some more remarks on continuative participle

Rett wrote:



>I am still unsure about the word vattamaanaa there, because it is often used to designate the present tense endings. Since this context was about time, I automatically thought of that sense, even though it didn't seem to fit in. Does it here just have the present participle sense of 'being' 'happening' 'carrying on' ?
>
>"pubbakaale vattamaanaa dhaatumhaa"  might then read: (to) the verb (dhaatumhaa) which is occurring (vattamaanaa) in previous time (pubbakaale)...?
> 
>
         In fact, vattamaanaa is a Present Participle (the root vat + the
sign a + suffix maana), just like karonta, etc. Since the root vat means
"to happen, to arise, etc" and the whole word happens to be an adjective
qualifying dhaatumhaa, it should be translated as "that which happen,
that which arise"
        Moreover, pubbakaale should not be rendered as "previous time"
because the author himself has said a few lines above, "pubbakaaloti
pubbakiriyaa" It should be translated instead as "in the previous verb"
        Then  the phrase"pubbakaale vattamaanaa dhaatumhaa" can be
understood as "from the root that arises in the previous verb" (Dhaatu
means only a verbal root --- it is a technical term that won't forgive
loose handling)
     Next there is the problem of the ablative case in dhaatumhaa, though
no one has raised it. It is in fact a convention used in building
grammatical suttas. It isn't explicitly defined in Kaccaayana nor
Ruupasiddhi, but it can be found in Moggallana (See the sutta
"pa¬ncamiya.m parassa" --- its meaning, in short, is that whenever a
grammatical entity is given in ablative case within a sutta, the
particular process or treatment denoted by that sutta is concerned with
what follows that entity, not with what precedes it. This convention,
and other given there, come to be used in vutti and commentaries like
Ruupasiddhi. I think these conventions come from the Sanskrit
grammatology and those fluent in Sanskrit should try to find out their
origin.
     In the present case, this particular sutta pubba . . . is meant to
add tvaa, etc. to certain roots. But should they be added as prefixes or
as suffixes? The ablative case in dhaatumhaa indicates that they should
follow the root, that is, they should be added as suffixes. That is why
I have added in my translation "(following it)"

"Navako" wrote:

>The function of the continuative participle is very clearly set out by
>Mason, Duroiselle, and (I assume) by Warder --and my question was not about
>its meaning or usage (as I say, this is the one thing I do know, and I tried
>to infer the terminology on this basis by comparing sources).
> 
>
     Here I should note that the usage of the continuative participle
(hereafter CP) may not have been adequately treated by Mason and other
scholars. I should like to reveal here the view of the Burmese tradition
but I have to make up the examples, for I don't have at present the
access to the Burmese sources necessary for the purpose; consequently, I
cannot give the valid examples from Pali literature.
1. puriso bhutvaa gacchati (= The man eats and goes) Here CP first, the
main verb later
2. puriso mukha.m vivaritvaa sayati (= The man opens the mouth and
sleeps, that is, he sleeps with his mouth open) Here CP and the main
verb are simultaneous.
3. puriso dvaara.m pidahitvaa ti.t.thati (= The man (would) close the
door, and stands up) Here CP "pidahitvaa" really reflects the man's
purpose in standing up. The real action of closing would take place only
after that of standing. Consequently
CP later, the main verb first.
4. khiira.m pivitvaa bala.m bhavati (= Strength arises on account of
(his) drinking milk) Here you should notice that "bala.m" is the subject
of the main verb "bhavati" but obviously not of the CP "pivitvaa" The
subject of "pivitvaa" is apparently someone who drinks the milk. This is
an exception from ". . . ekakattukaana.m. . . ." in the sutta.
     The Burmese tradition maintains that when a given CP and its
following verb have different subjects, the CP carries the sense of
causality, and its subject, understood or expressed, carries the
genitive case. I have given the translation above in accord with that
theory.
     In my opinion, however, the sense of the causality is only an
extension of the original sense as a verb. I would like to translate
instead as, "(He) drinks the milk, and (consequently) the strength arises"

"Navako" continued:

>So far, our conclusions seem to be (1) there is no adequate term in English,
>(2) contrary to Warder, there is no Pali term whatsoever.  I would still
>appreciate any feedback on either one of these conclusions, as they are
>fairly weighty, and I am myself composing a Pali textbook, in which such
>conclusion will take on a concrete form.
>
I have already said that a proper term for CPs should be the business of
those having better English skills. If we can't find a suitable term
ready-made for us in Western languages, we must coin it anyway.

However, I would like to discuss the question on the Paali term.
"Navako" may be right that there is no Pali term defined in grammatical
treatises --- it is seemingly because the ancient grammarians were
content to have only two categories of Primary Derivative suffixes,
namely, Kita and Kicca suffixes. (See the Kaccaayana suttas "te kiccaa"
and "a¬ne kit") Alternatively three, if you would like to count U.naadi
suffixes too. They have never bothered to define CPs separately; this
may just be a case of different tastes.
In the commentarial tradition, however, there really is a Pali term for
CPs; it is "pubbakaalakiriyaa" If you search this term on
Cha.t.thasa`ngaayanaa CD, you would find it to be a common term for CPs
in sub-commentarial literature.

with metta

Ven. Pandita