Greetings everyone!
Since this is my first message to the group a little intro: I got into Buddhism back in 2012, have been studying/practicing off and on since then, but have become much more dedicated in the last few months. A bit under 2 months ago I decided to teach myself Pāḷi--I had been interested in doing so for awhile, and had begun to look up the Pāḷi definitions of various words to get a clearer understanding, and after I spent a couple of hours one night, tripping through my complete ignorance of Pāḷi grammar, trying to figure out something pretty simple, I decided I would take the plunge =) Beyond that I live in the US, Henderson/Las Vegas, Nevada specifically and am planning on ordaining in the next year or so.
I've got a TON of questions, so I'll just start with a number around a single exercise in Nārada's grammar, which I'm focusing most of my attention on at the moment.
In Lesson 12, exercise B#4, we're asked to translate from English into Pāḷi: “Well, you should not be angry with me thus.” I've been using two different keys to assist me, they are:
Starting on pg.229:
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/ele_pali.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20060524210757/http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/palidd/#DWhich give, respectively: “Sādhu, mayā saddhiŋ evaŋ mā kujjheyyāsi.” And, “Sādhu, evaŋ mayi (tvaŋ) na kujjheyyāsi.”
1) Use of 'sādhu:' First, just to confirm: based on PTS “sādhu” is also used in adhorting (new word for me!), so it seems it's quite akin to the English, “well”--I initially thought it meant 'well' as in good, etc. I understand that it also means “good,” “well,” “good person.” Correct?
2) Placement of 'evaŋ:' I understand that it modifies the verb no matter where it's placed (so long as it precedes the verb it's modifying? Or is there an exception if there's only one verb in the sentence, or in poetical usage?), but is there a change in nuance and/or emphasis depending on it's placement? It seems to mean here that one should not be angry in such a way/manner.
In English, if directly before the verb it's more “you shouldn't be angry in such a way,” whereas if before 'mayā' it's more, “you shouldn't be angry with me in such a manner.' In the former it feels that their anger itself is at issue, whereas in the latter it's slightly more that the problem is with the fact they are upset with me. Is this the same in Pāḷi? What about placing 'evaŋ' between the negative particle and the verb?
It is quite a subtle difference, especially in this sentence, but such subtelties can become much more important in different contexts.
3) Use of 'mā' vs 'na:' From what I've gathered, it seems that 'na' is better suited to this sentence in meaning “should not be angry,” whereas “mā” seems inappropriate, beinga prohibitive, which seems would make it a command or an instruction, “you shall not be angry.”
Also, from what I can tell, the prohibitive 'mā' is, outside of poetry, nearly always used with the aorist, so if 'mā' is to be used, it would be, “Sādhu, ... mā kujjha/kujjhāhi,” correct?
Which then raises another question: what is the difference between the construction with 'mā' + aorist, and na + conditional/optative (sattamī), and mā + conditional/optative. It seems it would be that with the first it's a command (“don't be angry”), the second a statement (“there's no reason for you to be angry”), and the third a sort of gentler command (“you shall not be angry”).
Is 'mā' ever used with the optative?
4) Use of 'saddhiŋ:' I'm quite sure that this is improper and that it has no place in this sentence, correct? After all, you are not angry together with me, but instead at me.
5) Proper case for 'ahaŋ:' I can see both the Inst. and the Loc. making sense, in different ways ... do they both work? With the Inst. you are angry by means of me, while with the Loc. your anger is supported by, or based in me. Although both of these are wrong from a Buddhist perspective =P Would the Acc. also work here, in that your being angry is directed at me?
6) Would, “Sādhu, tvaŋ mayā evaŋ na kodhano bhaveyyāsi” also work? Hope this isn't too much to fit into one message =)
Mettā,
Chris