Re: te suta.m/me suta.m

Dear Ole,

I think this example is clearer if we go back to the original
occurrence at D II 242-3. There when Mahaagovinda is addressing
Brahma, we have first:
1. aamagandhe  va kho aha.m bhoto bhaasamaanassa na aajaanaami

and then after hearing Brahma's explanation:
2. yathaa kho aha.m bhoto aamagandhe bhaasamaanassa aajaanaami, te na
sunimmadayaa agaara.m ajjhavasataa etc.

then later when Mahaagovinda addresses King Re.nu, we have:
3. yathaa kho pana me suta.m Brahmuno aamagandhe bhaasamaanassa, te
na sunimmadayaa agaara.m ajjhavasataa etc.

Therefore 'aha.m  bhoto aajaanaami' in 2) corresponds to 'me suta.m
Brahmuno' in 3).

I would translate:

1. It is just corruptions that I do not understand when you speak of them.

2. As I understand corruptions when you speak of them, they are not ...

3. As I heard when Brahma was speaking of the corruptions, they ...

So the construction is a genitive absolute in each case. And the
present 'aha.m aajaanaami' corresponds to the past 'me suta.m'.

Or, do you understand differently ?

Lance

>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