Possessive Pronouns

[figurehigh]

Hi,
I am looking for clarification about pronouns in the genitive.

I understand that 3rd person pronouns in Pāli used as possessives refer to someone other than the subject
So, ‘He saw his village’ could be:
• so attano gāmaṃ addasā, if he sees his own village. Literally, ‘He saw the
village of himself’, attano being in the genitive.
But:
• so tassa gāmaṃ addasā, if he sees someone else’s village.

Is this always true?
If the subject and the possessor of the object are the same does Pāli always use a reflexive form?

Thanks

[Volo]

• so tassa gāmaṃ addasā, if he sees someone else’s village.

I think in this case it can also be translated as "his own village" (without context I would translate this way). Other examples: "tassa sāvakā" "his disciples", not "attano sāvakā", "tassā puttassa" "to her son". There many other such cases, it is just first I found through search.

Sometimes it is difficult to know in Pali, to which person refers a pronoun (see example in Thanissaro's BMC-1, the case of Sleeping novice).

tena kho pana samayena aññataro bhikkhu suttassa sāmaṇerassa aṅgajātaṃ aggahesi. tasseva asuci mucci. tassa kukkuccaṃ ahosi ...pe.... “anāpatti, bhikkhu, saṅghādisesassa; āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti.

“On that occasion a certain bhikkhu grabbed hold of the penis of a sleeping novice. His semen was emitted. He felt conscience-stricken…. ‘Bhikkhu, there is no saṅghādisesa offense. There is a dukkaṭa offense.’”

Most probably the semen of samanera was emitted, and bhikkhu felt remorseful. But the commentary says that tasseva asuci here refers to the bhikkhu's own semen. Using attano would probably avoid this ambiguity, but it is not often used.

Ven Thanissaro's comment (only part of it, in order not to overload quotation):

The issue here is whose semen was emitted. Pali syntax, unlike English, doesn’t give us a clue, for there is no syntactical rule that the pronoun in one sentence should refer to the subject of the preceding sentence.

[figurehigh]

Thanks for the reply Volovsky

Other examples: "tassa sāvakā" "his disciples", not "attano sāvakā", "tassā puttassa" "to her son". There many other such cases,

And in these examples the subject of the verb is the same person as the pronoun's referent?

It's a particular sentence construction where the pronoun tassa (or any over gen. 3rd pers pronoun) is the object of the verb... I believe, though possibly wrong, if the subject and object are the same person a reflexive form is used...

[Volo]

examples the subject of the verb is the same person as the pronoun's referent?

I think the same:

tassa sāvakā na sussūsanti, na sotaṃ odahanti, na aññā cittaṃ upaṭṭhapenti

His disciples don't listen, don't lend ear, don't put forth an intent for gnosis

In the second case not the same:

bhūtapubbaṃ, ambaṭṭha, rājā okkāko yā sā mahesī piyā manāpā, tassā puttassa rajjaṃ pariṇāmetukāmo jeṭṭhakumāre raṭṭhasmā pabbājesi

At one time King Okkāka, to whom his queen was dear and beloved, wishing to transfer the kingdom to her son, banished his elder brothers from the kingdom

[figurehigh]

Thanks for posting your examples.
So in 'His disciples don't listen'
tassa sāvakā is the subject of the verb with no substantive object
And the second example yes also subject & object are different people.

You see, I've read about this rule somewhere and made notes, but unfortunately didn't add a reference!...
So I was wondering if anyone else had come across it?

I've trawled through the nikaya looking for 'so tassa' and the only example I can find that may break this rule is in AN 4.6
So tassa appakassa sutassa na atthamaññāya dhammamaññāya dhammānudhammappaṭipanno hoti.

• So (nom m) He/that
  tassa (gen/dat m/n) his/it's/of this
  appakassa (gen/dat m/n) small
  sutassa (gen/dat n) learning
  na neg. particple
  attha+maññāya advantage + having considered ? ( I'm taking maññati + ya as a gerund? )
  dhamma+maññāya dhamma + having considered ?
  dhammānudhamma+p+paṭipanno (nom m) conforming with the dhamma + followed the method
  hoti (3rd, s) is/exists

My rough translation:
"(due to) his small learning, he has not followed the method in conformity with the dhamma, having (not) considered the advantage & teaching."
Sujato's translation:
"And with the little they’ve learned, they understand neither the meaning nor the text, nor do they practice in line with the teaching."
For some reason Sujato places it in the plural?..

the 'He' subject and 'his' are clearly the same person
Although it could be rendered '(due to) this small learning... then the two pronouns don't refer to the same thing.

[Volo]

You see, I've read about this rule somewhere and made notes, but unfortunately didn't add a reference!...
So I was wondering if anyone else had come across it?

Would be interesting to read. I've never seen such a rule.

attha+maññāya advantage + having considered ? ( I'm taking maññati + ya as a gerund? )

I think it is atthaṃ ("meaning", Acc) + aññāya (ger of ājānāti, "having understood"). Same is with the dhammamaññāya

My rough translation:
"(due to) his small learning, he has not followed the method in conformity with the dhamma, having (not) considered the advantage & teaching."

It's not "due to", because next Buddha talks about somebody who learned little, but does understand the meaning, therefore little learning is not a reason to not understand. It something like "of (dat/gen) his little learning, he doesn't understand the meaning".

Sujato's translation:
"And with the little they’ve learned, they understand neither the meaning nor the text, nor do they practice in line with the teaching."
For some reason Sujato places it in the plural?..

Yes, his translations usually have completely different grammar from the original. When I don't understand grammar in Pali, I check VBB or Ven Thanissaro's translations - they try to keep original sentence building when possible.

Here is VBB's version (might be PTS edition is somewhat different from Burmese here):

he does not understand the meaning of what he has learned; he does not understand the Dhamma; and he does not practice in accordance with the Dhamma.

I would actually put it (considering ger aññāya): Of his little learning having not understood the meaning, having not understood the dhamma, he does not practice in accordance with the Dhamma.

[figurehigh]

I take your corrections, thank you Volovsky

[figurehigh]

I've found the source:
https://ariyajoti.files.wordpress.com/2 ... d-one.pdf
Justin Meiland of UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND UK

On page 146 he says:

Pali is careful to distinguish between a reflexive pronoun and the third person pronoun
when the context is possessive. Thus, ‘He saw his village’ would be:
• so attano gāmaṃ addasā, if he sees his own village. Literally, ‘He saw the
village of himself’, attano being in the genitive.
But:
• so tassa gāmaṃ addasā, if he sees someone else’s village.
English does not always make this distinction. In English, ‘He saw his village’ could
mean that he saw his own village or that he saw someone else’s village.

But adds no further reference or information.

Thought you might be interested....

[Volo]

I've found the source:
https://ariyajoti.files.wordpress.com/2 ... d-one.pdf
Justin Meiland of UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND UK

On page 146 he says:

Pali is careful to distinguish between a reflexive pronoun and the third person pronoun
when the context is possessive. Thus, ‘He saw his village’ would be:
• so attano gāmaṃ addasā, if he sees his own village. Literally, ‘He saw the
village of himself’, attano being in the genitive.
But:
• so tassa gāmaṃ addasā, if he sees someone else’s village.
English does not always make this distinction. In English, ‘He saw his village’ could
mean that he saw his own village or that he saw someone else’s village.

But adds no further reference or information.

Thought you might be interested....

Thanks, interesting. Maybe he means that in Pali it is theoretically possible to formulate sentence using a pronoun attan and avoid possible ambiguity. Not that it is always used. Also he kind of refers to Warder, but Warder doesn't seem to have this.

[figurehigh]

Yes the text is explaining Warder's 'Intro to Pali'
But this obviously comes from somewhere else.