Re: Dhammapada commentary

Hi Khristos,

> Unfortunately, I mistook the 'hi' as the emphatic particle, but, as
Jim will > be quick to point out, the sandhi would in that case be
'veva.n.niya~n hi'.

And also 'veva.n.niya.m hi' according to Kc 30 (a.m bya~njane
niggahita.m).

Thanks for your interesting posts on the future passive participle. I
will need to spend some time going over them before I can respond
appropriately. Just be patient as I'm not one of those guys who has a
quick and ready response for everything put forward. I will say this
though: in my mind, an accusative noun as the subject of a fpp seems
only possible in an accusative absolute construction but I will take a
look at what Wijesekera has to say on the matter.

For investigative discussions I'm hoping to gradually bring in the
Brahmajaalasutta for grammatical analyses according to traditional and
Western-styled grammars. I would also like to take an approach based
on what I would call "the principle of first occurrences", e.g.,. with
DN 1 as the base sutta the first instances of a fpp. occur in para. 5
(kara.niiyaa; kara.niiyo) and one with a different suffix
(nibbe.thetabba.m).

I have a feeling that a base sutta like DN 1 will touch upon most of
the Pali grammar found in the entire Tipi.taka.

Best wishes,
Jim