Dear all,
I am translating this story of the Solitary Buddha & the Dog:
...Ath’ekadivasaṃ aññaṃ maggaṃ paṭipajjitvā sunakhena tiriyaṃ ṭhatvā vāriyamānopi anivattitvā taṃ pādena apanetvā pāyāsi.
Here is my primary translation:
Then, in one day, (the Solitary Buddha) having gone by another path, he having been hindered tranversely by the dog, he having stood, (but at the same time) he did not turn back, he having removed the dog by foot and proceeded
***
So, I considered the verb "ṭhatvā" belonging to the Buddha: after, he was obstructed by the dog, he stood.
However, I quite know that there is one more possibility that the verb was undertaken by the dog, so the sentence will be like this: he having been hindered by the dog (who) having stood tranversely...
or like this: (the dog) having stood tranversely, so he [the Solitary Buddha] having been hindered by the dog...
Although the above 2 explanations have same meaning, but ara totally different in syntax/grammar: the first hides a Relative Pronoun, and the second a Noun
Please kindly give me your insight
Sincerely yours,
Huynh Trong Khanh