Dear Bryan,
Yes I think this is the construction. Only that the statement is not the subject, but some person, to which the statement refers. Arahati/labhati etc. depends on this subject and may be sg. or pl. Therefore it is:
He/She/They deserve/are worthy of/obtain (arahati/arahanti, labhati/labhanti) the being spoken of as ... "here follows the statement preceding iti"
f.i. It-a 143 ariyasāvakā ... "orasaputtā" ti vattabbataṃ arahanti. " The ariyasāvakas .. are worthy of being spoken of as 'breast(-born)'" So Masefield It-a transl. II 726
Best,
Petra
****************************************
Dr. Petra Kieffer-Pülz
Wilhelm-Külz-Strasse 2
99423 Weimar
Germany
Tel. 03643/ 770 447
kiepue@... (priv.)
petra.kieffer-puelz@...
www.pali.adwmainz.de
Am 06.06.2012 um 20:21 schrieb Bryan Levman:
> Dear Petra,
>
> Thanks for clearing this up for me. So vattabba-tā is the fem. abstract noun (lit: "the condition of what is to be said") and arhati takes it as its object, i. e. vattabbataṃ. So the meaning is "This [i. e. the statement ending with ti] deserves to be said [about the Buddha]"?
> Thanks for the other examples,
>
> Best wishes, Bryan
>
> ________________________________
> From: petra kieffer-Pülz <kiepue@...>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 2:05:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] vattabbataṃ arahato
>
>
>
> Dear Bryan,
>
> vattabba-tam is the acc.sg. of an abstract noun formed from the part.fut.pass. of vatti.
> arahati regularly goes with the infinitive, but it seems that the acc. sg. of the abstract noun of the part. fut. pass. is used as a kind of passiv infinitive. There are instances where the different traditions have variants (vattum arahati and vattabbatam arahati, f.i. in Ud-a).
>
> Instead of vattabbatam also uddisitabbatam is used, however, much less often.
>
> Instead of arahati also other verbs are used with vattabbatam like apajjati, labbhati/labhati.
>
> In all cases the subject of the sentence deserves that something is said about it.
>
> Best,
> Petra
> ****************************************
>
> Dr. Petra Kieffer-Pülz
> Wilhelm-Külz-Strasse 2
> 99423 Weimar
> Germany
>
> Tel. 03643/ 770 447
>
> kiepue@... (priv.)
> petra.kieffer-puelz@...
>
> www.pali.adwmainz.de
>
> Am 06.06.2012 um 18:31 schrieb Bryan Levman:
>
> > Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo, et al.,
> >
> > I am still confused about this phrase. If arahati is a verb (3rd person sing., "to be worthy of, to deserve, to merit") then it usually takes the infintive correct? But vattabattaṃ is not an infinitive form as far as I know (which always end with -um). So how can it mean "this deserves to be said..." If arahati is a loc. sing. of the nominal form for arahant, then the phrase would mean "This is the usual custom concering an arhat." which makes sense to me as a comment. The change to arahato doesn't substantially change the meaning.
> >
> > Is vattabattaṃ derived from vatti, vadati or vattati? The gerundive for vadati and for vatti is vattabba (to be said), not vattabbata (which is a nominal phrase meaning "usual custom" s.v. vatta-), as far as I can see.
> >
> > Please let me know how you see it,
> >
> > Metta, Bryan
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu <yuttadhammo@...>
> > To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
> > Cc: Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 9:55:14 AM
> > Subject: Re: [palistudy] vattabbataṃ arahato
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Bryan,
> >
> > That does seem logical, except, first, that it's "vattabbataṃ arahato"
> > which makes it seem a strange sort of genitive relationship for prose.
> > Second, vattabba need not come from vattati, it can also be derived from
> > vatti as per the PED entry (q.v.). The latter seems more likely, since
> > we are dealing with a quotation. Third, as Petra says, it's hard to
> > think it a coincidence that "iti vattabbataṃ arahati" occurs so
> > frequently in the commentaries with no indication of referring to the
> > Buddha in most cases.
> >
> > My question was more whether "arahato" could be considered to mean
> > something similar to "arahati", i.e. instead of "the fact of it being
> > proper to say so is proper", we might have "[there is] the fact of it
> > being proper to say so of the blessed one, one of whom it is proper [to
> > say so]."
> >
> > I guess, if I am not missing something, a typo seems more likely :)
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Yuttadhammo
> >
> > On 06/06/2012 07:51 AM, Bryan Levman wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Friends,
> > >
> > > I am sorry, I have been treating vattabbataṃ as a gerundive or future
> > > passive participle of vadati, but I realize now that I was mistaken:
> > > the future passive participle of vadati is vattabbaṃ, not vattabbataṃ;
> > > the latter is a compound vatta-bbataṃ which means "the usual custom"
> > > per the PED (s.v. vatta- < vattati). It is a nominal compound, not a
> > > future passive participle. Therefore I think arahato vattabbataṃ
> > > simply means "this/that is the usual custom of the arahat (i. e. the
> > > Buddha),"
> > >
> > > Metta,
> > >
> > > Bryan
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: petra kieffer-Pülz <kiepue@...
> > > <mailto:kiepue%40t-online.de>>
> > > To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 10:47:03 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [palistudy] vattabbataṃ arahato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > regarding the fact that there are 86 references for vattabbataṃ
> > > arahati in the Pali texts on the CSCD, mostly preceded by a quotation
> > > ending in ti, and no reference for vattabataṃ arahato, I think a fault
> > > by some copyist is much more probable.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Petra
> > > ****************************************
> > >
> > > Dr. Petra Kieffer-Pülz
> > > Wilhelm-Külz-Strasse 2
> > > 99423 Weimar
> > > Germany
> > >
> > > Tel. 03643/ 770 447
> > >
> > > kiepue@... <mailto:kiepue%40t-online.de> (priv.)
> > > petra.kieffer-puelz@... <mailto:petra.kieffer-puelz%40adwmainz.de>
> > >
> > > www.pali.adwmainz.de
> > >
> > > Am 05.06.2012 um 06:28 schrieb Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu:
> > >
> > > > Dear Ole,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the reply; I am guessing that what you are saying is that
> > > > this sort of sentence is proper:
> > > >
> > > > "there is the fact of being proper to say (vattabbata) this (iti) of
> > > the
> > > > blessed one (bhagavato)"
> > > >
> > > > as meaning:
> > > >
> > > > "It is proper to say this of the Blessed One."
> > > >
> > > > is that correct?
> > > >
> > > > The question is where does "arahato" fit in, if at all? Do you think it
> > > > could be an adjective of "bhagavato" or is that not correct?
> > > >
> > > > The temptation to just assume a typo is great; after all, "vattabbata.m
> > > > arahati" is quite common in the commentaries.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > >
> > > > Yuttadhammo
> > > >
> > > > On 06/03/2012 03:09 PM, Ole Holten Pind wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Yuttadhammo
> > > > > The Genitive is often used to express agency in the canon, not
> > > only with
> > > > > ta-participles, but also with fut.paritcip. in tabba.
> > > > > Best wishes, Ole Pind
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Yuttadhammo" <yuttadhammo@...
> > > <mailto:yuttadhammo%40gmail.com>
> > > > > <mailto:yuttadhammo%40gmail.com>>
> > > > > To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 4:24 AM
> > > > > Subject: [palistudy] vattabbataṃ arahato
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Friends,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just going through the Milinda commentary, along with Bhikkhu
> > > Bodhi's
> > > > > > translation. He points out the following problem:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Bhagavato sabbaṃ kāyakammaṃ ñāṇapubbaṅgamaṃ ñāṇānuparivatti. Sabbaṃ
> > > > > > vacīkammaṃ ñāṇapubbaṅgamaṃ ñāṇānuparivatti. Sabbaṃ manokammaṃ
> > > > > > ñāṇapubbaṅgamaṃ ñāṇānuparivatti. Atīte aṃse appaṭihatañāṇadassanaṃ,
> > > > > > anāgate aṃse appaṭihata ñāṇadassanaṃ, paccuppanne aṃse
> > > > > > appaṭihatañāṇadassananti, *vattabbataṃ arahato*!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > with the following footnote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >The mention of an arahant here is difficult to account for,
> > > unless the
> > > > > > Sayadaw is referring to Nāgasena, one of the two protagonists in the
> > > > > > Milindapañha.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wrote to him, suggesting that it actually should read "vattabbataṃ
> > > > > > arahati", as is common in the commentaries. He agreed, but
> > > pointed out
> > > > > > that the Burmese "o" is quite different from "i", and so it is
> > > strange
> > > > > > that there would be such a typo. Finding the passage in the Thai
> > > > > > version, it turns out to have "arahato" as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it's pretty clear that this is not referring to a
> > > person, but
> > > > > > simply the fact of the speech being appropriate. The question is
> > > > > > whether there is any way this passage can be understood
> > > grammatically if
> > > > > > we accept the form "arahato". I suggested that it might mean
> > > something
> > > > > > like "such (iti) [is] (hoti implied) [speech that] (vacanaṃ implied)
> > > > > > should be said (vattabbataṃ) of the Blessed One (bhagavato), one
> > > who is
> > > > > > worthy (arahato) [of such speech]. Ven. Bodhi was not inclined to
> > > > > > agree, but expressed interest in dicussing the issue with this
> > > list. He
> > > > > > accepted my offer to have him invited, so I'll send a request to
> > > Jim as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yuttadhammo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]