Dear All,



I think Bryan has got it exactly right here. In Pali (and Sanskrit),
mattam/matram is a noun, meaning measure. It is from the root maa =
measure, with the suffice -tra, meaning an instrument, as in khan/khanitra =
dig/spade, tan/tantra = stretch/loom.



At the end of a compound N+mattam, as Bryan says, it means 'nothing but N',
or 'N and nothing else', 'just N'.



I also follow Bryan in saying that the noun compound
pavattitabhukkara.na-mattam is the subject of the verb rakkhati.



I take sunakha-kaale as an adverbial expression of time, i.e. 'while he was
a dog'. It modifies pavattita-bhukkara, which would then mean 'the constant
barking when he was a dog'. Note that a qualifier or modifier may qualify
or modify part only of a compound. In the present case, it is just the
sub-compound pavattita-bhukkara that is modified.



I think that the force of eva is as an emphatic, meaning that it was just
the barking, as opposed to anything else, that protected him. It is
probably a little bit superfluous, as the use of ~mattam alone provides the
necessary emphasis for the idea of 'nothing but'.



So we have: 'It is just the constant barking while he was a dog, out of
affection for the Pacceka-Buddha, that is protecting him.



I will, as always, be most grateful; for any feedback and correction.



Metta,

James Whelan







From: Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ong
Yong Peng
Sent: 19 May 2011 06:03
To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Pali] Re: The New Pali Course Part III [45/120]





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]