Re: te suta.m/me suta.m

Dear Lance,

Thanks for your remarks on "sammukhaa". "Suta.m" and "pa.tiggahita.m" are an
interesting pair and worth finding out more about in the commentaries but I
will have to defer that for another time. I think the main issue surrounding
"suta.m" in the discussions that Ole initiated has to do with whether or not
"suta.m" is an action noun (hearing). Somewhat controversial. I'm finding
the syntax of the D II 247 quote submitted by Ole to be much more difficult
to work out than the S III 134 one. It was interesting that you went back to
D II 242 as I did exactly the same thing. Those earlier passages and your
comments do help. I'll continue to ponder upon the matter...

Best wishes,
Jim

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