Re: ratyaa, ratya.m

Dear Rett,


> I like the glimpse into Thai pali studies that you give by way of an introduction. Nice image :-)
>
>  
The image isn't half as nice as the audio:
http://yuttadhammo.sirimangalo.org/files/noviceshout.mp3 :)


> So about nandi (f) (‚ nandin), to be safe you could just use the normal form with -iyaa etc if you are composing a text. If you you find other forms in the corpus then you might want to use them, but I wouldn't personally coin new 'archaic' irregular forms on the basis of rules classical vyakarana that were devised and tacked on to try to account for odd forms.
>  
Thank you, I thought the same as I was writing my post, but this still
doesn't help the Pali student who is asked, come exam time, to give the
full conjugation of 'uumi'. It was funny in class hearing the novices
come up with "uuyaa", but it wouldn't be funny to put it on an exam.
> Another way of saying this is that rules describing archaic forms should be considered non-productive. English also has many frozen expressions containing archaisms that are no longer productive, i.e. can not be used as a model for new sentences.
>  
The problem is that the book we are using was written by his holiness,
Somdet Phra Maha Samana Jao Krom Phra Yavajiranyan Vororot, and it
clearly says, "i karanta in itthilinga is formed like ratti (night), as
follows:", and then proceeds to give the form of ratti as noted, as
being just that, "a model for new sentences". I don't dare to venture to
ask that they correct the book ;)

Anyhow, back to cramming the little book into my big head.

Best wishes,

Yuttadhammo