Re: The "Continuative Participle" mystery solved?

Hi Eisel,

>
>  I believe this is the form treated very briefly in Kaccayana's 604th verse,
>which I honestly cannot get any meaning out of, except that the set of
>examples following it are all of absolutive forms: hutvaa, datvaa, etc.,
>with the meaning being "Having done", "Having given", "Having cooked", etc.
>etc.
>
>  I reproduce the following from Piyaratana's Sinhalese script edition
>[Verses 603-604, pg. 121, sutta only, excluding Vutti & examples]:
>
>  taddhita samaasa kitakaa naa mang vaatavetuunaadisu ca.
>  dumhi garu.
>
>  Bodhi's technical grammar doesn't discuss this term; does anyone know of a
>name for the absolutive participle in Pali that is used in classical
>sources?  Or, can anyone unravel an appropriate name from the verse above?

The above verses don't really treat the absolutive  but rather
mention it in passing to explain some other issues. I haven't worked
the verses out, but no term for the absolutive is provided there, so
much I can see. I believe the locus classicus for the absolutive is
Kc 566 (vii, 2, 15). This is probably where you want to look.

from the vutti to 566:

pubbakaale ekakattukaana.m dhaatuuna.m tuuna tvaana tvaa icc ete
paccayaa honti vaa.

However both here, and in the corresponding (expanded) section in
Saddaniiti (1150-1156), there doesn't seem to be any special term for
the form. It is rather referred to by the endings it employs.

Warder mentions a term 'pubbakiriyaa' (past action, preparation) for
the absolutive (which he calls 'gerund', _Introduction to Pali_, pg
48) but I haven't seen it used anywhere and can't find it in the word
index to Sadd. Perhaps there is a such term in Mmd, or Ruupasiddhi?
Anyone?

best regards,

/Rett