Hi Bryan,
I take the 'brahma-' part of brahmacārī and brahmavihārī as having the sesse
of seṭṭha (best or uttama). This can be seen in the comment at Sv I 72
(brahmaṃ seṭṭhaṃ caratīti) also quoted in PED under brahmacārī. Itiv-a I 176
gives an alternative (brahmā vā seṭtho ācāro etassa atthīti). I don't know
how brahmā fits in here even with an implied viya or iva. I'm fine with
seṭṭha and will leave it at that for now.
Best wishes,
Jim.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Levman bryan.levman@... [palistudy]"
<palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: April 8, 2016 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Re: Brahmavihārī
Hi Jim,
Perhaps if you treat it as a copula or linking verb it would make sense?
"That person is a brahmacārī whose nature/behaviour is to be/behave (like)
Brahma"? PED has one meaning of carati as to behave, to be. The viharitum
would be "... to live (like) Brahma"; the like isn't necessary for the
meaning, as "to be Brahma" also makes sense,
Best wishes,
Bryan
From: "'Jim Anderson' jimanderson.on@... [palistudy]"
<palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Re: Brahmavihārī
Dear Sayalay Cālā,
Does "the suffix 'ī' gives the word the function of an agent noun
(kattusaadhana)" answer your question?