Grammatical Rules Regarding "vā"

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Post Reply
A. Bhikkhu
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:40 pm
Contact:

Grammatical Rules Regarding "vā"

Post by A. Bhikkhu » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:00 pm

Greetings.
The grammars I consulted say not much about the general use of Pāli "vā". Is "vā ... vā" always to be rendered "either ... or" or is simple "or" to be preferred? Which regulations exist to help distinguish?

Thank you very much!
"One should not consider the faults of others, nor their doing or not doing good or bad deeds. One should consider only whether one has done or not done good or bad deeds." -- The Buddha (Dhp.50)

Website: www.embracing-buddhism.jimdo.com

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4028
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: Grammatical Rules Regarding "vā"

Post by Dhammanando » Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:41 pm

A. Bhikkhu wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:00 pm
.
The English distinction between “either x or y” and “x or y” is merely stylistic, not semantic, and has no equivalent in Pali.

In their discussion of Pali grammarians drew a distinction between vikappana and sampiṇḍana, that is, a disjunctive ‘or’ and a conjunctive ‘and’.

Vikappana
samaṇā vā brāmaṇā vā

Sampiṇḍana
bhūtā vā sambhavesī vā
sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā

(Karaṇīyamettasutta)

A. Bhikkhu
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Grammatical Rules Regarding "vā"

Post by A. Bhikkhu » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:18 pm

Dhammanando wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:41 pm
In their discussion of Pali grammarians drew a distinction between vikappana and sampiṇḍana, that is, a disjunctive ‘or’ and a conjunctive ‘and’.
Bhante, thank you, invaluable! :anjali:

I find it really surprising and kind of disappointing that such a important distinction is omitted in three grammars (European secondary literature) I consulted ... Maybe in Warder I overlooked it because I went not wholly through it but just use it for reference, flipping through it -- the part on "" didn't contain it however. Do you work with the ancient grammars, if I may ask. Would you see it as essential to turn towards them when wishing to get a sound grasp of the language? Should one regard the modern secondary literature perhaps just as serving by and large as introductions?

Thank you!
Mettā
"One should not consider the faults of others, nor their doing or not doing good or bad deeds. One should consider only whether one has done or not done good or bad deeds." -- The Buddha (Dhp.50)

Website: www.embracing-buddhism.jimdo.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests