Re: mantā (mantaa) as absolu tive

Dear Lance,

Thanks for the suggestion.

The earliest scripts also did not tend to show long vowels, therefore the exemplar probably had *mat(t)a(ṃ)mat(t)a(ṃ), in order to account for the mattaṃ mattanti reading at Sv 3, 820-21 and the secondary interpretaiton of mantā mantā.


Thanks for your help with this,

Best wishes,

Bryan





________________________________
  From: L.S. Cousins <selwyn@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:37:49 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Re: mantā (mantaa) as absolutive


 
Dear Bryan,

Yes, I agree that here too Buddhaghosa is taking the first mantā as the
instrumental of a feminine noun and the second as an absolutive. Note
that the PTS edition reads mantvā mantvā, but the reading mantā mantā is
confirmed by the ṭīkā and the more recent editions. The PTS edition has
only one upaparikkhitvā and refers to the Sinhalese Mss as reading
parikkhitvā.

One could punctuate with a semicolon between the two occurrences of
upaparikhitvā:

"There is also a reading: 'mantā mantā' <i.e.> investigating with
wisdom; the meaning is investigating."

These kinds of variation are interesting because they clearly go back to
a period when double consonants and anusvāra were often not written. So
a form matā matā could stand either for mattā or for maṃtā (=mantā) or
even mantvā and had to be deduced when the orthography was standardized.
It would be clear in recitation.

But I still do not think that in the case of Pj II 402 the commentator
means to give both explanations.

Lance
> Dear Lance,
>
>
> It seems to me that the commentator is taking mantā as both an absolutive, a fem. noun and a shortened instrumental form of the fem. noun.
>
> So for example in his gloss to an alternative reading of mattaṃ mattañca bhattaṃ bhuñjeyyāsi, mattaṃ mattañca pānīyaṃ piveyyāsi.
>   (DN 3, 8) he says
>
> “mantā mantā”tipi pāṭho, paññāya upaparikkhitvā upaparikkhitvāti attho. (Sv 3, 821)
>
>
> "Having investigated over and over with wisdom" is the meaning. I'm not sure why he has repeated the absolutive twice? Is this a reduplication for emphasis (āmreḍita)?
>
> Bryan
>
>
> ________________________________
>   From: L.S. Cousins <selwyn@...>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 10:30:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] Re: mantā (mantaa) as absolutive
>
>
>
> Dear Bryan,
>
> Roy Norman takes jānitvā as glossing mantā in Pj II 402, but I think
> this must be wrong. Later on mantā is explained as equivalent to paññā.
> So we must take mantā jānitvā in Pj as meaning 'after knowing by means
> of wisdom'.
>
> Pj II 402: rāgādikiñcanānaṃ pana abhāvena so akiñcano, mantā jānitvā
> ñāṇānuparivattīhi kāyakammādīhi carati, tenâha: gottaṃ … pe … loke” ti;
> mantā vuccati paññā, tāya c'esa carati, ten' evâha: manta carāmi loke
> ti, chandavasena rassaṃ katvā.
> (Be reads mantaṃ for manta in error; Ee and Se have manta.)
>
> Norman discusses this in his notes to Sn vv 159 & 455 (the page
> references differ in each of the three editions I have). He takes it
> that the commentary is giving two explanations, but there is no
> indication of that.
>
> Lance
>
>> 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 absolutive, 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]