SV: te suta.m/me suta.m

Dear Jim,

One the one hand, there are many examples like the one you quote, where
there is agreement between a ta-participle and the noun it qualifies, the
agent of the ta-participle being in the genitive. However, there are things
about the te suta.m/me suta.m constructions that puzzle me. See, for
instance, the following example from S III 134: sammukhaa me ta.m aavuso ...
Bhagavato suta.m sammukhaa ca pa.tiggahita.m Kaccaanagotta.m bhikkhum
ovadantassa: dvayanissito, and so on. ovadantassa evidently qualifies
Bhagavato (gen.), so we confront an example similar to the one I mentioned
earlier: Two genitives are apparently constructed with suta.m.

Best wishes,
Ole


-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af Jim Anderson
Sendt: 23. september 2007 23:01
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [palistudy] te suta.m/me suta.m

Dear Ole,

A few comments and questions:

> suta.m is evidently a noun constructed with the pronoun te "your hearing"

I think the following passage at M I 238,12 has some similarity to your
passage: "kinti pana te aggivessana kaayabhaavanaa sutaati." -- But,
Aggivessana, has the development of the body been heard by you? It is clear
from the fem. sing. inflection of "sutaa" that this cannot be an action noun
and I would suggest the same holds for the 'suta.m" in the D III passage
even though it's in the neuter. I think the reason for the neuter in the
first interpretation of eva.m me suta.m discussed earlier is that the entire
discourse following the "suta.m" and ending in "ti" is taken as a neuter (x
(neuter) was heard (neuter) by me).

> the other genitives are constructed with suta.m as the object of
> suta.m (well-known from both Pali and Sanskrit), "Perhaps you hear the
> wanderers ..... saying ..... yes, I hear them saying ....

Isn't it possible that the genitive phrase following "suta.m" is directly
connected to the quotes that follow in a possesive relation (the quotes of
the wanderers) rather than as the object of "suta.m"? Couldn't it be that
the quotes themselves are the objects of "sut.am"? Another point I should
make is that if you take the genitive phrase as the object of "suta.m", the
agent "te" cannot be in the genitive case as well and would have to be taken
in the instrumental. This is according to Paa.n II 3:66 which states that
the agent and the object cannot both be in the genitive case in the same
sentence with a k.rt word serving as the verb.

Best wishes,
Jim

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




Yahoo! Groups Links