SV: Kacc 1-5-1 (query & translation)

I mention this example in my forthcoming PTS edition of Kacc. I have not been able to trace other examples.

Ole Holten Pind

   _____ 

Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af L.S. Cousins
Sendt: 3. september 2007 10:39
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [palistudy] Kacc 1-5-1 (query & translation)



The example from Abhidh-s-mh.t is given in the PTS edition too (p.
190,5) and in the corresponding passage from the same author's
Abhidh-av-.t (e-text corr. to Be II 368). But of course these are
texts which may be influenced by the grammatical literature where
puthag eva seems to be a standard example.

Do we have any examples of a form < p.rthak followed by any form of
eva in the Canon or commentaries or even the older .tiikaas ?

Lance Cousins

>Re: 1-5-1
>
>OPS §38: "…[This verse] states that 'in some cases the final a of
f
>putha gets the augment g before a vowel.' The vutti quotes the example
>puthag eva which is recorded neither in the canon nor in the
>Aṭṭhakathās. It is difficult to believe, however, that Kacc describes
>occurrences that are not instantiated."
>
>I have found one instance in an e-text of the Abhidhammatthasaɲgaha,
>p. 248, as follows: ārammaṇantarehi amisso puthageva koci upanissayoti
>vuttaŋ hoti.  It also appears in the neo-Pali work Jinavaŋsadīpaŋ (p.
>502), which is, no doubt, a product of the rule above rather than
>truly instantiating it, as with its appearances in later grammatical
>works.
>
>Here's my current translation of the verse (subject to change):
>
>{Sutta:} Putha sometimes [takes on] g as an augment [where followed
>by] a vowel.
>{Vutti:} In the same way [as the foregoing rules], where the ending of
>putha [stands] opposite a vowel, [it] sometimes [takes on the] the
>letter g as a euphonic augment.
>{Note:} [This rule is addressed to the adjective puthu where it forms
>the first part of a compound and ends with an -a. From the
>perspective of the Pali language, the word is puthu (and will be found
>spelled as such in the dictionaries), not putha; however, both here
>and in the eighth verse of this chapter, it is evident that the
>author(s) of the verse thought of this word in terms of its Vedic
>etymology, viz., the roots pṛthag and pṛthu (cf. 1-5-8, with which
>this verse is reciprocal).]
>{e.g.} [Thus, puthu + eva may very rarely result in:] Puthageva.
>{Note:} [Or, with reference to its etymology, the example may be
>explained as pṛthag + eva  puthageva; it is not entirely rare for
>euphonic augments to restore archaic features that had dropped out of
>the language in the period of the canon's compilation. However, the
>particular instance described by this rule is so rare that OPS §38
>suggests it does not exist (cf. notes to the Pali text).]
>Why only "sometimes"? [Because the rule is not absolute, and so the
>same example may be written:] putha eva.





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