Re: se.t.tho -- derivation 4

Dear Jim,
Thank you very much.
op 23-02-2004 18:36 schreef Jim Anderson op jimanderson_on@...:
>>
> 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).

>> N: Compounds is a most welcome subject.
>> Rett asked me on account of the Bandhu scenario, but I did not
> venture to
>> answer:
J: 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 am very ignorant, and we could also ask Suan perhaps?
I feel lost when thinking of subclasses of compounds. I shall look at Warder
again.
>> 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?
J: 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'.
N: Here it is: Under uppatti.t.thaanavaarava..n..nanaa, about the two
feelings that can arise with kaamaraaga and the object experienced:
  <nanu cesa aaramma.navasena anusayamaano na kevala.m  imaasu dviisu
vedanaasu
ceva vedanaasampayuttadhammesu ca anuseti, i.t.thesu pana ruupaadiisupi
anusetiyeva. vuttampi ceta.m vibha"ngappakara.ne (vibha0 816) ``ya.m loke
piyaruupa.m saataruupa.m, ettha sattaana.m kaamaraagaanusayo anusetii''ti
imasmimpi pakara.ne anusayavaarassa pa.tilomanaye vutta.m. ``>
Nina.