Re: se.t.tho -- derivation 4

Dear Jim,
Thank you very much for all this. One reading is not enough, but I reviewed
what you wrote before, such as last July (about  July 15 th).
op 21-02-2004 01:08 schreef Jim Anderson op jimanderson_on@...:

> Derivation 4
>
> Text: santehi sappurisehi icchiyati kantiyatiiti vaa se.t.tho.
> santasaddopapado isu icchaakantiisu ta. -- Namakkaara.tiikaa, p.11
> [kantiyati should probably be kaamiyati]
N: I found in the dict. kanto: loved, desired. And kaameti : to crave,
desire.
kantiyati: it seems very unlikely that the ancient grammarian made a
mistake, they were most accurate. It could be a passive form, derived from
the stem kant don't you think so? We people today may not always know the
reason why there is this form kantiyati.

J: There are four major categories of compounds: avyayiibhaava, dvanda,
> tappurisa, and bahubbiihi with the kammadhaaraya and digu subtypes
> included in the tappurisa. In this derivation, as in the last one, the
> resolution of the compound 'se.t.tho' is 'santehi i.t.tho' (one
> desired or loved by the wise).
N: Compounds is a most welcome subject.
Rett asked me on account of the Bandhu scenario, but I did not venture to
answer:
<Thus, we have the swearing word "bandhupaadaapacce" as meaning the
>sons born from the feet of the great brahmaa who are also the
>relatives of the Devil (maaraa).
>So would it be right to say that in effect the commentary proposes
>two different possible analyses of the cpd, one a tappurisa (tp), and
one a kammadharaya (kd)? One being given at one place in the
commentary, the other at another place? (the numbers refer to the
cases, 5 being ablative, 6 being genitive).
1) (bandhu-6tp-paada)-5tp-apacce
"offspring from brahman's feet"
2) bandhu-kd-(paadaa-5tp-apacce)
"relatives (of maara) who are offspring of feet"
Rett: If I were forced to choose I would find the second one (which was
given in the passage I cited) to be less plausible. But I suppose the
ambiguity might have been preserved for effect.> end quote from Rett.
N: I do not know whether this issue is appropriate here, it may destract
from se.t.tho? in that case we leave it now.
I used in a quote what you wrote in July about accuracy of the letters, but
I was not sure whether this is from the Kaccayaana?
<For in a mistake with letters there is a wrong conveying of the meaning,
therefore skilfulness with letters is of much help in the discourses.>
I was thinking of i.t.thaaramma.na: I found piya ruupa, saata ruupa, in the
Vibhanga, and in the Yamaka co to anusaya you provided me with. Does this
help?
Nina.