Dear Yong Peng, Nina, Mahinda and all,
I think we are all in agreement as to what the sentence means; it's only a question of what the subject of the sentence is, whether "barking" (bhkkhara.na(.m) with mattameva as an adverb modifying rakkhati) or the compound (bhukkhara.namattameva, "nothing but the barking" or the "barking-totality"). Perhaps Mahinda can give us his opinion, as he has a lot more experience than I do translating Pali. My interpretation is based on the standard Skt. construction where maatra at the end of a compound is a neuter noun meaning, "the full or simple measure of anything , the whole or totality , the one thing and no more , often = nothing but , entirely , only (e.g. raaja-maatram , the whole class of kings " (see Monier Williams dictionary). It is often used as the object or subject of a sentence or clause. This is common in Skt. I know PED gives the possibility of matta.m as an adverb, but one would think, that if it were, then "barking" would be in the
nominative and mattameva would be outside the compound, i. e. bukkhara.na.m mattameva.
Metta, Bryan
--- On Thu, 5/19/11, Ong Yong Peng <palismith@...> wrote:
From: Ong Yong Peng <palismith@...>
Subject: [Pali] Re: The New Pali Course Part III [45/120]
To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
Received: Thursday, May 19, 2011, 5:02 AM
Dear Nina, Bryan and all,
let us now return to the original sentence in the grammar,
Sunakhakaale pacceka-Buddhe sinehena pavattitabhukkara.na-mattameva ta.m rakkhati.
Earlier, I had
Sunakhakaale pacceka-Buddhe sinehena pavattitabhukkara.na-mattameva ta.m rakkhati.
Only because of [his former existence as] the dog (which) went about barking with affection at the time of the Pacceka-Buddha, (this) protects him.
* matta (adv) because of
* eva (adv) only
----------------------------------------------------------
Bryan's reply:
I would take mattam here as a neuter noun as subject of rakkhati; otherwise I don't see what the subject of the sentence is. matta means "measure" or "quantity" and is used at the end of a compound to mean "nothing but", "the whole or totality", "only" (see Monier Williams dict.). Eva would be there for emphasis. So I would read this as "Only the constant (pavattita) barking [lit: "just the constant barking-totality ], out of love for solitary Buddhas in his former existence as a dog, protects him."
----------------------------------------------------------
Nina's reply:
N: I would take mattam as an adverb, and belonging to rakkhati: only his barking.... protected him.
----------------------------------------------------------
Sunakhakaale pacceka-Buddhe sinehena pavattitabhukkara.na-mattameva ta.m rakkhati.
According to the book, the subject is a phrase, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/15339 .
From what we have been doing under this chapter,
[subject] sunakhakaale pacceka-Buddhe sinehena pavattitabhukkara.na-mattameva
[predicate] ta.m rakkhati
We are ok with the predicate: ta.m rakkhati = protects him.
Now, on the subject: sunakhakaale pacceka-Buddhe sinehena pavattitabhukkara.na-mattameva. I have the following:
1. sunakhakaale: in former birth as a dog
2. pacceka-Buddhe: at the pacceka-Buddha (only one)
3. sinehena: with affection
4. pavattitabhukkara.na-mattameva, here pavattita (pp) can be "constant" as Bryan suggested, bhukkara.na (n) is "barking", hence "constant barking". I treat mattameva as an emphatic particle making up of two adverbs matta and eva, hence "only because of".
What do you think? Thank you.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/15402
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/15404
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/15406
metta,
Yong Peng.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]