Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Post Reply
Dhammasissa
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:46 am
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas), NV, USA
Contact:

Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Dhammasissa » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:08 am

One source (so far it's proving to be a pretty poor source =P) indicated that time is indicated first, then the subject (e.g., ajja ahaŋ potthakaŋ likhāmi), but now based on the exercises I've come across in Nārada it seems to be that it can be placed just about anywhere in the sentence so long as it's before the verb. Is this the case? Is there any actual difference in meaning between,

Ajja ahaŋ potthakaŋ likhāmi.
Ahaŋ ajja potthakaŋ likhāmi.
Ahaŋ potthakaŋ ajja likhāmi.

Will it's placement have a nuance on meaning at times, as I suspect, but carry the same general meaning? Of course complex sentences are a different matter, so I'm asking here about clauses and simple sentences.

Can anyone recommend a source that deals in detail with the general rules and the nuances of sentence structure in Pāḷi for future study? I'm guessing it is covered in Warder and various other grammars, but there doesn't seem to be a systematic treatment of it in one place as opposed to scattered through the work. I know Warder mentions that, "In Pali word order is important chiefly for the sake of being able to deviate from it for effect."

Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Reductor » Tue Aug 23, 2016 5:08 pm

The three sentences are essentially the same; as a guiding principal, word order is not important to meaning. On those occasions when it is, it may not be immediately obvious why (at least for us beginners) until we ponder it a bit. Consider: "Imāni kho, bhikkhave, tīṇi nidānāni kammānaṃ samudayāya" verses "Tīṇi imāni, bhikkhave, nidānāni kammānaṃ samudayāya"

The first means "These indeed, monks, are (the) three causes for the arising of actions", while the second is "These three (lit. three these) are the causes for the arising of actions." The only difference other than word order is the inclusion of 'kho' (indeed).

But the difference is comprehensible, yes?

EDIT: as to a source for further reading, I suggest you just keep with your Narada course, and De silva, for now. With reading practice you will, I suspect and hope (for myself too), become quick to discern these things. When you cannot, you can consult other translations, and people here. There is also a pali mailing list where people can go for help. You could also pm various learned pali experts here who might have time to give you some assistance.

Dhammasissa
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:46 am
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas), NV, USA
Contact:

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Dhammasissa » Wed Aug 24, 2016 8:41 am

Reductor wrote:The three sentences are essentially the same; as a guiding principal, word order is not important to meaning.
So a related question, in part to confirm my understanding--the word order would thus also not matter, or be a nuance, in a sentence like, “For a long time we lived in our uncle's house in the city,” both

“Ciraŋ mayaŋ nagare amhākaŋ matulassa ghare vasimhā,” and
“Ciraŋ mayaŋ amhākaŋ matulassa ghare nagare vasimhā.

Or in this case would the former locative act as an ad-nominal to the latter? In this case it wouldn't change the meaning, but all the same.

Reductor wrote:On those occasions when it is, it may not be immediately obvious why (at least for us beginners) until we ponder it a bit. Consider: "Imāni kho, bhikkhave, tīṇi nidānāni kammānaṃ samudayāya" verses "Tīṇi imāni, bhikkhave, nidānāni kammānaṃ samudayāya"

The first means "These indeed, monks, are (the) three causes for the arising of actions", while the second is "These three (lit. three these) are the causes for the arising of actions." The only difference other than word order is the inclusion of 'kho' (indeed).

But the difference is comprehensible, yes?
As far as I can tell, the first emphasizes that "these three" are the only three, whereas in the latter there are three causes, but they are not necessarily the only three... no?

I'm a bit confused as to how the sentence works without containing a verb, even though I get the meaning of the Pāḷi after looking up the words. In the Pāḷi construction, it's that three causes, kammas, arise from. Why not a verb instead of a noun?
Reductor wrote:There is also a pali mailing list where people can go for help.
Where can I find this mailing list?

User avatar
Dmytro
Posts: 1479
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Dmytro » Wed Aug 24, 2016 9:29 am

Dhammasissa wrote:Where can I find this mailing list?
At http://dhamma.ru/sadhu/656-all_things_p ... ahoogroups

Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Reductor » Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:54 am

Dhammasissa wrote:
Reductor wrote:The three sentences are essentially the same; as a guiding principal, word order is not important to meaning.
So a related question, in part to confirm my understanding--the word order would thus also not matter, or be a nuance, in a sentence like, “For a long time we lived in our uncle's house in the city,” both

“Ciraŋ mayaŋ nagare amhākaŋ matulassa ghare vasimhā,” and
“Ciraŋ mayaŋ amhākaŋ matulassa ghare nagare vasimhā.

Or in this case would the former locative act as an ad-nominal to the latter? In this case it wouldn't change the meaning, but all the same.
Did you compose this? If not, where is it from.

I do wonder about having city and house declined the same way and side by side as seen in the second. Heck, even not when side by side I find it strange. When nouns are declined the same way in a sentence, it is usual to read them as A = B (e.g. puriso manusso, "the man is a human" or "man is human"; or purisāya manussāya "for the man who is a human"; or as here "in a house that is a city which belongs to uncle"). Or we might take one as an adjective of the other, but "in our uncles house city" would seem a strange reading. I would have expected the verb thing "vasimhā" to take a noun in the accusative, in this case "gharaṃ". The verb thing, btw, threw me off. Turns out it's in the past tense, but is here declined like an adverb or adjective. What is it modifying?

If these seem like criticisms, they're not. I just find myself pondering this a bit, wondering what I'm missing. I've heard that later pali idiom is much different than sutta idiom, and more difficult.
Reductor wrote:On those occasions when it is, it may not be immediately obvious why (at least for us beginners) until we ponder it a bit. Consider: "Imāni kho, bhikkhave, tīṇi nidānāni kammānaṃ samudayāya" verses "Tīṇi imāni, bhikkhave, nidānāni kammānaṃ samudayāya"

The first means "These indeed, monks, are (the) three causes for the arising of actions", while the second is "These three (lit. three these) are the causes for the arising of actions." The only difference other than word order is the inclusion of 'kho' (indeed).

But the difference is comprehensible, yes?
As far as I can tell, the first emphasizes that "these three" are the only three, whereas in the latter there are three causes, but they are not necessarily the only three... no?

I'm a bit confused as to how the sentence works without containing a verb, even though I get the meaning of the Pāḷi after looking up the words. In the Pāḷi construction, it's that three causes, kammas, arise from. Why not a verb instead of a noun??
Tīni is an adjective. Imāni and nidānāni are a pronoun and noun, respectively. Placing these two side by side would be to equate them, saying they're the same, or that one is the other: Imāni nidānāni would be "these are causes". Tīni is an adjective. If you place it in there with the other two, it seems to matter where. This is evidenced by the origin of these sentences: they actually follow one another in a sutta which is quoted in "A new course". Placing it in front of nidānāni we get "These are three causes". Placing it in front of Imāni we get "These three are causes". Really, the difference seems to be in emphasis. The first sentence was emphasizing that "these" things just spoken of are the three causes referenced at the beginning of the discourse. The second emphasizes that "These three (which will now be spoken of) are causes". If the distinction seems slight in English, then I suppose it is slight in pali, too.

As to why there is no verb, I don't know (I'm also only a beginner). But it is common in pali to omit the verb if the declensions of the objects will make the meaning clear.

Dhammasissa
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:46 am
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas), NV, USA
Contact:

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Dhammasissa » Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:47 pm

Reductor wrote:
Dhammasissa wrote:“Ciraŋ mayaŋ nagare amhākaŋ matulassa ghare vasimhā,” and
“Ciraŋ mayaŋ amhākaŋ matulassa ghare nagare vasimhā.
Did you compose this? If not, where is it from.
"For a long time we lived in our uncle's house in the city," is an exercise sentence to translate into Pāḷi that is in Nārada's work, Lesson vii, B, #6. Unfortunately, there is no key--well, I did find a version with a partial key, of sorts (which seems to have a couple issues, I plan to ask more about various exercises later), but this one isn't included, so the two sentences in Pāḷi are purely of my own construction. I just read over all the Pāḷi to English exercises between this lesson and the one where the locative is introduced to see if there was a double locative anywhere and how it was structured, but alas, found none.

How would you translate the English sentence into Pāḷi?
Reductor wrote:I do wonder about having city and house declined the same way and side by side as seen in the second. Heck, even not when side by side I find it strange. When nouns are declined the same way in a sentence, it is usual to read them as A = B (e.g. puriso manusso, "the man is a human" or "man is human"; or purisāya manussāya "for the man who is a human"; or as here "in a house that is a city which belongs to uncle"). Or we might take one as an adjective of the other, but "in our uncles house city" would seem a strange reading.
From what I've learned so far, and then from reflecting on the points you've brought up, my best guess is that the case has a lot, well everything, to do with it: one use of the nominative is, to quote Collins (pg19), "2. Any word which qualifies the subject, such as an adjective, predicate, or a term placed in apposition," which (if I understand correctly) would be the use with your example of, "puriso manusso." I can't really wrap my head around, "purisāya manussāya" at this point, but it seems it would be similar to the nominative use in how they refer to each other as objects, as beneficiaries, vs as subjects/agents. Then with the genitive (e.g., "ācariyassa sissassa","the teacher's student's") it's unidirectional. I know there are double accusatives (though only have the beginning of an understanding of those). So it seems that the nature of the case will change how two nouns declined in that case will work together, and that the nature of the instrumental, ablative, and locative will be quite different in such a context vs nominative, accusative, dative, and genitive. How you translated "puriso manusso" and "purisāya manussāya" differently seem to me to indicate this is the situation with the different cases, thus it seems to me that something like, "aṭṭhimhi manusse," would mean "in/on the bone in the man," although it could also mean, "in/on the bone-man"--so we would rely on context. ... actually, from my limited understanding of adjectives, "aṭṭhimhi" can't be an adj of "manusse" since they don't agree in gender ... curious, the use of a substantive as an adjective--how's that work?
Reductor wrote:I would have expected the verb thing "vasimhā" to take a noun in the accusative, in this case "gharaṃ".
With the use of the accusative, Collins (pg44) quotes Aggavaŋsa as saying, "What (someone) does or what (someone) sees is an object. It is done, realized through action, so it is an object." And, "The factor of action consisting in the object has the characteristic of realizing the action, (and) it is threefold in terms of hat is to be produced, etc.; ...." Then on pg49, discussing the locative, "It is also called 'location' because it provides a site for these actions in the sense of a foundation. Thus in 'Devadatta sits on the mat' [kaṭe nisīdati Devadatto] the mat, supporting Devadatta, supports the action of sitting which inheres in him; ...." Also, the opening line of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta starts with, "Ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā bārāṇasiyaṃ viharati isipatane miga·dāye." Thus it seems that a verb like vasati or viharati takes the locative.
Reductor wrote:The verb thing, btw, threw me off. Turns out it's in the past tense, but is here declined like an adverb or adjective. What is it modifying?
I conjugated vasati as vasimhā based on what I've understood of Nārada. According to Nārada, -imhā is the conjugation for the aorist last person plural (aka, the 1st person plural, "we"--I like the concept of calling 1st person last person, and 3rd person first person, despite that it can be confusing =P). Actually, he lists it as "mha" then gives pacati, gacchati, and suñati as examples, all of which end with "imhā." Looking in Collins and Gair&Karunatillake, it seems that this is the -i(s) or -is aorist, Collins only has -imha, and Gair&Karunatillake have -imhā as an alternate with -imha being the primary. So ... yeah, dunno, lol. I'll have to reference other grammars later and see if Nārada simply made a mistake, or what's going on. Collins does say (pg87), "The aorist can seem confusing because of its many different paradigms. If one wanted to write Pali, this would be a problem.... The aorist is formed in four ways, as in Sanskrit, but in Pali changes caused by the meeting of consonants, etc., sometimes make the formal derivation of aorists difficult to discern." He then gives a table for the root aorist, with the last person plural being, "adamha/ā" (he uses an 'a' with both a breve and macron over it, pretty certain to indicate one or the other).
Reductor wrote:"Imāni kho, bhikkhave, tīṇi nidānāni kammānaṃ samudayāya" verses "Tīṇi imāni, bhikkhave, nidānāni kammānaṃ samudayāya"

As to why there is no verb, I don't know (I'm also only a beginner). But it is common in pali to omit the verb if the declensions of the objects will make the meaning clear.
Thanks for the insights and helping to clarify the distinctions between the two sentences--quite interesting! And that is good to know about Pāḷi and the omission of verbs (also quite interesting)--I do recall reading something about how they can be omitted at times when implied, or something like that, not sure. I'll definitely be keeping an eye out for this as I continue my studies!

I hope this is clearly written, if not just point out any nonsense and I'll clarify =)

Oh, and even if you were critiquing, I'd only welcome it! I need all the help I can get and am not going to pretend I'm anything but a newb trying his best to make sense of all this--it's a lot to take in! =D

Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Reductor » Sat Aug 27, 2016 5:49 am

Hi (yet again). I think I may be over generalizing about equatorial sentences (puriso manusso). Like you said, there are multi accusative objects in sentences. These are often like direct object and indirect object. Also, your quotefrom the dhammacakkappavatana sutta drives home the multi locative thing too, unless we believe the city and the park are the same exact place. More likely we can read it as "in the park in the city", which is similar to your composition.

Also, I should have checked my books on the aorists before my first reply. The aorist that you used was correct. It's listed on page 24 of Warder. The problem for me is that I haven't had many opportunities to read aorists, and totally misunderstood what was happening.

One thing that has occurred to me is that, because I'm trying to learn by reading and 'intuiting' more than analyzing, I can only speak to what I've seen, but can say less about what the rules of pali actually are, if you understand me. Which is why I feel like I've possibly misled you during these last couple posts. Hopefully any misunderstanding is of small import here.

Dhammasissa
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:46 am
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas), NV, USA
Contact:

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Dhammasissa » Thu Sep 08, 2016 2:44 pm

I have wanted to respond for awhile now, but haven't had the time! Now that I get back to it and read it all over, doesn't seem to be all that much for me to say and/or have forgotten what I had intended, alas!

Reductor, Sylvester had mentioned in a response to me in a different thread that "this aorist is relatively unattested in the early Nikayas," so it seems to make sense that you haven't had much experience with it (at least assuming that's what you've been reading). But, being so new and not having read much in Pāḷi yet, I'm not exactly clear on what he means--I didn't ask since until now I thought he meant the aorist tense itself, but now sense he may mean that form of it, either way, I'll find out =P Do you not come across the aorist much, or is it different forms of it typically? I had read that the aorist is often used as a narrative past so thought it would be common in the suttapiṭaka?

Once I get through Nārada I plan to make sutta reading a core element of my learning. I had started to read a bit as practice, but with how limited my knowledge of tenses, moods, participles, vocab, etc. are it made more sense to focus on this book to get a firm foundation first. I'm sure that reading one of the grammars after having experience reading can really help to make things click since you have something to apply it to, something to draw from, vs just learning grammar in the abstract. Practice needs study/theory, and theory needs practice, as I learned from Marx et. al. so many years ago =)

Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Reductor » Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:44 am

Dhammasissa wrote:I have wanted to respond for awhile now, but haven't had the time! Now that I get back to it and read it all over, doesn't seem to be all that much for me to say and/or have forgotten what I had intended, alas!

Reductor, Sylvester had mentioned in a response to me in a different thread that "this aorist is relatively unattested in the early Nikayas," so it seems to make sense that you haven't had much experience with it (at least assuming that's what you've been reading). But, being so new and not having read much in Pāḷi yet, I'm not exactly clear on what he means--I didn't ask since until now I thought he meant the aorist tense itself, but now sense he may mean that form of it, either way, I'll find out =P Do you not come across the aorist much, or is it different forms of it typically? I had read that the aorist is often used as a narrative past so thought it would be common in the suttapiṭaka?

Once I get through Nārada I plan to make sutta reading a core element of my learning. I had started to read a bit as practice, but with how limited my knowledge of tenses, moods, participles, vocab, etc. are it made more sense to focus on this book to get a firm foundation first. I'm sure that reading one of the grammars after having experience reading can really help to make things click since you have something to apply it to, something to draw from, vs just learning grammar in the abstract. Practice needs study/theory, and theory needs practice, as I learned from Marx et. al. so many years ago =)
Hi again Dhammasissa. I think Sylvester meant that particular aorist was seldom seen, not that aorists are seldom seen. In the book I'm currently using, the selections have all been, so far, expositions, which haven't used the aorist. But in Warder there is more narrative material, and I do think that aorists occur there a bunch. There, aorists are introduced in chapter 4. My trouble is that I hadn't cracked Warder for three years at least. I'm suffering from memory rot!

If you are wanting to read early suttas do consider the New Course after you finish Nārada. You seem quite studious and would probably work through it quickly. The principal thing to remember is that the teachers expect an intuitive 'leap' from the students which allows them to understand the sentences. The grammar explanations are not as complete as they might be in other texts, but are usually enough.

Dhammasissa
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:46 am
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas), NV, USA
Contact:

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Dhammasissa » Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:33 am

Reductor wrote:Hi again Dhammasissa. I think Sylvester meant that particular aorist was seldom seen, not that aorists are seldom seen.
That makes sense. So, do the different aorists connote any different meaning? From a quick glance in a few sources it seems they don't carry any difference in meaning.
Reductor wrote:My trouble is that I hadn't cracked Warder for three years at least. I'm suffering from memory rot!
Oh, I know all about that, lol! With Pāḷi my plan is to avoid that, but time will tell =) If I understand correctly, learning something, getting rusty, then coming back is actually a way to teach your brain to make even stronger connections--I may very well be basing this on a misunderstanding of spaced repetition, but meh--and you'll of course pick up what you're rehashing faster than the first time.
Reductor wrote:If you are wanting to read early suttas do consider the New Course after you finish Nārada.
I actually picked up a copy very shortly after I began my studies thanks to stumbling upon Bhikkhu Bodhi's audio lecture series using that work (I presume you're familiar with that? If not, here's the link: http://bodhimonastery.org/a-course-in-t ... guage.html). Very slowly, and as one of my side studies, I've actually been working through it--starting to work on some of the vocab for Lesson 2, and have read the readings in Lesson 1 a couple times, as well as the opening readings for Lesson 2 ... come to think of it, I should probably make some Anki cards out of the sentences. Related, I found Ānandajoti's wonderful book, "Navapadamañjarī--A New Collection of Sentences (Illustrating Pāḷi Case Endings)," and look forward to incorporating that into my studies; I'm thinking of going through one or maybe a few sentences a day, looking up and adding the words to my vocab list, and then adding the sentence into Anki for review. He has a work, "Tisuttanirutti--A Grammatical Analysis of Three Discourses," that I think will be right up your ally where he breaks down and explains the grammar and vocab of 3 suttas sentence by sentence, and word for word--yet another title in my "to read" list =P His site (well, one of them!) has quite a few useful resources: http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/T ... -index.htm

I've been using the New Course, as well as Collins' work also suggested by Bhikkhu Bodhi, as references quite a bit, and the New Course def is a bit brief in grammatical explanation. I need to really use Warder as a ref with some of my questions, not sure why I haven't been doing that more.

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Sylvester » Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:19 pm

Dhammasissa wrote: I'm a bit confused as to how the sentence works without containing a verb, even though I get the meaning of the Pāḷi after looking up the words. In the Pāḷi construction, it's that three causes, kammas, arise from. Why not a verb instead of a noun?
Hope the query is no longer stale, but as to why there is apparently no verb in that "3 causes" sentences, it's because Pali is a zero copula language. This means that one does not need to furnish the copula "is"; it will be understood. This is a feature shared with Chinese, easing some of my initial difficulty with this aspect of Pali.

If one were insistent on furnishing the verb/copula for the 1st sentence, it would be "honti"/are.
For the 2nd sentence, perhaps the copula is santi (3rd pl of atthi), ie "There are 3...".

Nice discussion, BTW.

Dhammasissa
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:46 am
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas), NV, USA
Contact:

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Dhammasissa » Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:10 pm

Sylvester wrote:
Dhammasissa wrote: I'm a bit confused as to how the sentence works without containing a verb, even though I get the meaning of the Pāḷi after looking up the words. In the Pāḷi construction, it's that three causes, kammas, arise from. Why not a verb instead of a noun?
Hope the query is no longer stale, but as to why there is apparently no verb in that "3 causes" sentences, it's because Pali is a zero copula language. This means that one does not need to furnish the copula "is"; it will be understood. This is a feature shared with Chinese, easing some of my initial difficulty with this aspect of Pali.

If one were insistent on furnishing the verb/copula for the 1st sentence, it would be "honti"/are.
For the 2nd sentence, perhaps the copula is santi (3rd pl of atthi), ie "There are 3...".
First off, what is the distinction between atthi and honti? It seems that hoti/hū is derived from bhavati/bhū ... so, what's the distinction between the three then? "Bhavati" has "to become" included in the definition, from what I've found, whereas the other two are merely "to be, to exist," but I can't find an explanation of the differences. To put it another way, why would you use honti vs santi in the first, and santi vs honti in the second?
Sylvester wrote:it's because Pali is a zero copula language. This means that one does not need to furnish the copula "is"; it will be understood.
Ah! Thank you Sylvester! I had realized pretty early on (who'm I kidding, it's still early on, lol) that 'to be' isn't required in situations where it would be in English and that it seems to be used more for equating, or at the very least a more substantial role than a linking verb (forgot all about that term til your post caused me to do a lil reading). But! Understanding that Pāḷi is a zero copula language (and what that means) is, or at least will be, a big help!

Reminds me of something I learned in the process of studying poker: having a name for something is very useful in clarifying a concept, or for even forming a concept--in short, it can make visible what was once unseen/noticed. It's like shining a spotlight onto a specific part or element of a system, allowing you to see it as a part and thus how it relates to other parts, the whole, itself, etc. It can be hard to look for or see something when you don't have a name/concept for it, since that is what (at least begins) to give it a boundary, as it were. It brings to mind a dhamma talk I read recently--and need to reread!--by Ñāṇananda, published as "The Miracle of Contact," where he talks about (I'll put this as best I can with my minimal understanding, forgive my errors!) how eye-consciousness arises from the contact of the form with the eye, and that this contact then allows for feeling, perception, and intentions. This is all something we all experience constantly, yet without some names, some concepts, they tend to occur unnoticed, or at least be incorrectly apprehended.

Of course, names/concepts can also trap us, and thus need to be understood as imperfect labels, as tools to be utilized but not clung to, and ultimately given up. Writing this, it seems to me that much of what the Buddha taught was a series of concepts to be used in penetrating through to the true nature of reality, but as they are merely words/concepts, they are not themselves this true nature of reality. I say this as a musing that lacks certainty--it may prove fruitful to post this within a category to get some feedback, but not sure which would be best--thought (on either my musing or which category would be best)?
Sylvester wrote:Nice discussion, BTW.
I've enjoyed it, and glad you find it to be so =)

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Sylvester » Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:14 am

Dhammasissa wrote:First off, what is the distinction between atthi and honti? It seems that hoti/hū is derived from bhavati/bhū ... so, what's the distinction between the three then? "Bhavati" has "to become" included in the definition, from what I've found, whereas the other two are merely "to be, to exist," but I can't find an explanation of the differences.
Try Warder at p.30 - 31.
To put it another way, why would you use honti vs santi in the first, and santi vs honti in the second?
Hee hee, I'm just used to following the syntax I typically encounter for such numerical listings, so I don't actually have a formal explanation for the syntax. Perhaps this boils down to a convention that exists in word order? See AN 3.34 which contains both sentences.

Dhammasissa
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:46 am
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas), NV, USA
Contact:

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Dhammasissa » Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:03 pm

Sylvester wrote:
Dhammasissa wrote:First off, what is the distinction between atthi and honti? It seems that hoti/hū is derived from bhavati/bhū ... so, what's the distinction between the three then? "Bhavati" has "to become" included in the definition, from what I've found, whereas the other two are merely "to be, to exist," but I can't find an explanation of the differences.
Try Warder at p.30 - 31.
That definitely is helpful! Hmm ... I swear I checked that page too, or maybe I was looking for 'asa' since that's how Nārada lists it (at the end of the last lesson, with no explanation, ha =P).

I found on Warder pg.236 that bhū/bhavati is the future of hū, I presume though that that doesn't mean the future tense of hū. Also not sure if that's only "with the future passive particle of the main verb...." I'll make a note and research this issue more later =P
Sylvester wrote:
Dhammasissa wrote:To put it another way, why would you use honti vs santi in the first, and santi vs honti in the second?
Hee hee, I'm just used to following the syntax I typically encounter for such numerical listings, so I don't actually have a formal explanation for the syntax. Perhaps this boils down to a convention that exists in word order? See AN 3.34 which contains both sentences.
=P More than fair, good sir! The Warder ref you gave seems to shed at least some light on the use of the two =) The honti/santi for the 1st/2nd does seem to make sense--doesn't mean much given my limited knowledge =P--in that in the first there is no need to emphasize the existence of the 3 causes:there are these three things .... Then in the second the Buddha seems to be emphasizing "these three things here, which I have just elucidated." I'll have to make a note to come back to this sutta and thread once my Pāḷi develops further =)

User avatar
Dmytro
Posts: 1479
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Dmytro » Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:54 am

Dhammasissa wrote:First off, what is the distinction between atthi and honti? It seems that hoti/hū is derived from bhavati/bhū ... so, what's the distinction between the three then? "Bhavati" has "to become" included in the definition, from what I've found, whereas the other two are merely "to be, to exist," but I can't find an explanation of the differences.
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi gives some explanations:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=27543

Dhammasissa
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:46 am
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas), NV, USA
Contact:

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Dhammasissa » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:20 pm

Dmytro wrote: Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi gives some explanations:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=27543
Quite an interesting thread and it did help shed some light on this--I look forward to spending time on your many posts exploring different words/concepts!

Related to this, although on a much more mundane level, I ran into this exercise: translate "May you be grateful persons!" And the suggested translation is, "Kataññuvo hotha."

I was thinking that "bhavatha" would be better suited since the statement seems, to me, to imply "May you become (and then remain) grateful persons." Or is "hotha" better suited for one or both of the following reasons: a) may you already be and then remain grateful persons, b) may you be or become, and then remain and stay as grateful persons.?

Another question I have with this exercise is if the sentence could be begun with "tumhe," or would that prevent it from being a imperative/benedictive sentence? I understand that it's not required since it's indicated by the conjugation of the verb. Or maybe starting with "tumhe" would make it more of a command?

User avatar
Dmytro
Posts: 1479
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Dmytro » Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:38 pm

Dhammasissa wrote:I was thinking that "bhavatha" would be better suited since the statement seems, to me, to imply "May you become (and then remain) grateful persons." Or is "hotha" better suited for one or both of the following reasons: a) may you already be and then remain grateful persons, b) may you be or become, and then remain and stay as grateful persons.?
It's just a contracted form. AFAIK, the meaning is the same.
Dhammasissa wrote:Another question I have with this exercise is if the sentence could be begun with "tumhe," or would that prevent it from being a imperative/benedictive sentence? I understand that it's not required since it's indicated by the conjugation of the verb.
Yes, it's redundant.

Dhammasissa
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:46 am
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas), NV, USA
Contact:

Re: Sentence structure: adverbs of time

Post by Dhammasissa » Tue Sep 13, 2016 7:29 pm

Oh! So hoti (√hū) = bhavati (√bhū), it's just between bhavati (√bhū) and atthi (√asa) where the distinction exists--okay, got it, I was thinking that all three were distinct. Another step made =D

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests