Dear Jim and Lance,
The commentaors evidently tried to attach a meaning to dheyya. This word is
not found seperately in the canon, it occurs, however, in Sanskrit
literature, "to be held or taken; to be created or what is created, to be
applied or put in practice; giving, imparting;" this is what one finds in
MW. In any case, I wonder if any of the commentarial explanations would fit
the term kammadheyyesu at Ja VI 297,1 and A IV 289,10. The Ja commentator
simply explains kammadheyyesu as kattabbakammesu, which to me at least
corroborates the suffix-like interpretation. There are also terms like
maccudheyya, mara.nadheyya that call for an explation.
Ole
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson_on@...>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] the suffix dheyya
> Dear Ole,
>
>> You find the description of suffix like Sanskrit -dheya (Pali
>> dheyya) in Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik II.2 p. 827
>> d). It is mentioned as suffix in Vaarttika 2 on Paa.nini V.4,36,
>> mentining ruupa, and naama, and bhaaga as examples to
>> which -dheya is suffixed. The root is, of course, dhaa,
>> but in this case without the expected semantics.
>
> Thanks for the information. The vaartika is as follows (from G.
> Cardona's transcription of the Mahaabhaa.sya):
>
> <V>bhaagaruupanaamabhya.h dheya.h</V>
>
> Pata~njali's comment:
> . bhaagaruupanaamabhya.h dheya.h vaktavya.h . bhaagadheyam .
> ruupadheyam . naamadheyam .
>
> I take this to be a closed list of 3 words only. If As 391 is a good
> indicator of the meaning of "naamadheyya.m" in the Tipi.taka, the
> gloss at As 391 on the term is "naama.thapana.m". "-.thapana.m"
> (setting up, placing) here stands for "-dheyya.m" and shows clearly
> that -dheyya.m in this particular case is not a meaningless suffix.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>