about dvandato, etc.

Dear Jim

You wrote:

>>Moreover, "dvandato" should not be translated as "as a dvanda compound" Notice the ablative sense of the suffix "to" here. To understand this usage, I would have to quote from one of my earlier posts.
>>
>>" 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" (Digest - number - 387)   
>>
>A parallel sutra can be found in Paa.nini's grammar at 1.1.67 (tasmaadityuttarasya). But I don't think it applies here to 'dvandato' for one only has to ask what is the subsequent (para) of 'dvandato' on which a grammatical operation is to be carried out?
>
My answer would be as follows:

First, the origin of this rule.

Paa.niino ca  tuuriyaani ca  yoggaani  ca senaa caati
paa.nituuriyayoggasenaa, taasama'ngaani  paa.nituuriyayoggasena'ngaani, 
dvandato parattaa  a'ngasaddo  paccekamabhisambajjhate. (Padaruupasiddhi
- 210)

Trs.:   Living beings, musical instruments, carriages, and army are
(collectively termed) *paa.nituuriyayoggasenaa.* Their components are
(termed) *paa.nituuriyayoggasena'nga*. The word /a'nga/ should be
individually related (to each compound member) since it follows a dvanda
compound.

What meant by "dvandato parattaa" is:
paa.nituuriyayoggasena'ngaani == (i.e., equivalent to) paa.nya'ngaani ca
tuuriya'ngaani ca yogga'ngaani ca sena'ngaani ca.

It should be noted here that this rule cannot be limited to only within
compounds, for:

bhikkhusaama.neraa gacchanti == bhikkhuu ca gacchanti, saama.neraa ca
gacchanti.
(monks & novices go)                  (monks go and novices also go)

In some contexts, however, this rule is not applicable. For instance:

ga'ngayamunaa ettha missayanti. (= The rivers Ganges and Yamuna mix here)

In the example above, it makes no sense to relate the verb "missayanti"
to each of "ga'ngaa" and "yamunaa", for mixing cannot happen alone,
i.e., we can't say "Ganges mixes and Yamuna mixes".

In our case, "saddattha (sadda + attha)" is a dvanda comp. and "bheda"
is "being heard after that dvanda". It would be combined with
"saddattha" as a Tappurisa comp. So when this rule is applied:

saddatthabheda == ( i.e., is equivalent to the hypothetical form)
saddabheda-atthabheda

Note that the former, as a whole, is no longer a dvanda compound but the
latter is a dvanda, with this rule still applicable. So when combined
furthermore with "vaadii" as a Tappurisa comp.:

saddatthabhedavaadii == saddabheda-atthabheda-vaadii ==
saddabhedavaadii-atthabhedavaadii

Now the content of "saddatthabhedavaadii" is two categories of teachers,
namely, "The speakers of the analysis of linguistic forms" and "The
speakers of the analysis of meanings".

On the other hand, if we omit to use the rule "dvandato parattaa"
altogether (we have the right to do so given the exception above):

saddatthabheda (= the analysis of both linguistic forms and meanings)
saddatthabhedavaadii (= the speakers of the analysis of both linguistic
forms and meanings)

Now we have got two identical forms of "saddatthabhedavaadii" --- the
former meaning the first two categories of teachers while the latter,
the last category. When these are combined into a dvanda compound, its
hypothetical form would become
"saddatthabhedavaadiisaddatthabhedavaadii" having all three categories
as its content. Then, using the principle of "ekasesa", one form is
dropped and the other is retained.

The commentator indicates the account above by the clause "dvandato
suyyamaanattaa ekasesattaa ca"

>The suffix '-to'can stand for other cases in addition to the ablative as shown in Sd
>493 (tatiyaa-pa~ncamii-cha.t.thii-sattamiyatthesu to kvaci). It is also my understanding that the '-to' can denote either singular or plural. I have gone over most of the uses of the ablative case and have not yet been able to find one to fit the context of our
>'dvandato'. 
>
With the Padaruupasiddhi text in view, we can understand "para.m" after
"dvandato".

>I agree with you that my translation with "as a dvanda compound" is not right but I'm not in agreement with your translation either: 
>
>>According to that convention, "dvandato suyyamaanattaa" should be translated as "from the fact of its being heard after a dvanda compound"  
>>
>What is being heard after a dvanda compound? 
>
"Bheda" is being heard after the dvanda "saddattha", and "vaadii", after
the dvanda "saddabheda-atthabheda".

>I'm looking at taking 'dvandato' to be in the locative case instead of the ablative ie. "from the fact of its (meaning) being heard (or read)*in* a dvanda compound" and
>
If ablative case works, I think there would be no need to assume
locative case.

> 'dvandato' can also extend to include 'ekasesattaa' ie. "from the fact of the retention of one (in a dvanda compound)". What do you think? 
>
You mean ". . . from the facts of its (meaning) being heard, and of the
retention of one, in a dvanda compound". But how will you deduce all
three categories of teachers from this phrase?


with metta

Ven. Pandita


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]