Dear Jim,
I don't think an aorist form without an augment would be particularly
surprising in verse, although it is certainly the case that udapādi is
the usual form.
Going by the digital versions and the PTS, the Sinhalese (BJT) and Thai
(BUDSIR) versions read /paccupādi/ or /paccupādī/ (m.c.) in all four
cases. The PTS has that in two cases. In M II it reads /paccavādī/,
based on a single Ms of the commentary — two Sinhalese Ms and the old
Siamese edition read /paccupādi/ and one Burmese Ms had /saccavādi//./
At Ja IV it has /paccapādi/ — one Burmese Ms had /paccupādi/. The
Burmese (VRI) edition has paccupādi in two cases. At Th 868 it has
/paccapādi/ with a note that /paccupādi/ is found /sabbattha/. At M II
it has /saccavādī/ with a note that the Siamese, Sinhalese and Cambodian
(?) editions have /paccupādi/.
I won't go through them, but it seems that the situation is similar in
the commentaries. So I infer that the established reading was
paccupādi/ī, but some scribes and editors had problems with it and have
tried to emend it.
The commentarial glosses include: /paṭilabhi/, /alabhi/, /paṭipajjhi/,
/paṭipanno paviṭṭho/ and /pāvisi/.
Clearly, Norman's suggestion is possible, but the form paccupād- is
better established that he realized — he was perhaps not aware at the
time of the passages in Ja IV and S V. So my inclination is to try and
make sense of the form we have. Writing -p- for -pp- would be quite
normal in verse where a short syllable is required.
Lance
> 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