Hi Yong Peng,

You're right, the normal way to describe a word like vanditvaa is as an absolutive. It is the "absolute" form of the verb as it is indeclinable - one form is used in all situations. It is usu. translated as "Having [verb]ed" or "After [verb]ing", or "When s/he had [verb]ed." but can also be used in a passive mood, if the sentence is passive.

A word like gamana "going" I would call a gerund, which is a verbal noun, used as a noun as e.g. "Going to temple is fun". "Going (to temple)" is the subject of the sentence with going in the nominative (devagaha.m
 gamana.m)  and is acting more as a noun for that reason. So yes I agree that gamana is a gerund and gantvaa is better called an absolutive.

A work like gacchat- as in the sentence "I see the Buddha coming"  (aagacchanta.m buddha.m...) is a (present active) participle which is a verbal adjective. In this case it is acting as more of an adjective and it modifies buddha.m, therefore going in the accus. case. Of course there is also the common past passive participle which usu. ends in -ta: gata ("gone"), kata ("done"), etc. These also agree with whatever they modify.

vandiya and vanditabba are also verbal adjectives but with a passive meaning. That is why they are also called future passive particples. They also agree with the noun that they modify and they almost always modify a noun (except when used as an imperative substitute (kattabbam! "let it be done") and even then it is modifying an (unstated) "it".

Different people use the different grammar terms differently, but this is how I understand them. Hope that helps,

Metta, Bryan

--- On Sun, 7/10/11, Ong Yong Peng <palismith@...> wrote:

From: Ong Yong Peng <palismith@...>
Subject: [Pali] Re: The New Pali Course Part III [49/120] gerund and gerundive.
To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
Received: Sunday, July 10, 2011, 10:49 AM
















 









Dear Nina and Bryan,



thank you. Thanks to Nina for the references to Warder and Duroiselle. Thanks to Bryan for the derivation of 'vandiya', which got me stuck.



I guess we are dealing with a "murky" area which many modern (English) books on Pali grammar have not clarified well. I say it is a "murky" area because, here we discuss about verbal _nouns_ (gerunds) and verbal _adjectives_ (gerundives) and try to apply them to Pali, but strictly in Pali there is no clear distinction between nouns and adjectives. Hence, I gave the Latin definitions of gerund and gerundive just to relate to English.



We may have to delve into the classical grammars or Sanskrit to go further in this area. To close off, I like to ask a few questions on gerund and gerundive more relevant to our usual discussions:



(a) on gerundives



Since vandiya and vanditabba are both gerundives (or future passive participle), then using both in the same verse is primarily due to metrical reasons?



Also, based on what I wrote above, I would prefer using "future passive participle" than "verbal adjective" or gerundive.



(b) on gerunds



Forms like vanditvaa, "having praised", do we call them gerunds, or should we call them absolutives instead? If we define gerunds strictly as "verbal noun", then words like vanditvaa are hardly used as nouns in Pali.



One example is 'gacchati', we have 'gantvaa' meaning 'having gone', and we also have 'gamana' meaning 'going'. In this case, 'gamana' fit the description of a gerund better than 'gantvaa'. Do you agree?



metta,

Yong Peng.



--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Bryan Levman wrote:



A future passive participle and a gerundive (also called a gerundivium which is its Latin name) are the same thing - a "future passive participle" (another name for a gerundivium) which is a verbal adjective, with the meaning "to be [past participle]" or "should be [past participle]", or "ought to be [past participle]."



In this case vandiyaa is a gerundive meaning "to be praised" ("ought to be praised" or "should be praised") modifying the Buddhaas; the Sanskrit equivalent is vandya ("to be praised"), so vandiyaa, with the extra epenthetic -i- must be an eastern form (which is very common in Paali, e.g. ariya for ayya from Skt. arya.)



vanditabba is derived from Skt. vanditavya which also means to be praised and is also a future passive participle, gerundive, a verbal adjective modifying Tathaagataas.. In Skt. there are three principle endings which create a gerundive: -ya, -tavya and  -aniiya,, all added to the root in its gu.na grade. Paali also has more than one form as is apparent.



All gerundives are passive. Gerunds are usually active (but can also be passive), but are always indeclinable. Since these gerundive forms (vandiyaa and vanditabbaa) are both in agreement with a noun (in nom. pl.) then one knows right away that they must be gerundives (verbal adjectives), not gerunds.  The gerund form from the verb vandati is vanditvaa and it usu. means "having praised" and would generally take an object in the accusative.



>> YP: vandiya (PTS: gerundive of vandati) to be honoured.

>> YP: vanditabba (future passive participle of vandati) should be

>> honoured.

>> YP: This is the first time I encounter a "gerundive" and a

>> "future passive participle" of the same verb so close together.

>> In Latin, a gerund is a verbal noun, while a gerundive is a verbal

>> adjective.



> N: I looked up Warder lesson 8: a gerund (pubbakiriya) is an

> indeclinable participle, expressing a action preceding the action

> of the main verb. Agent of gerund is the same as agent of main

> action.

> endings on -tvaa, itvaa, or ya.

> We have met forms like: upasa.mkamitvaa, having approached... And

> aadaaya, having taken.

> Duroiselle, at end deals with Gerund, but not with gerundive.

> But now we have here a gerundive, or in Latin: gerundivum, a form

> with: must, or, to be: vandiya.

> As you say, this is a verbal noun.



























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