Re: Dhammapada commentary

Dear Mahinda,

with due respect, I can't quite agree with your analysis, but only inasmuch
as you say that "upasaṅkamitabbaṃ" is 'nominative' in the first sentence,
but that "apasādetabbaṃ" is accusative in the second.  I follow your
reasoning and interpretation, but would like to make the following
suggestion.

It seems to me that both of these sentences follow the same pattern (and
this is the point, I believe, that Wijesekera and Perniola were trying to
make).  The key to the pattern is the verb "ma~n~nati", which in this
particular pattern occurs in the optative.  I would suggest that
"ma~n~neyya" actually refers to and, so to speak, 'takes an object'; i.e.,
it is transitive, here (not just "he may think" per se, but "he may think
(something)").  It seems to me that "ma~n~nati" occurs in the canon
typically with such a transitive usage, e.g.:

      “yassadaani bhava.m kaala.m maññatii”ti  (MN 91, M ii.142), where I
assume that "kaala.m" (acc.) is 'object' of the verb; or again, perhaps more
clearly,

      "akkheyyañca pariññaaya, akkhaataara.m na maññati"  (SN 1.10, S i.11)
"having fully understood what can be expressed, one does not conceive 'one
who expresses (akkhaataara.m (acc.))'".


In the type of sentences we're discussing, the 'object', as it were, is more
complex, being part of an indirect statement governed by "ma~n~neyya".  As
seen in the preceding examples (and as one would expect), the direct object
of the verb would be in the accusative.  I would translate the first example
as follows, and would suppose that in this case, "upasa"nkamitabba.m" is
itself the 'object' of the verb "ma~n~neyya" (and although "parisa.m" (acc.)
is already the object of "viditvaa", sense dictates that it is also the
implied correlate of the -tabba.m participle):

      "appeva naama appasadda.m parisa.m viditvaa upasa"nkamitabba.m
ma~n~neyyaa"ti.

      "Perhaps, finding the assembly quiet, he may think it should be
approached."

The second example is perhaps more straightforward, since we have in fact
two direct objects, "sama.na.m vaa braahma.na.m vaa" (both acc.), and
"apasaadetabba.m" would be their predicate, and therefore would (also) be in
the accusative.  So this would be a 'double accusative' structure (direct
object + predicative object) with a verb of 'thinking, knowing, perceiving',
just as Wijesekera has hypothesised.

This analysis is suggested only for this particular kind of pattern,
governed by "ma~n~nati", which perhaps seems fairly frequent in the canon.
The main focus of our previous/ongoing discussion of -tabba participles has,
however, concerned certain other (and wider) issues..
It should be borne in mind, of course, that these suggestions merely
represent the learning process of a novice student (although a devoted one).

With metta,
Khristos



On 21 September 2010 18:02, Mahinda Palihawadana <mahipal6@...> wrote:

>
>
> > appeva nāma appasaddaṃ parisaṃ viditvā upasaṅkamitabbaṃ maññeyya 'on
> > seeing that assembly is silent, he might think of coming' (MN II
> > 2:7)
>
> > I'm not at all clear about the usage and meaning of the fpp in this
> > quote and the preceding explanation which strikes me as ambiguous.
>
> > I believe the following is just one typical example:
> >
> > >`kathañhi nāma mādiso samaṇaṃ vā brāhmaṇaṃ vā vijite vasantaṃ
> > apasādetabbaṃ
> > maññeyyā'ti. (D i.53)
> >
> >
> > May i add what i think about these two, just depending on my
> understanding,
> > i.e. without quoting authority. In the first sentence, upasankamitabba.m
> is
> > is a whole clause, which could only be *literally* rendered as "it should
> > be approached (by me)' - which of course finally means I should or could
> > approach. This passive usage, without the agent word, is quite common in
> > Indic languages, including modern languages. "ma~n~neyya" of course is no
> > problem. This is a very common usage in later Sanskrit, though, i believe
> > not in Vedic. So this is probably one of the indigenous South Asian
> > contributions to Sanskrit idiom. Now, what is the case of
> upasankamitabba.m?
> > It is nominative, since it qualifies an implied 'it'. Some grammarians
> may
> > say the implied word is 'upasankamana.m'. (The "going should be gone" or
> > "the going should be done").
> >
>
> > In the second sentence, apasaadetabba.m is a fpp (we used to call them
> > potential participles) from apasaadeti, which is a causative form. The
> > meaning is: How could one like me think that a recluse or a Brahmin
> living
> > in my realm could be exiled, i.e. , literally "possible to be caused to
> > leave" . It is of course acc. sing. since it qualifies sama.na.m/
> > braahma.na.m .
> >
>
> Mahinda
>
> > Groups Links
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]