Re: mantā (mantaa) as absolu tive

Dear Lance and Khristos,

Thanks very much for the references. 

The DN reference (3, 106) I think is definitely an absolutive as the commentary glosses the second mantā, upaparikkhitvā.

The Sn 455 erference is glossed as jānitvā, so  I think that is also an aboslutive, although Norman translates it as an agent noun (noting the discrepancy with the commentary)


The others could be an agent noun (nom. sing.) or an absolutive as they are homonyms. Norman translates them all as the former, but has a good discussion on page 190 and 191 of his Group of Discourses. 

Once again thanks very much for your help,

Metta, Bryan




________________________________
  From: L.S. Cousins <selwyn@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Re: mantā (mantaa) as absolutive


 
Bryan,

At D III 106 we have:
/mantā mantā ca vācaṃ bhāsati nidhānavatiṃ kālena. etad ānuttariyaṃ,
bhante, bhassasamācāre/.

Sv III 892 glosses:
/*mantā mantā ca vācaṃ bhāsatī* ti ettha mantā ti vuccati paññā, mantāya
paññāya. puna mantā ti upaparikkhitvā/.

This seems to be taking the second occurrence of /mantā/ as an absolutive.

K.R. Norman (Sn Trsl. note to v.159) seems to understand Pj II 402 as
taking /mantā/ as an absolutive, but that appears doubtful.

Lance

On 30/06/2012 16:04, Bryan Levman wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> The normal absolutive of the verb man, maññati (ma~n~nati)  is mantvā (mantvaa, "having thought, having considered, etc."), but Fahs Grammatik (page 327) says that the form mantā (mantaa) also occurs. Has anyone ever seen this form in this usage (as opposed to the plural of the noun manta, "spells")?
>
>
> Metta, Bryan




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