should translate. I found
in Warder: Ch 29, conditional tense (kaalaatipatti), and here is the
same form: abhavissa given as an example. The 'a' is an augment.
Translated as: if it were...
Optative or conditional, it can be both, or a combination, expressing
a condition or a hypothesis.

If it were not possible, bhikkhus, to abandon akusala....

What do you think about this?

Nina.



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