SV: te suta.m/me suta.m

Dear Jim and Lance,

As I see it the problem is if suta.m is a noun like other neuter
ta-participles (there are many of them in the canon) or a ta-participle in
the neuter that does not depend on any noun in the neuter, but notheless
functis as a verb. It is invariably constructed with the genitive. me and te
are clitics and they cannot be interpreted as anything but genitives inspite
of the grammarians´claims. How about this example from the wonderful
Mahaa-Govinda-suttanta D II 247: yathaa kho pana me suta.m Brahmuno
aamagandhe bhaasamaanassa te na sunimmadayaa agaara.m ajjhavasataa etc.
I have come to the conclusion that the genitive Brahmuno etc. is governed by
suta.m as su.naati like in Sanskit is constructed with genitive of the
person speaking , but acc. of the things heard. There are some examples in
the canon that would corroborate this. However, it is puzzling.

Best,
Ole

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af L.S. Cousins
Sendt: 26. september 2007 08:52
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [palistudy] te suta.m/me suta.m

Dear Jim,

>sammukhaa me ta.m aavuso Channa Bhagavato suta.m sammukhaa ca
>pa.tiggahita.m Kaccaanagotta.m bhikkhum ovadantassa:
>
>I would translate the above as:
>"This, friend Channa, was heard by me in the presence of the Blessed
>One, and accepted <by me> in the presence of <him> instructing
>Kaccaanagotta, the bhikkhu: ..."

Well, Jim, I was translating into English :-) But of course this is more
literal.

>I'm not sure if it's correct that "sammukhaa" should take a genitive
>and I'm puzzled as to why "sammukhaa" is repeated twice. Perhaps Ananda
>heard it on one occasion but it wasn't until later that he accepted it.

No, the sequence is very common in the form:
sammukhaa suta.m sammukhaa ca pa.tiggahita.m

If the two phrases are different, the second case should imply 'learning' in
some form. Obviously, it is one thing to have heard something and another to
have taken it in so as to remember it.

Here's an example from D  II 124:
   tassa me sa'nghassa sammukhaa suta.m sammukhaa pa.tiggahita.m

What is different in the example addressing Channa is the order and neither
of our renderings attempted to address this. In fact this is something that
modern Thai Pali scholars have addressed to some degree. It is taken up in
the Oxford D.Phil thesis of Pathompong Bodhiprasiddhi. So it is a clear that
the position of samukhaa and me is for the sake of emphasis.

I am not sure how to render that in English. Perhaps something like:
"This, friend Channa, I myself have heard in the actual presence of the Lord
and apprehended <it > in his presence ... " ?

Lance

>  Now, I
>would normally have taken "me" as an instrumental enclitic form of the
>stem "amha" in accordance with Aggava.msa. I don't yet know what
>Kaccaayana has to say about this in the Naamakappa but from reading
>Kacc-v 308 (cha.t.thii ca) "kato me kalyaa.no" is given as an example
>of the use of the sixth (genitive) case in the sense of the third which
>would include the instrumental agent. So one could take the "me" in the
>Channa quote as a genitive form. Kacc 308 & 309 together gives the
>genitive a very wide scope as it can take the place of 4 different
>cases in many instances and to add to the confusion there is the
>similarity of the forms of the dative or 4th case.
>
>Best wishes,
>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. >>
>
>
>---
>[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>





Yahoo! Groups Links