SV: Jeyya vs. Je.t.tha vs. Jeti

Hi Eisel and Jim,

Whereas je.t.tha has a nice Vedic parallel je.s.tha as opposed to Sanskrit
jaayi.s.tha jeyya has none except Sanskrit jyaayas as Jim points out below.
Jeyya that is only recorded in Kaccaayanam and very late Paali lit. - it
does not occur in the canon and is totally absent from post-canonical lit. -
is, I believe, a fictitious backformation from jyaayas. Jeyya as an optative
from ji occurs a few times, cf. Dhp 103 jeyya-m-attaana.m.

Best wishes,

Ole Pind

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af Jim Anderson
Sendt: 22. oktober 2005 19:30
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [palistudy] Jeyya vs. Je.t.tha vs. Jeti

Hi Eisel,

> Firstly: many thanks to all who contributed on the "bya-" vs. "vya-"
> controversy.  The account reported from K.R. Norman seems to me
quite
> appealing; conversely, I *DO NOT* accept that the transformation of
an
> initial consonant cluster (i.e., vya- into bya-) is comparable to
the
> permutation of a medial consonant (i.e., -va- into -bba-).  This is
not
> "normal sandhi", and it is more likely that there is some kind of
> etymological/developmental explanation --i.e., without further
information,
> I would tend to favour the account reported from Norman.  For
myself: I
> think I have ignored this when I have seen it in the Burmese script,
as the
> Burmese "b" does resemble the "v" enough that I may have simply
assumed I
> was reading an error whenever I passed over "byakara.na".

Interestingly too, the "b" and "v" in the Devanagari script bear some
resemblance.

> A new question:
> I noticed today that Narada Thera explains "Jeyya" as related to
"Je.t.tha",
> whereas my dicionary (and: innate sense) would instead explain Jeyya
as a
> form of Jeti (either a present participle of Jeti, or a passive
> construction).

I'm assuming you're using Buddhadatta's dictionary. His entry for "jeyya"
which also includes "jetabba" accounts for the derivation from the root "ji"
only. These are potential passive participles (pt. p's).
The "jeyya" that Narada explains is derived differently and therefore a
different word (a homonym). It is derived from the substitute "ja" plus the
comparative suffix "iya". Kaccaayana explains this in the following two
suttas:

262, 391. vu.d.dhassa jo iyi.t.thesu.
  sabbasseva vu.d.dhasaddassa joaadeso hoti iya  i.t.thaiccetesu paccayesu.
  jeyyo , je.t.tho.

263, 392. pasatthassa so ca.
  sabbasseva pasatthasaddassa soaadeso hoti,  jaadeso ca iyai.t.thaiccetesu
paccayesu.
  seyyo, se.t.tho, jeyyo, je.t.tho.

You can see here that "ja" is the substitute (aadesa) of "vu.d.dha"
(aged) or "pasattha" (praised) before the following taddhita suffixes of
comparison: iya & i.t.tha. In Sanskrit, the substitute is "jya" to form
"jyaayas" (Pa.n V.3.61-2). It doesn't seem to me that this substitute "ja"
has any connection to the root "ji" (to conquer or
subdue) but the Sanskrit "jya" seems to be related to the Sanskrit root
"jyaa" (to overpower or grow old). I do not see a Pali equivalent of this
root.

Incidentally, I have noticed that the "v" of "vu.d.dha" is sometimes a "b"
i.e. bu.d.dha.

Jim

> Specifically, Narada claims that "Jeyya" is the comparative (meaning
> "Elder") whereas "Je.t.tha" is the superlative (i.e., praising
someone as
> very old).  It would seem to me that the meaning of Jeyya is instead
rooted
> in Jeti, and can figuratively suggest someone who is an accomplished
elder
>  --as with all the passive-voice constructions meaning "conquered",
"fit to
> be conquered", etc.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com




Yahoo! Groups Links