Re: eva.m me suta.m

A couple of questions and an observation.

(i)  Grammar books say that 'me' is an enclitic pronoun form ambiguously instrumental,
dative or genitive.  How do we know that 'me' in this context is genitive?

(ii)  Given that 'suta.m' is neuter, why is this a problem?  Given that it refers to something
heard, what other gender could it be?

(iii)  The suggested translations, viz.

           My hearing is as follows.
           The following is what I hear say.

are not idiomatic English, and it is not clear exactly how to interpret them.  Other
possibilities:

           The following is what I hear said.
           The following is what I hear people say.

Neither of these seems appropriate.  Closer may be:

           The following is what I hear.

But I wonder whether a past participle can have this interpretation.

George Bedell

--- In palistudy@yahoogroups.com, "Ole Holten Pind" <ohpind@...> wrote:
>
> Dear members,
> 
> The suttantas of the Tipi.taka are usually introduced by the sentence eva.m
> me suta.m. It is usually translated "Thus I have heard," and this
> translation is seemingly corroborated by Sanskrit sources which invaribly
> substitute mayaa (instr.). for me. However, me is genitive, and the use of
> the genitive of the agent constructed with a past participle is quite common
> in Paali as it is in Vedic Sanskrit. The grammatical problem is the form
> suta.m which is neuter. This indicates that suta.m is an action noun meaning
> hearing, just as sutta.m means sleaping, and di.t.tha,m seeing and muta.m
> thinking. There is a Paa.ninian suutra III 3:114 stating that past
> participles in the neuter are used as action nouns. The time reference is
> one of generalised present. Consequently we should translate suta.m as
> hearing. The only grammatically acceptable translation of this introductory
> sentence must therefore be: My hearing is as follows i.e. The following is
> what I hear say. This is extremely important from the point of view of the
> enunciation of any suttanta introduced by it because it makes any enunciator
> present with the events of the narrative.
> 
> Ole Holten Pind
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>