Hi Bryan,
No. I am saying that Pali -dheyya at least in some cases is a meaningless
quasi-suffix like naamadheyya = Sanskrit naamadheyya. There are probably
other Pali instances such as kammadheyya = kamma, "work." -dheyya is not
found independently as Sanskrit dheya. Interestingly Rv has naama-dheya and
bhaaga-dheya that are mentioned in the vaarttika below. In addition,
Grassmann mentions retodhaa, vayodhaa,and vasudeya.
Best,
Ole
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Levman" <bryan.levman@...>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] the suffix dheyya
Hi Ole,
Are you saying that –dheyya is a meaningless suffix just in
Pali?
There are several examples in Skt. and RV where it is
clearly not meaningless, i. e.
mitra-dheya
ratna-dheya
reto-dheya
vayo-dheya
vasu-dheya,
Best,
Bryan
________________________________
From: Ole Holten Pind <ohpind@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 5:38:35 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] the suffix dheyya
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@... ca>
To: <palistudy@... ps.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>bhaagaruupanaama bhya.h dheya.h</V>
>
> Pata~njali's comment:
> . bhaagaruupanaamabhy a.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
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to
New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links