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

Lance,

I think you are right. When I wrote my survey 10 years ago I noticed the
following interesting passage in Sv 59,29 where Bhuddhaghosa explains the
derivation of puthujjana as "puthu ..... ariyehi janehi". The same etymology
is repeated by Moggalaana  III 69 as "ariyehi puthag evaaya.m jano", which
is the example we would like to find. The Kaccaayana rule belongs
undoubtedly in this context. I might be a Sanskritism introduced by the
grammarians.

Ole

   _____ 

>Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af L.S. Cousins
Sendt: 3. september 2007 13:35
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: SV: [palistudy] Kacc 1-5-1 (query & translation)



Ole,

I wasn't sure if you had the Abhidh-av-.t example or not.

But if it is correct (as seems on a quick look) that there are no
examples in extant Canon or Commentary of the occurrence of any Pali
form of p.rthak + eva, then puthag eva could actually be the regular
form for the ancient literature. It would just be that no example
happens to be in surviving texts. But perhaps this is what you
intended to imply.

Lance

>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@... <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com> ps.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
>>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]