SV: eva.m me suta.m

Thanks for correcting my English. "The following is what I hear (people
say)" is what I meant to say. Indeed, ta-participles have this
interpretation in many instances like muta.m(n)thought, thinking or the
like. This interpretation is corroborated by contemporary Sanskrit usage and
statements by Paa.nini. If interpreted as a regular ta-participle we
confront the syntactical problem of agreement between an adjective suta.m
qualifying a nonexistent term in the neuter.
Like in sanskrit me is only genitive and perhaps in a few cases dative.
Instrumental is not possible unless we assume that Pali unlike Sanskrit
innovates on this point. I do not se any reason for assuming that. The
grammar books are in my opinion mistaken on this issue. In addition,
ta-participles with genitive agents often have to be translated as present
forms like ra.n.na.m (gen. pl.)puujito is honoured by kings. There are quite
a few examples in the canon.

Ole Holten Pind


-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af gdbedell
Sendt: 20. september 2007 10:00
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: [palistudy] 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]
>





Yahoo! Groups Links