Dear Lance,
Thanks for your welcome input. Although I haven't yet read Norman's notes at
EV I 281, I'm inclined to agree with him on /paccapādi/ being the standard
form. However, I wouldn't call /paccupādi/ an error but rather some sort of
solecism (vipallāsa) accepted in the textual tradition. The problem with
connecting /paccupādi/ to /paccuppādi/ is that: wouldn't the standard 3rd
sg. aorist form of paṭi + u + pad be /paccudapādi/ with the augment /a/? I
believe the /paccāpādi/ given in PED under /paṭipajjati is in error for
/paccapādi/.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "L.S. Cousins" <selwyn@...>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] paccupādi
> Jim and Florian,
>
> When you look at the various editions, the form /paccupādi/ is found
> three times in verse: M II 100; Th 868 and Ja IV 314 with only the
> single occurrence in prose at S V 147. It is discussed by Norman in EV I
> 281 = Th translation and by Gombrich in /How Buddhism Began/,
> pp.144–153. It seems clear from the commentaries and Mss cited that this
> was the reading known to the commentators. Norman thinks it is an error
> for paccapādi. This is possible but if so, the error would have to be
> very old and repeated in four different contexts. Gombrich accepts a
> rather different Burmese reading, but that seems unlikely in the light
> of the parallels in Ja and S.
>
> My own feeling is that the three occurrences in verse are metrical forms
> for paccuppādi. They all occur in tuṭṭhubha lines which require the
> second syllable to be short. Norman mentions this possibility, but
> rejects it on the grounds that paccuppajjati does not give the right
> meaning. However, 'is present' = 'appears' seems quite reasonable to me.
>
> I would account for the spelling with single -p- in S as due to the
> influence of the verse occurrences.
>
> I don't think it can be an aorist from the root DĀ
>
> Lance Cousins
>