Re: present participles in the Bhikkhuni Patimokkha

Dear Bh. Nyanatusita,

> 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.”

That's a good definition.

>  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''?

I don't think the defintion of gati from MW as a term for prepositions and
some adverbial prefixes has any relevance to samaanagatikatta. I'm not sure
of the meaning of -gatika or exactly how it is derived (gati + ka, gata +
ika,or gati + ika). Abh 793 gives 8 meanings for gati:

793.
bhavabhede pati.t.thaaya.m, ni.t.thaa'jjhaasayabuddhisu.
vaasa.t.thaane ca gamane, visa.tatte {visaratta visadatte} gatiiritaa..

Perhaps your "origin" is related to pati.t.thaa. I'm also looking at
ni.t.thaa as another possibility since the .tiikaa glosses it with
nipphatti which suggests a result of a derivational process which seems to
fit because the derivation of jaana.m is exactly the same for the masc. and
fem. part. pr. In the vutti to Sd 383 (gacchantaadiina.m vaa) of the
Suttamaalaa, it is stated that the /nta/ suffix of gacchanta, etc. is
optionally changed into /a.m/ before the nom. sing. vibhatti suffix /si/.
This is further followed by Sd 384 (thiyampi vaa) for feminines and Sd 385
(atha vaa pume yomhi pa.thame) for masculines in the nom. pl. I have not
found any such corresponding rule like Sd 384 in Kacc or Mogg. Note that the
/a.m/ of jaana.m is not a nom. sing. suffix which by the way is absent ---
jaana-nta + si > jaana-a.m + si > jaan'-a.m.

> 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.

I think you'll need to be more specific in your references. I do see
'jaanaati naama' given for 'jaana.m' in the old commentary. I also see a
'jaanantii' instead of 'jaana.m' in the Vinayavinicchaya and its .tiikaa on
vv. 2024-5 but this is not the Vinayapi.taka. I think we would need to check
the readings in the Bhikkhuuniivibha"nga in a number of different edtions
for concrete occurrences of 'jaanantii' instead of 'jaana.m' in the rules.

Regards,
Jim