Re: se.t.tho -- derivation 4

Dear Nina,

> > 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.

In PED you will see two entries for the verb 'kantati' which are not
at all related to the past participle 'kanta' or the feminine noun
'kanti'. So 'kantiyati' in the sense of 'he is loved' does not make
sense to me. I doubt that this verb form in the derivation can be
traced back to any of the ancient commentaries. I only know of it in
this very recent .tiikaa dated at around 1945. 'kantiyati' is a rare
form as I can only find it 4 times in a Vinaya .tiikaa which has it
glossed as 'chindiiyati' (it is cut).

> 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.

So far, I haven't been able to come up with a definitive solution to
this problem of the apparent inconsistency between the two
interpretations of 'bandhupaadaapacca' at Sv I 254 & Sv III 862.
Taking the first as a tappurisa compound and the second as a
kammadhaaraya could account for the difference in the two
interpretations. I thought of another possibility while comparing the
two interpretations in the commentary. I noticed that, in the second,
Buddhaghosa does not quote the compound in full but just comments on
'bandhu' and 'paadapacce' as if they were separate words in the
original text: 'bandhuu paadaapacce' instead of 'bandhupaadaapacce'.
Perhaps the scribes mistakenly joined the two (shortening the 'u') at
D III 81 for consistency with the normal reading but by doing so they
inadvertently created a problem in the commentarial interpretations.
This is only speculation. Also, it seems possible that the phrase
might have been understood differently among the Brahmins themselves
depending on which part of India they lived in and other factors.

> 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.

This issue is appropriate here as it touches on the topic of
compounds. The list doesn't have to be completely focussed on
Kaccayana. Any matter relating to the Pali language and the texts is
welcome, anything that helps to improve our understanding of Pali is
fine.

> 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.>

Yes, this is the explanation of the first Kaccayana sutta which is
quite a fitting one to start off at the beginning of a grammar.

> 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?

I'm not sure if it will help but thanks anyway and I've taken note. I
checked the Yamaka cty but didn't find the terms in the discussion
relating to 'i.t.thaaramman.na'. I think my question about which
'i.t.tha' is involved has been solved. It is the one derived from the
root meaning 'to desire' not the one meaning 'to seek'.

Jim