Re: attha.m gacchati

Hi, Jim:
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Your answer/information is very very useful
since I am very interested in verbs whose
"argument structure" is ambigous. In any
languages verbs, such as 'kill', behaves very
clearnly (with respect to the number of the arguments
they take and what kinds of case these arguments are marked).
For instance, in the case of 'kill', its 'Agent
Subject' is marked by nominative, and its
'Theme Object' is marked by accusative. And this
regualar case marking for such verbs as 'kill'
is observed 'universally' (across a wide range of languages).
Meanwhile, (in any langauge) you would find verbs whose
"argument structure" is ambigous.
And I think 'gacchati' (with attha.m) is one of
these instances. Here, some grammarians argue that
it is a transitive verb, having two arguments; while
the other argue, as you do, that it is intranstive.

Sorry for asking such a seemingly silly grammatical
question, but the isssue interestes me a lot
in the sense that my Ph.D. dissertation dealt with
a light verb (in Japanese) whose 'argument structure' is
totally ambigous. And I spent nearly five years in order
to account for the syntactic phenomena which can be demonstrated
by THREE SIMPLE Japanese SENTENCES. Yes, I thought about the three
sentences every day (day and night). (Lucky me. I was able
to publish my work. Otherwise, I would have tormented by
a feeling that I had totally wasted part of life.)
tadao
P.S. Here I have the PTS Pali-English Dictionary and
Sir M. Monier Williams' Sanskrit-English Dic.