Re: Kaccayana edition

Rett,

> >Text: samaahaaraasamaahaaresu ekattaa napu.msakattaa ca;
> >N: why here an eunuch? with and without nutrition? This is a
difficult one.
>
>
> A 'samaahaara' is a kind of dvandva compound where two things that
> form a natural pair are put together, and the whole is expressed in
> the singular neuter. The most typical example for us would be
> pattaciivara.m 'bowl and robe'.
> This is probably the sense of samaahaara here, though the exact
> meaning of this compound is unclear to me without the context.
> Perhaps this is enough of a hint.

I did a little checking and found that "samaahaaraasamaahaaresu"
refers to the two kinds of digu compounds: samaahaaradigu &
asamaahaaradigu (collective & individual) which are discussed in
Warder, p.274; see also Sadd p.754, ll.7-12. This makes sense because
'tiloka.m' (the word being discussed) fits the description of a
samaahaara-digu compound.

> napu.msaka is the term for neuter case, as Jim mentioned.

That's right except I wouldn't call it a case but a gender (li"nga).
"napu.msakattaa" is a shortened form of "napu.msakali"ngattaa". The
commentator likes to keep his explanations short, it seems.

> ekattaa and napu.msakattaa appear to be in ablative...

I can agree with that. One problem I see is that the singular and
neuter does not apply to the asamaahaara-digu as the latter takes the
plural and gender of the second member (eg. tilokaa).

> perhaps tr. "because of (it's being) singular and neuter".

I think the "it's" should be 'it' (because [of the fact] of it being .
. .)

Jim