Re: Kacc 271 (Sutt-nidd)

Jim,

> Your "-sup [a verbal agreement suffix] or -ti"n [a case and number suffix])"
> should be: -sup [a case and number suffix] or -ti"n [a verbal agreement
> suffix]).

Absolutely.

> Aggava.msa offers a definition of "pada" that would include, in my opinion,
> indeclinables and prefixes as follows:
>
> vibhatyantam avibhatyanta.m vaa atthajotaka.m pada.m. (Sd 27)
>
> However, Paa.nini's definition of "pada" (1.4.14) certainly excludes
> avibhatyantapadas.

My cat lacks a vibhatti, but I don't think he falls under the definition.  It seems that we
need a larger category of linguistic entities.  There is some variation in the use of vibhatti;
for some it is equivalent only to ti"n, and does not include sup.  And the force of
atthajotaka.m in this definition is not clear to me.

Thanks for the information.

Cheers,

George