Re: viyoga (Kc 10) --comment

Dear Ole,

> <<The Nyaasa (ad Kacc 10) glosses 'adho.thita.m' with 'pubbe.thita.m>>
>
> Are we talking about the same text? My Sinhalese 1898 ed. Nowhere glosses
> adho.thita.m with pubbe.thita.m, neither in the part commmenting on Kacc
> 10 nor in that on Kacc-v 10.

In my Burmese text (p. 19, Zabu Press, 1929) there is the following line:

pubbe.thita.m bya~njana.m sarato viyojayetvaa kattha thapetabbanti sandeho
jaayeyya |

I take it that "pubbe.thita.m" stands for "adho.thita.m". The Indian script
edn. (p. 37, New Delhi, 1991) also has this line but reads "pubbe .thita.m"
instead of "pubbe.thita.m".

<< I think that the Nyaasa makes sense if interpreted as I have suggested:
the > pubbabhuuta.m (so Nyaasa) consonant i.e. the one that precedes a
following > vowel is written below a immediately preceding consonant by
dissociating it > from its vowel which thus becomes vowelless (asara.m),
after which it is > joined to a (following) vowel as explained in Kacc 11.
The two suttas really > belong together. >>

Yes, I agree that Kacc 10 & 11 belong together and should be studied
together. But I don't agree that the two rules apply to conjuncts only such
as /tr/ in the examples given but also to single consonants such as the /m/
in ". . . abhiratimiccheyya". I still have difficulty making much sense of
the explanations given in the commentaries on these suttas and will need to
keep mulling over them for awhile. I'll keep in mind your suggested
interpretation. I thought of an interpretation that might also apply to the
/t/ (also vowelless) in the conjunct /tr/: the /t/ originally started with
/ta/ as listed in Kc 6 and is then separated from its /a/ by Kc 10 and
carried over to the subsequent letter /r/ by Kc 11. The rules suggest a
computational procedure such as subtraction and addition.

Best wishes,
Jim

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