Re: Question of Pali Translation - Who stood?

Dear Huynh Trong Khanh,

I think "stopped" works better here than "stood". The subject of "ṭhatvā" is
the solitary buddha, not the dog.  Also, "crossways" might be better.
colloquially, than "transversely". I take it that the dog is blocking the
path.

I located the sentence at Dhp-a I 172 (PTS). There is a free translation on
page 255 in Vol. I of Burlingame's Buddhist Legends which I quote:

      “ One day the Private Buddha took the wrong path, and when the
dog tried to stop him, without turning back, he pushed away the dog
with his foot and went on.”

Best wishes,

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: KHANH TRONG HUYNH testsuda@... [palistudy]
To: Yahoo! Inc.
Sent: September 22, 2015 8:51 PM
Subject: [palistudy] Question of Pali Translation - Who stood?





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