Dear Bh. Nyanatusita,
You also sent an earlier version of this message to the group two days ago.
I've been looking at the passage you quoted from the Padamaalaa which is not
at all clear to me. Like a lot of what Aggava.msa writes, it takes time and
painstaking effort to go over. From my reading so far, I'm inclined to think
that 'jaana.m' is the older of the two in the quoted Paatimokkha rule.
Aggava.msa is well aware of the problem but is not advocating changing
jaana.m to jaanantii in the texts. I would think that, without any knowledge
of the Padamaalaa passage or similar, later redactors would be more inclined
to want to change jaana.m to jaanantii rather than vice versa. Aggava.msa's
comments help to preserve the original reading, I think. If the original had
jaanantii there would be no reason to change it to jaana.m.
As a group mini-study, we could take a look at the part on li"ngantaravasena
(by way of difference of gender) if no one should come forward to explain
it.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nyanatusita" <nyanatusita@...>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:09 AM
Subject: [palistudy] Present participles in the Bhikkhuni Patimokkha
> Hello,
>
> I am revising the Pali text of the Bhikkhuni Patimokkha as published in
> Dr. Mohan Wijeyaratna's Buddhist Nuns, which the BPS will republish. The
> Pali text in the first edition is full of typing mistakes. While