Re: present participles in the Bhikkhuni Patimokkha

Dear Jim,

Sorry for sending the message twice. I thought that it had not been sent
due to not being in plain text.
Thanks for helping with translating and clarifying the quote. I found
the following definitions of ''homologous:'' “Showing a degree of
correspondence or similarity such that it suggests a common origin” and
“having the same evolutionary origin but not necessarily the same
function.” Monier William's gives the following definition of gati as
used in grammar:
'' (in gram.) a term for prepositions and some other adverbial prefixes
(such as alam) when immediately connected with the tenses of a verb or
with verbal derivatives (cf. Pa1n2. 1-4 , 60 ff. (in a term for
prepositions and some other adverbial prefixes (such as alam) when
immediately connected with the tenses of a verb or with verbal
derivatives (cf. Pa1n2. 1-4 , 60 ff.  %{karmapravacanIya})''
I am not sure whether this is of use though.

In Sanskrit gatika can mean ''course'' or ''condition'' and gati ''place
of issue'' and ''origin'' So perhaps samaanagatika can be translated as
''of the same origin''?

There is a problem with the Bhikkhunii Paatimokkha in that many rules,
that is, the ones which are shared with the Bhikkhus, are not embedded
in the Vibhanga and that left some space for redactors. Nevertheless, I
am wondering why the Vibhanga's word commentary (padabhajana) to
Parajika 4 has jaanaatii and the .tiikaa, jaanantii.

Regards,
                Bhikkhu Nyanatusita

Jim Anderson wrote

Dear Bh. Nyanatusita and all,

Here's my attempt at translating the first part of your quote below. I
didn't translate the following part that deals with differences in
grammatical number.

  

> The Padamala of the Saddaniiti (Be p. 241) has the following discussion
> on the usage of jaanantii instead of jaana.m:
>    
  

> Idaani samagatikattepi “jaana.m, passan”ti-aadiina.m
> li"ngavibhattivacanantaravasena yo viseso dissati, ta.m vadaama.
>    

Now we state whatever distinction is seen by way of a difference in gender,
case, and number for jaana.m, passa.m and so on, in a homologous state.

[I question the spelling of samagatikatte, should it not be
samaanagatikatte? CPD gives 'not homologous' for 'asamaana-gatika'. I'm not
sure what homologous means though]

  

> Tathaa hi “saa jaana.myeva aaha na jaanaamiiti, passa.myeva aaha na
> passaamii”ti evamaadiisu jaana.m passa.m saddaana.m “jaanantii
> passantii”ti li"ngantaravasena parivattana.m bhavatiiti da.t.thabba.m.
>    

For similarly it may be observed that there is a change by way of a
difference in gender regarding jaanantii and passantii for the words jaana.m
and passa.m in such passages as "saa jaana.myeva aaha na jaanaamiiti,
passa.myeva aaha na passaamiiti" (knowing, she has said 'I do not know';
seeing, she has said 'I do not see').

  

> Iminaa “gaccha.m”iti saddassapi yathaapayoga.m “gacchantii”ti itthiyaa
> kathanattho labbhati tehi samaanagatikattaa, na “gacchanto”ti saddassa
> “gacchantii”ti itthiyaa kathanattho labbhati tehi asamaanagatikattaati
> kaara.na.m dassita.m hoti.
>    

The reason is shown by this: according to the usage of the word 'gaccha.m',
the sense of specification of the feminine 'gacchantii' obtains on account
of being homologous with these, not <by this: according to the usage> of the
word 'gacchanto', the sense of specification of the feminine 'gacchantii'
obtains on account of not being homologous with these.

[tehi is troublesome in that it is plural, and should it go with labbhati
(obtains with these) instead.]

Jim


------------------------------------



Jim Anderson wrote:
> Dear Bh. Nyanatusita and all,
>
> Here's my attempt at translating the first part of your quote below. I
> didn't translate the following part that deals with differences in
> grammatical number.
>
>  
>> The Padamala of the Saddaniiti (Be p. 241) has the following discussion
>> on the usage of jaanantii instead of jaana.m:
>>    
>
>  
>> Idaani samagatikattepi “jaana.m, passan”ti-aadiina.m
>> li"ngavibhattivacanantaravasena yo viseso dissati, ta.m vadaama.
>>    
>
> Now we state whatever distinction is seen by way of a difference in gender,
> case, and number for jaana.m, passa.m and so on, in a homologous state.
>
> [I question the spelling of samagatikatte, should it not be
> samaanagatikatte? CPD gives 'not homologous' for 'asamaana-gatika'. I'm not
> sure what homologous means though]
>
>  
>> Tathaa hi “saa jaana.myeva aaha na jaanaamiiti, passa.myeva aaha na
>> passaamii”ti evamaadiisu jaana.m passa.m saddaana.m “jaanantii
>> passantii”ti li"ngantaravasena parivattana.m bhavatiiti da.t.thabba.m.
>>    
>
> For similarly it may be observed that there is a change by way of a
> difference in gender regarding jaanantii and passantii for the words jaana.m
> and passa.m in such passages as "saa jaana.myeva aaha na jaanaamiiti,
> passa.myeva aaha na passaamiiti" (knowing, she has said 'I do not know';
> seeing, she has said 'I do not see').
>
>  
>> Iminaa “gaccha.m”iti saddassapi yathaapayoga.m “gacchantii”ti itthiyaa
>> kathanattho labbhati tehi samaanagatikattaa, na “gacchanto”ti saddassa
>> “gacchantii”ti itthiyaa kathanattho labbhati tehi asamaanagatikattaati
>> kaara.na.m dassita.m hoti.
>>    
>
> The reason is shown by this: according to the usage of the word 'gaccha.m',
> the sense of specification of the feminine 'gacchantii' obtains on account
> of being homologous with these, not <by this: according to the usage> of the
> word 'gacchanto', the sense of specification of the feminine 'gacchantii'
> obtains on account of not being homologous with these.
>
> [tehi is troublesome in that it is plural, and should it go with labbhati
> (obtains with these) instead.]
>
> Jim
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>