Re: Saddatthabhedacintaadiipanii, verse 1

Dear Bhante and members,

Here's some translation and notes for the commentarial part of the
first line of verse 1. I will post more later on. Instead of using the
asterisk (usually for bold) to mark underlining you could use the
underscore.

> Saddatthabhedacintaadiipanii:
>
> jinavarassa niravasesadevamanussaana.m pavarabhaave satipi
> attanaa abhidheyyamaanapakara.naanuruupa.m bhagavato
> thomana.m kattukaamo
>
> "saddatthabhedavaadiina.m pavara.m varavaadina.m
> abhivaadiya saddatthabhedacintaa'bhidhiiyate" ty'ettha
> *saddatthabhedavaadiina.m pavaran* tyaaha.

Translation:
With respect to the excellent Conqueror's foremost state existing
among all devas and men and wishing to do a salutation to the Blessed
One which is fitting for the treatise being spoken by himself,  he
said "the Foremost of speakers of the analysis of sadda and attha" in
this (introductory verse):
       Having saluted the Foremost of speakers of the analysis of sadda
            and attha,
       the Speaker of the Excellent; the Saddatthabhedacintaa shall now
            be spoken.

> tattha *saddatthabhedavaadiinan* ti saddabhedavaadii-
> atthabhedavaadii-saddatthabhedavaadiihi aacariyehi
> pavarantyattho. dvandato suyyamaanattaa ekasesattaa ca.

Notes:
For "pavarantyattho. dvandato...", I think a semi-colon or something
similar (even no punctuation mark) would be better than a full stop as
the phrase beginning with dvandato doesn't seem to be a sentence. I
also wonder if there should not be a "pavara.m" in
*saddatthabhedavaadiinan* ti. This was my reason for putting <the
Foremost> in angled brackets below.

Translation:
Therein, for "saddatthabhedavaadiina.m", the meaning is "<the
Foremost> with teachers who are speakers of the analysis of sadda,
speakers of the analysis of attha, and speakers of the analysis of
sadda and attha" -- from the fact of it being heard as a dvanda
compound and from the fact of the 'retention of one' (ekasesa).

Notes:
I think the use of the instrumental plural relates to the visesana
rule. According to the above, 'saddatthabhedavaadiina.m' would be
resolved as: saddabhedavaadiina~nca atthabhedavaadiina~nca
saddatthabhedavaadiina~nca. The rules for 'ekasesa' are given in the
grammars -- see Paa.n I.2.64-73, Kc 388, Sd 820-3. The example given
for Kc 388 is: puriso ca puriso ca ==> purisaa (bahuvacana) but this
does not apply here as the members of our compound do not have the
same forms (saruupaani) but note that it applies to each member per
se. Perhaps the rule at Sd 821 (viruupekaseso) for different forms
could have some bearing here. cp. Saariputto ca Moggallaano ca ==>
Saariputtaa; migo ca migii ca ==> migaa.

to be continued....

Comments and questions welcome.

Best wishes,
Jim