[palistudy] Re: The "Continuative Participle" mystery solved?

Hi Eisel,

>
>  *However*, the Gerund is not the same as the absolutive; and if Warder
>assigns it to the Gerund, this possibility should be investigated --although
>it is possible that Warder was misusing the English word Gerund.

It's not just Warder; many Sanskrit and Pali grammarians have chosen
the word 'gerund' for the infinite participles ending in -tvaa/-ya
etc. As far as I can tell, not having had Latin in school, the
-tvaa/-ya infinite participle resembles the Latin gerund in that it
can take objects and be modified by adverbs. This might why they've
chosen the term 'gerund' despite its differing widely in actual
employment from the Latin gerund. I've also heard it said that the
English word 'gerund' is itself more on the order of a good trick for
pupils translating from Latin than a valid English grammatical
category.

>  I am almost proud to say that I do not own a copy of Warder's grammar:

And you're from University of Toronto? ;-) What makes Warder helpful
for working with traditional grammar (at least at the beginning) is
that his book includes very many of these grammatical terms, like
pubbakiriyaa, and that they are indexed. I had it on my shelf for a
long time without even realizing what a valuable resource it was.

>Rett, could you just check to make sure that the endings he calls
>"Pubbakriya" match up with the absolutive?

Here's the relevant passage (_Introduction to Pali_, page 48):

"Gerund

The gerund (pubbakiriyaa), an indeclinable participle, is used to
express an action preceding (pubba) the action of the main verb of a
sentence. It may thus conclude a subordinate clause. The agent of the
gerund is the same as that of the main action..."

Check out that not-so-subtle nod to traditional grammar in the
discussion of the 'agent' and compare to: pubbakaale _ekakattukaana.m
dhaatuuna.m_ tuuna tvaana tvaa icc ete paccayaa honti vaa. (Kc 566
vutti) Warder is thinking in terms of the traditional categories
here, as is necessary if the 'gerund' is to function properly in
sentences where the main verb is passive.

Continuing, "Complex sentences are constructed with clauses concluded
by partiples or gerunds preceding the main clause with the main verb.
In this way the agent is desribed as performing a group or series of
actions. Each clause may have its own patient (i.e. gerunds may take
patients in the accusative, like other verb forms). The gerund is
usually (but far from always) formed from the same stem as the past
participle by adding the suffixes tvaa, itvaa, or ya :-"

>  I'll go take a look at Kaccayana's verse 566 this evening.
>
>  FYI: Nyanamoli & Bodhi's _Glossary of Buddhist Techical Terms_ does *not*
>include the term.  I do not now know of a lexical source that does.

This is really interesting. Any chance you could send in a few lines
from the ruupasiddhi using the term? (only if you have time, of
course)

In any case, naming the form after one particular employment (past
action) might have been avoided since the form can also refer to
simultaneous action. This might be why grammarians prefer to refer to
it formally, in terms of the endings used to form it. This would be
more in the Indian grammatical spirit of working from morphology
upwards.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

best regards,

/Rett