Re: ITIVUTTAKA 7

From: KHANH TRONG HUYNH
Message: 4703
Date: 2016-09-10

Dear Petra,

Thanks so much for your support.  I also always look on English translations for those suttas that I translate, but sometimes I am embarrassed with rare forms, cause usually what we need is not only the meaning of the sentence but also the grammatical base behind the meaning.

Sincerely yours,

Huynh Trong Khanh


From: "Petra Kieffer-Pülz kiepue@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] ITIVUTTAKA 7

 
Dear Huynh Trong Khanh,

sabbaṃ and cittaṃ are accusative objects of the respective active present participles which are in the nominativ (anabhijānaṃ, etc.; Norman, Pali grammar, § 190). The commentary explains these forms which are current especially in earlier texts, and which are the forms historically derived from Sanskrit, by forms ending in °nto.

By the way, there exist translations of the Itivuttaka, and as a first step in trying to find out the meaning of a text one could look into the existing translations, seeing what others thought the text might mean. 

Best,
Petra Kieffer-Pülz


Am 10.09.2016 um 11:50 schrieb KHANH TRONG HUYNH testsuda@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:


Dear all,

From the Sutta Itivuttaka no 7:

Sabbaṃ, bhikkhave, anabhijānaṃ aparijānaṃ tattha cittaṃ avirājayaṃ appajahaṃ abhabbo dukkhakkhayāya

Monks!  not super-knowing, not full-understanding All, thence with undetached, not-giving-up mind, he is incapable of destroying suffering

It seems the Accusative bulk (Sabbaṃ anabhijānaṃ aparijānaṃ tattha cittaṃ avirājayaṃ appajahaṃ) is used adverbially.  However, I could not refer it to any function of the Accusative case - as most of textbooks indicate.  It could not be Accusative Absolute, cause here the verbal nouns were used not participles.  It could not be kind of ellipsis too - I guessed - if it is ellipsis, it means there were so much words left out.

Here one possible proposal - I think - is:  (cittaṃ) takes Nominative case, not Accusative and the group (Sabbaṃ anabhijānaṃ aparijānaṃ) attributes to it.  So, the Nominative  (abhabbo) will be predicate of (cittaṃ).  All the same, according to my intuition, I do not see it convinced.  Moreover, the particle (tattha) seems to divide the sentence grammatically so that (cittaṃ) was not combined with the first bulk.

Please give me your advices.

Sincerely yours,

Huynh Trong Khanh 






Previous in thread: 4702
Next in thread: 4704
Previous message: 4702
Next message: 4704

Contemporaneous posts     Posts in thread     all posts