Re: Kc 30
From: Jim Anderson
Message: 2958
Date: 2010-08-03
> Niggahitaṃ kho byañjane pare aṃ iti hoti.
>
> When a consonant follows, there is the niggahita ‘ṃ’.
> *According to this sutta the niggahita ‘ṃ’ remain unchanged when
> followed by a consonant.
For "there is the niggahita ‘ṃ’ ", I would suggest "the niggahita
becomes ‘ṃ’ ". Mmd (p. 42) in explaining the examples (see below)
makes it clear that ‘ṃ’ is the substitute of the niggahita. To me this
means that the niggahita and ‘ṃ’ are not identical. It is pointless to
substitute identicals, is it not?
Mmd, p. 42 (ad Kc 30):
evaṃvutte | taṃsādhūti imāni udāharaṇāni || tesaṃ pana evaṃ vutte |
taṃ sādhūti chedaṃ katvā iminā niggahītassa byañjane pare aṃādesaṃ
katvā saralopomādesapaccayādimhi saralope tu pakatīti pubbasarassa
lopaṃ katvā parakkharaṃ netvā rūpasiddhi veditabbā || na
So 'evaṃvutte' seems here to be the proper way to write the phrase in
a text. With 'evaṃ vutte' one has performed a division into words
(padaccheda). What about tesaṃpana, lopaṃkatvā, etc.? Also, what
happens to the niggahita when a consonant _does not_ follow as at the
end of a sentence?
Jim Anderson