SV: te suta.m/me suta.m

Dear Lance,

I think we confront one grammatical problem on top of the other: aajaanaami
occurs for the first time on p.241 of the PTS edition. It is there
constructed with the gen. bhoto. It is, I believe, one of the rare examples
of aajaanaaati used in in the sense of to approve or the like. It is
constructed with the genitive of the person approved. Only PW has this
information. As I understand the passage Brahma addresses Mahaagovinda´s
definition of the conditions of access to brahmaloka. Brahma quotes some of
them but says that he does not acknowledge his definition of aamagandha.
Then Govinda asks Brahma about the aamagandha. He answers and Govinda says
that he approves of him explaining the aamagandhe and concludes that they
are difficult to get rid of by someone living in a house and decides for
pabbajjaa. There is another unusual use of jaanaati p. 246 ff. It is
constructed with gen. pl. jiivitaana.m. This is to the best of my knowledge
the only example in the canon where it is used in the sense of to recall,
remember, known from the Mahaabhaarata. The expression ko ... jiivitaana.m
jaanaati seems to mean, who remembers the spans of life. Paa.nini II 3:52 is
interesting in this connection.

Ole

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af L.S. Cousins
Sendt: 26. september 2007 21:51
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: SV: [palistudy] 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




Yahoo! Groups Links