Re: Kacc 271
From: L.S. Cousins
Message: 2155
Date: 2007-05-16
Jim,
Tadyathaa occurs frequently in the Sanskrit versions of the Canon in
exactly the same contexts as seyyathaa in Pali. MW is a little out
of date on this. I think (but am not sure) that at least in editing
Buddhist texts in romanization everyone would now write tadyathaa as
single word.
I don't think ta.myathaa is found in the Pali Canon proper. It does
occur in the paracanonical works at:
Mil 1; Pe.t 113; 146; Nett 14; 191.
These are works that derive from or are influenced by some other
variety of Middle Indian or Buddhist Sanskrit. I don't think there
can be any doubt that ta.myathaa corresponds to seyyathaa.
It is not clear to me whether tadyathaa in Sanskrit is ancient or a
back-formation from something Middle Indian.
Lance
>Dear Ole,
>
>Thank-you for your illuminating remarks on ta.myathaa and yathaata.m. I
>agree that the question marks after ta.myathaa should not be there. But it
>seems debatable to me whether or not the particle really is an avyayiibhaava
>compound as it could just as well be two separate words with or without a
>space between them. I don't see an entry for tadyathaa as a particle in MW
>or Apte but they do show tad yathaa. I will continue to keep an open mind on
>this matter and not come to any conclusion until I know a good deal more. I
>think the ta.m in the case of Kacc 271 may be referring to what precedes
>i.e. the apaadaanakaaraka. One advantage in having ta.m as the first member
>of a compound is that it allows for a wider range of interpretations as to
>its case and number to fit the context.
>
>Jim
--
Best Wishes,
Lance
-------------
From:
L.S. Cousins,
12 Dynham Place,
Oxford,
OX3 7NL
CURRENT EMAIL ADDRESS:
selwyn@...