Re: Mmd- (ka) part 1 (aniiya/iiya)

Hi Rett,

> >4) The 'abhivandaniiyassa' (worthy of veneration) in
> >'sabbalokaabhivandaniiyassa' is not a fut. pass. part.
> >(abhi-vand-aniiya) but rather a secondary word derived from
> >'abhivandana' + the taddhita affix 'iiya' (in the sense of worthy,
> >deserving) like 'dakkhi.neyya' or 'dakkhi.niiya' meaning 'worthy of
> >offerings'. I could not find this affix in Kaccaaayana but it is
> >included in Sd 775 (arahatthe iiy' eyyaa).
>
> It's my understanding that since the fpp ending -aniiya is added to
> verb stems, a special rule is needed to account for the small number
> of words formed by analogy from nouns (like dakkhinneyya). So, for
> instance, Panini V.1.69, 70 prescribe -iiya and -ya in the sense of
> 'deserving that' for three specific nouns including dak.si.na. Hence
> the rule has a functional justification in the system. Those
> attested words need to be justified, and nouns require taddhita
affixes.
>
> But there doesn't seem to be a need for this rule for most of the
> examples provided at Sd 775 (dassaniiya, vandaniiya, namassaniiya,
> puujaniiya).  Since verb > abstract noun with ana > +iiya gives the
> same formal result as stem + aniiya they could just as well be
> derived using the main rule at Sd 1125:
>
> 1125 bhaave kamme ca tabbaaniiyaa (in the impersonal sense and in
> the passive -tabba -aniiya)

This rule is too general, like for impersonal and passive verbs. The
rule needed here instead is like the ones for the special uses of the
tenses. For the kicca suffixes (tabba, aniiya, ya, and other forms) we
need to turn to the rules about the various uses found at Sd 1244-5 on
p.862. These uses are: pesa (direction), atisagga (permission),
pattakaala (proper time), avassaka (necessity), and adhami.na
(indebtedness?). Note that I'm just repeating Vasu's renderings of the
equivalent terms in Panini (near the end of Bk 3, Ch 3). The problem
here is that there isn't any for 'araha' (worthy, deserving) even
though the following rule 1246 for the infinitive does include it.
Panini, however, does have a rule that includes the araha (arha)
meaning for the kicca (k.rtya) suffixes at 3.3.169. The Sadd exclusion
of the meaning of capability is also problematic because I think that
one is needed too for those -able words like peyya (drinkable). I have
no idea why Kaccaayana or Aggava.msa would leave out or overlook such
rules.

> So I'm wondering why Sadd includes words like vandaniiya at Sd 775,
> and also how that list of examples is to be taken. Is it meant as an
> exhaustive list of specific exceptions to 1125? Or are they just
> meant as examples of a form that has been observed?

According to Aggavamsa, they aren't related to 1125 because these
words do not contain kicca suffixes-- the iiya and eyya here belong to
the taddhita class of suffixes. However, according to Panini, except
for dakkhi.niiya or dakkhi.neyya the remaining examples have kicca
suffixes and don't need to be included in a rule like this.

> The examples appear to have to do with things that are reverenced or
> are connected with ceremony in some way, or where the resulting
> -aniiya word is often used as an epithet of the Buddha or arahants.
> Could there be a dogmatic or pious consideration coming into play
> here? Could it have to do with the form of the rule itself, that it
> uses the term arahati (deserves) which elevates the status of words
> generated by this rule?

I think the example in "Amara.m naama nagara.m dassaneyya.m
manorama.m" (Amara, a city worth seeing, delightful...) would be an
exception. I think we would have to look for many more examples in
order to get a much better idea of the most likely context that these
kinds of words are found in. Aggava.msa's examples certainly do seem
to suggest the interesting points you make here. But it's far too
early to draw any definite conclusion just yet.

Best wishes,
Jim