Re: Dual or Vinaya Idiom?

Dear Bh. Nyanatusita,

I have been looking at the Saddaniiti passage (Sadd I 92-3) and I'd
like to point out a few things in your translation for about the first
third of it. I still have to go through the rest of the passage and
may post further comments later.

> Kasmaa pana imasmi.m pakara.ne dvivacana.m na vuttanti?

> But why has no dual number (noun) been said in this noun exposition?

I think 'imasmi.m pakara.ne' (in this work) refers to the whole work
(Saddaniiti) and not just to the part on nouns.

> Teneva hi si yo a.m yo naa hii ti-aadinaa ekavacanabahuvacanaa
> neva dassitaa niiti.

This should read:

"Teneva hi si yo a.m yo naa hii ti-aadinaa ekavacanabahuvacanaaneva
dassitaaniiti."

'ekavacanabahuvacanaaneva dassitaaniiti' = ekavacanabahuvacanaani eva
dassitaani iti

> Thus neither the single number (noun) or the multiple number (noun)
> is shown by whatever si, a.m, naa, hi, etc.

For this very reason, only singular and plural nominal words with 'si
yo a.m yo naa hi' etc. are shown.

[To members:] 'si yo' etc. is part of the standard list of 7 pairs
(singular and plural) of syaadi (nominal) inflections. 'si yo' is the
nominative sing. and pl. inflections but these in turn usually undergo
substitution when affixed.

Best wishes,
Jim

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