SV: Kacc 271

   _____ 

Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af Jim Anderson
Sendt: 17. maj 2007 00:55
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [palistudy] Re: Kacc 271



Dear  Jim

  < I'm not sure what you mean by "all the subsequent occurrences". The four
occurrences in the examples (or 5 in the Sinhalese ed.) >

I was thinking of all instances recorded in Kacc.

  < I was just looking at what the Saddaniiti had to say about seyyathiida.m
which it uses instead of ta.myathaa--at least in the first few suttas. I was
surprised to find the interrogative meanings given to it at p. 892,24-6 as
follow:

" seyyathiida.m iti so katamo ti vaa te katame ti vaa saa katamaa ti vaa taa
katama ti vaa ta.m kataman ti vaa taani katamaani ti vaa eva.m
li"ngavacanavasena aniyamite atthe pi; " >

  This explanation is based upon glosses in Buddhaghosa´s ct.s like, for
instance his ct. on Brahmajaalasuttanta p. 81 and elsewhere. You will find
every single example mentioned in Sadd exemplified by Buddhaghosa. The idea
is that the particle (nipaata) introduces the answer to the question what
sort of thing x is; answer: it is such and such a thing. The use of katama
has this function and it is not a gloss on seyathiidam itself. Buddhagosa is
trying to explain the context in which the term is used, and Sadd takes over
his explanation without supplying the context

< I also see an interesting comment at Sadd 633,19-21 about the teachers'
wish
for an e instead of the o in soyyathiida.m. >

This is interesting. It shows that indigenous scholars thought that the
pronoun se would correspond to so, which is regularly attested in the canon.
However, it is a sandhi form, and one has to explain whether a sandhi form
of /sa/, which only occurs under certain conditions in Sanskrit and in some
cases as /sa/ in the canon (cf. the corresponding use of /esa/ in the canon)
would suddenly appear as the sandhi form /se/ (a so-called maagadhism or
eastern form). In my opinion seyyathaa is derived from sa yathaa (this is
the usual transliteration), which is well attested in the Braahmanas in the
sense "like, for instance" . It is regularly found in comparisons. I assume
that /a/ was raised to /e/ under the influence of /y/. This is well attested
in the canon. The geminated /yy/ is somewhat of a problem, which is never
addressed. One would have expected the form sethaa. I assume that the
gemination is for emphasis in sentence initial position in prose. The
gemination would make the /e/ short as is commonly the case of vowels before
geminate consonants in the canon.

  Ole pind
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]