Dear Lance,
I notice /paṭipajji/ is given as an alternative aorist form for /paccapādi/
as seen at Thag-a III 58 ad pāda 868b. So, likewise, the same could be said
for /paccuppajji/ and /paccudapādi/. — the first being formed without the
/a/ augment. Being hardly familiar with the rules for the formation of verbs
according to the grammar tradition, I certainly can't tell whether or not
/paccuppādi/ is a valid form.
I'm afraid this is another one of those words (in both the meaning and the
letter) that can't be easily resolved, like the meaning of vibhūta the group
discussed at great length last fall.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "L.S. Cousins" <selwyn@...>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] paccupādi
> 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