Re: Exercise 9 No 1 -> 2

Hi Jaran,

> Thank you for your quick reply, and sorry for my slow response.

No need to apologize. Feel free to take as much time as you like -- no
need to hurry around here. :)

> I always thought that an 'agent' in general is the 'subject' of verbs,
> adjective, etc of a sentence. At least that is what I had in mind when
> I used the word 'agent' in my last mails, but I am looking forward for
> the details.

I (and also Warder, p. 14) would say that the 'agent' (kattar) is the
'subject' of an *active* verb or sentence but in the case of a *passive*
verb it is the 'patient' (kamma) that is the 'subject'. I haven't found
anything yet that clearly explains whether or not the subject of a verbless
sentence is an agent. Examples of this type are: eso sama.no = he (or this)
is a wanderer; saa pa~n~naa = this is wisdom. In my reading of p. 14, Warder
seems to be suggesting that 'eso' of 'eso sama.no' is an agent. I also
mentioned something about 'atthi' being sometimes used as an indeclinable
and have found some information about it which I will try to write more on
later. I think some examples are found in the Satipa.t.thaanasutta with
'atthi kaayo ti', etc. and notice the plural 'dhammaa' in 'atthi dhammaa ti'
with what many would consider to be a singular verb. Although the
indeclinable 'atthi' is known from Indian linguistic sources it is not
explicitly recognized as such in Warder, PED, nor CPD ie. they take it for a
verb.

> More quiestions on Excercise 9:
>
> 1. Sujaataa naama bhante upaasikaa kaalakataa ->
>
> A lay-follower named Sujaataa, sir, has died.

Correct.

> I am aware that the word order is not fixed in Paali, and can this
> sentence be written in the following way?
>
> Bhante Sujaataa naama upaasikaa kaalakataa

To my understanding (and I could be wrong) it is not normal in Pali to place
a vocative like 'bhante' at the beginning of a sentence unless it is the
only word like the 'bhikkhavo ti' in the case of the Buddha addressing the
monks. I think the placement of the 'bhante' in no. 1 is the best one.
Sujaataa and naama are too closely tied together for the 'bhante' to go in
between and the opening between upaasikaa and kaalakato is too near the end.
However in an English translation it is perfectly normal to place the 'sir'
at the beginning.

> 2. evam pi kho Sunakkhatto    mayaa vuccamaano apakkami ->
>
>    this also indeed Sunakkatto  by me   said   go off ->
>
> Hearing this from Sunakkatta, I go off.

Four mistakes. eva.m = thus, so (not 'this') 'thus also indeed'. vuccamaano
is a present (passive) participle meaning 'being spoken to'. apakkami is in
the aorist (past) tense meaning 'went away or off '. Sunakkatta should be
Sunakkhatta.

Thus also, indeed, Sunakkhatta being spoken to by me went away.

> 2a. Sunakkatto is in the nominative case, so it is supposed to be 'the
> agent' of the main sentence.

Correct.

> 2b. vuccamaano (used as an adjective) agrees with Sunakkatto, so does
> it mean that Sunakkatto is qualtified by vuccamaano? -> Sunakkatto is
> saying.

Your reasoning is quite ok except (as noted above) that vuccamaano is
passive (being spoken to) and not active as you have taken it.

> 2c. The main verb of the sentence is apakkami, so the agent that goes
> off is I. -> I go off?

The agent that 'went off ' is Sunakkhatta, not I. Taking verbs like apakkami
to be in the first pers. sing. is a common one. Sometimes I make the same
mistake.

> It is quite confusing here, could anyone clarify this for me? Thank
> you in advance.

I think the confusion lies in that there are two agents in the sentence.
First, there is the agent of the main verb (Sunakkhatto . . . apakkami) and
then there is the agent (in the instrumental) of the participle (mayaa
vuccamaano) and to make matters more confusing Sunakkhatta is the patient or
object of the participle. I looked up the reference (D III 6) given at the
back of the book and found the sentence has been clipped for the exercise.
The full sentence is:

evam pi kho Bhaggava Sunakkhatto Licchavi-putto mayaa vuccamaano apakkam'eva
imasmaa dhamma-vinayaa yathaa ta.m apaayiko nerayiko. -- PTS version.

Since the verb apakkami like upasa.mkami is derived from the root KAM -- to
walk, I can't see why one couldn't translate apakkami as '(he) walked away'.
". . . Sunakkhatta . . . just walked away from this doctrine and discipline
. . ."

> I feel hopeless. :-(

Don't give up! You're doing fine.

> A more useful question, perhaps, regarding Paali study: am I spending
> to much time on grammar and not enough on the actual message? I feel
> that if I don't know enough of structure of sentence, it is impossible
> for me to understand the passage.

From my own experience, I think any amount of time spent on studying the
Pali grammar (and the language) is well spent and I agree with you that it
is virtually impossible to understand the passages one wants to be able to
read without any knowledge of the sentence structure or syntax.

All the best in your studies,

Jim

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca