VỀ: [palistudy] Question about Baranasi

Dear Huynh Trong Khanh,

Thank you for your translation (quoted below) which comes fairly close to
how I interpret the Pali sentence.

<< From Baranasi, they carried goods by 500 wagons, came to the countries
for trading, gained profit and went back to Baranasi. >>

In Pāli:
Te Bārāṇasito pañcahi sakaṭasatehi bhaṇḍaṃ ādāya janapadaṃ gantvā vaṇijjaṃ
katvā laddha-lābhā puna Bārāṇasiṃ āgamiṃsu

The only word left untranslated is "puna" (again). One would have to look at
the sentence in its larger Jataka context but on first impression it seems
to suggest more than one such trip was made out of Bārāṇasi.

Instead of "came to the countries", I read "having gone to a (certain)
country or region".

Best wishes,

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: KHANH TRONG HUYNH testsuda@... [palistudy]
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: September 10, 2015 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question about Baranasi

Dear Jim,

Here is my translation:

From Baranasi, they carried goods by 500 wagons, came to the countries for
trading, gained profit and went back to Baranasi

Sincerely yours,

Huynh Trong Khanh

From: "'Jim Anderson' jimanderson.on@... [palistudy]"
<palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question about Baranasi

Dear Huynh Trong Khanh,

I think the aorist plural form of the causative "āgameti" would be
"āgamayiṃsu" (ā + GAM + aya + iṃsu). That is the difference. I read
"āgamiṃsu" (they (te) went back to) as the aorist indicative active, 3rd
person plural.

I'd like to see how you translate the sentence. I think "laddha-lābhā" is an
adjectival compound modifying the subject "te".

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: KHANH TRONG HUYNH testsuda@... [palistudy]
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: September 9, 2015 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question about Baranasi

Dear Jim,

Thanks so much. Although in many cases, the context behind is very clear,
but it's still a little bit puzzled when trying to explain by grammar base

Additionally, how can we understand the word āgamiṃsu in that sentence. If
I am not wrong, it is aor plural of āgameti - causative verb of agacchati,
so it means "they caused [something, someone] to go", however the context
showed very simply that "they went". What is the difference here?

Sincerely yours,

Huynh Trong Khanh

From: "'Jim Anderson' jimanderson.on@... [palistudy]"
<palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question about Baranasi

Dear Huynh Trong Khanh,

The -to suffix at the end of a nominal word is most often used to indicate
the ablative case and Bārāṇasito is what I would expect in a sentence like
this. The -to can also be used to indicate some of the other cases as well
as a plural. I think of it as a wildcard suffix.

With regards,

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: KHANH TRONG HUYNH testsuda@... [palistudy]
To: yahoogroups
Sent: September 9, 2015 7:13 PM
Subject: [palistudy] Question about Baranasi

Dear all,

I am translating this sentence from Jataka:

Te Bārāṇasito pañcahi sakaṭasatehi bhaṇḍaṃ ādāya janapadaṃ gantvā vaṇijjaṃ
katvā laddha-lābhā puna Bārāṇasiṃ āgamiṃsu

Which grammar type of Bārāṇasito? From the context, I may be the ablative
case, if that, it should be bārāṇasiyā. Is there any explanation for this
varied?

Sincerely yours,

Huynh Trong Khanh