Re: about dvandato, etc.

Dear Jim

You wrote:

>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. 
>
>>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.
> 
>
Yes, what I mean is "dvandato suyyamaanattaa".

>>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.
> 
>
Yes, it is not a sutta. My choice of words has been influenced by the
terminology of Burmese Pali grammarians. They usually call such things
niyaam (Pali. niyaama), meaning "law, rule, etc.". But I think we can
clear up things a little by terming it an "interpretative convention"
--- concerned with dvanda compounds in this case.

>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.
>
No. It should be taken as ablative; see:
  Pubbayoge - pubbeva sammodhaa iccevamaadi.(Kaccaayanavutti - 275)

Here we should clear it up again. Ablative case related to "pubba" is
defined by actual usage while ablative case indicating that something
coming after it should be dealt with is a paribhaasaa --- a technical
convention in classic grammars used chiefly in forming suttas, and in
other technical explanations.

with metta

Ven. Pandita


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