Re: Sadd: TOC (tr. 5,6,7)

Hi Rett:

Rett:
>I'm curious, what exactly is the pakatiruupa? For this paradigm,
>whose key example is puriso (person), would the pakatiruupa be
>puriso? Or puris- ? Or purisa ? Perhaps pakatiruupa means something
>else?

Jim:
I would take it to refer to 'purisa'. The word 'pakatiruupa' appears
for the first time in the Saddaniti (section 5) in the following quote
immediately after the declensional paradigm of purisa is given:

ayam aayasmataa mahaakaccaanena pabhinnapa.tisambhidena katasmaa
niruttipi.takato uddharito purisa iccetassa pakatiruupassa
naamikapadamaalaanayo. -- Sadd I 87ff

Note the 'purisa' form. There is some problem with this though.
Aggava.msa does not seem to give a definition of this particular term
but does for 'li"nga' on page 641 where he gives two different
definitions. [When referring to a sutta in the Saddaniiti, I thought
we could use the convention of using eg. Sd 192 while using eg. Sadd
III 641 for the vol. and page no.] In the first definition he defines
it as a derived expression (nipphannavacana) having gender, etc. and
gives the example of puriso, but in the second (Sd 196) it is defined
as the first form to be established in the derivation of words and
gives the uninflected example of purisa which is identical to how I
interpret pakatiruupa. But I'm not sure if Aggava.msa takes them both
to refer to the same thing. Having two different definitions of li"nga
is also confusing to me. The second defn. of li"nga is similar to
Panini's defn. of praatipadika. There is also the 'a"nga'
(inflectional base) term used in Panini that I still haven't sorted
out.

There are many technical terms used in the Pali grammatical texts that
are hard to understand. Sometimes they are defined, sometimes not. We
may be in need of a Pali glossary of such terms and even may have to
compile one for ourselves if none other exists (yet another project).
There is a simple one written by ~Naa.namoli but I think we need
something that covers a lot more ground. Something like Apte's
Appendix F: Grammatical Concordance or better.

I will continue with more comments on your other points later.

Jim