SV: eva.m me suta.m

Dear Jim,

Yes, you are right. What I find particularly interesting is that the
canonical language in so many ways contain instances of usage and
constructions that Paa.nini and the Sanskrit grammarians address. Take, for
instance, the use of ruupa as suffix e.g. taramaanaruupa "in great haste."
It has the same function after ta-participles e.g. kata-ruupa "well done" or
the like. The usage is already addressed by Paa.ni, although only after
noound e.g. goruupa "excellent cow." 

Best wishes,
Ole

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af Jim Anderson
Sendt: 22. september 2007 17:57
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [palistudy] eva.m me suta.m

Dear Ole,

I think the interpretation of "me suta.m" that you sugggest (genitive agent
+ action noun) agrees with the second of the two put forth in Sv. "Suta.m"
as an action noun and the genitive form of "me" is corroborated by
Dhammapaala in Sv-p.t. In addition, the two vaartikas for Paa.n II 3:67
specifically addresses constructions with the genitive + action nouns in the
neuter with the -ta suffix. "bhagavato bhaasita.m" is another good example
of this type of construction, I think. Interestingly, the second vaartika
seems to allow for a construction with the instrumental as well, e.g. ahinaa
s.rptam (the gliding by a snake). I can appreciate the present time aspect
of "suta.m" (hearing) as it suggests Ananda is about to recount the
discourse directly from his aural memory.

The first interpretation in Sv, which you seem to reject, is to take "me" as
an insturmental agent and "suta.m" as an object (kamma) "what was heard by
me".  This would put the emphasis on Ananda having heard the discourse some
time ago..

Best wishes,
Jim

<< Sv is interesting because the explanation takes me in the sense of mayaa
i.e. not as an instrumental form, but with a similar function. The
commentators were, I believe, well aware of the corresponding Sanskrit
formulation of Buddhist Sanskrit lit. Interestingly, the exegesis suggests
that suta.m presupposes an underlying dvaara. (n.), which supposedly would
explain suta.m (n.). On the other hand, it also suggests the action noun
interpretation. This would indicate that the commentators were puzzled by
the syntax of the phrase. >>


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]




Yahoo! Groups Links