Re: Vivicca

Dear Bhante Kumāra,

I think the reason is purely stylistic. For the same reason that ādāya is also an absolutive but we translate it as "with", or ṭhapetvā is an absolutive and we translate it as "except". I think the idea is to make the translation more idiomatic. But of course we can translate vivicca as you suggest, or ādāya as "having taken" or ṭhapetvā as "having left aside".

Best wishes,

Aleix

2018-04-03 9:17 GMT+05:30 kumara.bhikkhu@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:

I get your point on "gerund" and "absolutive" being inadequate terms for the form. My question is why "vivicca" isn't translated as "having secluded/withdrawn" (or "secluding/withdrawing").

---In palistudy@yahoogroups.com, <aavuso@...> wrote :

Dear Bhante,
Something I don't understand: Vivicca is clearly
a gerund (absolutive). Why then is it commonly
translated as if it's a participle (e.g. "secluded", "withdrawn")?
Such forms are common in Ukrainian and Russian, and they are called "adverbial participles". They are quite similar to participles.

Since there's no exactly corresponding form in English, someone called them "gerunds", which is rather a misnomer.

Let me link an explanation of their syntactical functions by Ven. Dhammanando:

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=16316

With metta,
Dmytro