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

Hi Eisel and group,

>
>
>>  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)
>
>The entire Ruupasiddhi is available as a free etext --as are the others I
>mentioned.  I did not mention that the term is also employed in the
>Balavataro (with the alternate spelling Pubbakriya --rather than
>Pubbakiriya).  This makes it quite easy to search and find instances of the
>term being employed:
>http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil.htm#PPhil
>
>

Thanks. Here's the location in the ruupasiddhi commenting on Kc 566
and including the term 'pubbakiriyaa'. There may be transcription
errors/typos because of the source of the text (SLTP).

pubbakaalekakattukaana.m tuunatvaanatvaa vaa. 621-566.

pubbakaaloti pubbakiriyaa. eko kattaa yesa.m te = eka kattukaa.
tesa.m ekakattukaana.m samaanakattukaana.m dhaatuunamantare
pubbakaale vattamaanaa dhaatumhaa tuuna tvaana tvaa iccete paccayaa
honti vaa

I think in the above it's doubtful that the term 'pubbakiriyaa' is
being defined as a term for the absolutive. It appears rather to be
descriptive, explicating the term 'pubbakaale' in the rule.

Perhaps pubbakaaloti is a mistake for pubbakaal_e_ti? (e/o switches
being easy mistakes to make in the Sinhalese alphabet) Or maybe
pubbakaala has simply been put into the nominative case in the
explanation because of some convention at work here?

I'm not sure of the exact sense of 'antare pubbakaale'. If the two
words are to be taken together I would almost expect 'anantare'
there, 'in the immediately preceding time'. Or perhaps the two words
aren't to be taken together, and the sentence rather reads, 'with
regards to (antare) these roots having one agent, having an agent in
common, in the sense of past time (pubbakaale), after the present
(form of the) root the suffixes "tuuna, tvaana, tvaa" are found.'

I haven't looked closely at the other passages you cited yet, but it
would be interesting to go through them and see whether
'pubbakiriyaa' is ever clearly employed as a _designation_ of the
absolutive form. I'm a bit sceptical, though, since it seems that
since this is the sutta which most explicitly takes up the form, if
'pubbakiriyaa' were to be defined as a term for the form, it ought to
happen here.

Another question is whether the term shows up in grammatical contexts
in the atthakathaa or .tiika literature.

best regards,

/Rett