If I may add, to further support the current analysis, one can look at
the way this word is used in MN 29 (Mahaasaaropama Sutta). This sutta
juxtaposes, in multiple places, the terms "pamajjati" and "nappamajjati"
(na+(p)pamajjati), as in the following sentences (based on the SLTP
redaction at
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/029-mahasaropama-p.html):

* So tena laabhasakkaarasilokena majjati, *pamajjati*, pamaada.m
aapajjati. Pamatto samaano dukkha.m viharati. (Naa.namoli & Bodhi, 2001,
p. 286 trans. [in part]: "He becomes intoxicated with that gain,
honour, and renown, grows negligent, falls into negligence ....")

* So tena laabhasakkaarasilokena na majjati*nappamajjati *nappamaadaü
aapajjati. Appamatto samaano siilasampada.m aaraadheti. (Naa.namoli &
Bodhi, 2001, p. 287, trans. [in part]: "He does not become intoxicated
with that gain, honour and reknown; he does not grow negligent and fall
into negligence....")

That is, to take it one step further, in this sutta, it does _not_
juxtapose "appamajjati" with "nappamajjati" (na+appamajjati).

(As an aside, based on Dr. Friedlander's BodhgayaNews search engine, in
the first four nikayas, the phrase, "nappama*" only comes up in a few
suttas:
http://bodhgayanews.net/pitakaresults.php?title=&start=0&to=10&searchstring=%20nappama
. Might it be of value to examine the term's use in these as well?)

Hope this is of use,
Larry

On 6/30/2011 3:59 AM, James Whelan wrote:
>
> Dear Jayarava,
>
> Your last suggestion is right. It is na (p)pamajjati.
>
> Noun: (p)pamaado
>
> Negated noun: appamaado
>
> verb: (p)pamajjati
>
> Negated verb: na (p)pamajjati.
>
> Metta
>
> James Whelan
>
> From: Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
> jayarava
> Sent: 28 June 2011 14:41
> To: Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Pali] nappamajjati - not negligent?
>
> Everyone seems to render nappamajjati (e.g. in Dhp 259) as "not
> negligent",
> and commentary seems to support this, but I'm puzzled. If it was na
> pamajjati, or even appamajjati, OK. But nappamajjati is a double negative
> surely? I.e. na-appamajjati. Or should we read na(p)pamajjati? Is that
> possible? How should we parse this?
>
> Thanks
> Jayarava
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


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