Re: about dvandato, etc.

Dear Ven. Pandita,

Thanks for your explanation but I'm afraid I'm unclear as to what you
mean by "this rule" and would like some clarification before I go
any further in my response. I have tried to give you some idea of the
problem below.

> >>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.

I would have thought "this rule' still refers to the "pa~ncamiya.m
parassa" rule (Mg I.15) but it seems that you have another rule in
mind from my reading of what follows.

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

This is from the gloss on Ruup 359 (relating to
samaahaaradvandas).

> 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:

Now it seems "this rule" refers to the "dvandato parattaa..." comment.
But this is not a rule (sutta) as I understand it.

Let's also compare:

dvandato pubbe suyyamaano itisaddo pacceka.m yojetabboti aaha "iti
bhavo iti abhavo"ti. Sv-abhinava.t I.368 ad Sv I.91 (on
'itibhaavaabhaavakathaa').

If we take -bhavaabhava- as a dvanda, then the word 'iti' being heard
before the dvanda is joined to each member of the dvanda. I'm doubtful
that 'dvandato' here is in the ablative since the 'iti' comes before,
not after. It might work if we take 'dvandato pubbe as 'earlier than
the dvanda' but I'm not sure about this.

I will stop here until we get "this rule" thing cleared up.

Best wishes,
Jim