Pāli Meaning: Could it be understood adverbially?

[Ṭhānuttamo]

antevāsī brahmadatto māṇavo anekapariyāyena buddhassa vaṇṇaṃ bhāsati (Brahmajālasutta)

Could the word vaṇṇaṃ also be understood adverbially? My grammar says so, but do you see any reason not so?
The translations give all: "[...] was speaking in praise".

Mettā
A. Bhikkhu

[Assaji]

Here in Pali it's not an adverb, however in English this is expressed as "speak in praise", instead of "speak praise".

Mettena cittena

[Ṭhānuttamo]

Here in Pali it's not an adverb, however in English this is expressed as "speak in praise", instead of "speak praise".

Mettena cittena

How would one be able to make out that it is not an adverb? It seems to me harmonious likewise ...

Thank you!

[Assaji]

How would one be able to make out that it is not an adverb? It seems to me harmonious likewise ...

Why does it seem so?

If you imply:

"(xi) The Acc. is very often used adverbially: khippaŋ gacchati he goes quickly;"

http://dhamma.ru/paali/durois/paligram.pdf#page=114

please take into account that such adverbs are formed from adjectives, not from nouns.

[Ṭhānuttamo]

Why does it seem so?

If you imply:

"(xi) The Acc. is very often used adverbially: khippaŋ gacchati he goes quickly;"

http://dhamma.ru/paali/durois/paligram.pdf#page=114

please take into account that such adverbs are formed from adjectives, not from nouns.

Yes, correct, I had precisely this passage in mind ... If you would not mind the additional effort and potential inconvenience in following my asking further: On what basis could I understand that adverbs, at least in such as the mentioned case, are not formed from nouns? Do you happen to have any specific reference at close hand?

After being stimulated by your reply, I glanced over the section on adverbs in Duroiselle's Grammar again and it says that adverbs actually can be formed from nouns, it reads: "§532. (ⅱ) Case-form Adverbs. [...] (c) From nouns; divasaŋ during the day; rattiŋ at night; raho, in secret; saccaŋ truly; atthaŋ for the purpose of." Although I am not sure about other rules which would falsify an usage in the case under our discussion -- for assistance regarding such I would be very grateful. Thank you!

Blessings
A. Bhikkhu

[Assaji]

On what basis could I understand that adverbs, at least in such as the mentioned case, are not formed from nouns?

On the basis of common sense and experience.

After being stimulated by your reply, I glanced over the section on adverbs in Duroiselle's Grammar again and it says that adverbs actually can be formed from nouns, it reads: "§532. (ⅱ) Case-form Adverbs. [...] (c) From nouns; divasaŋ during the day; rattiŋ at night; raho, in secret; saccaŋ truly; atthaŋ for the purpose of."

People often do something "by day", "by night", "in secret", "really", "with the aim", " - and such adverbial usage of nouns is limited in Pali to a very limited range of common circumstances.

[Ṭhānuttamo]

[...] On the basis of common sense and experience. [...]

People often do something "by day", "by night", "in secret", "really", "with the aim", " - and such adverbial usage of nouns is limited in Pali to a very limited range of common circumstances.

Thank you for your answer. So what you are saying is basically that only by experience one may discern the correct reading in our case, and not that a specific rule exists, is that correct? When it comes to common sense I personally still find an adverbial usage actually not off the mark, especially because Duroiselle mentions that the Acc. is very often used adverbially and because of no explicit rule yet known to me ... but I am just a beginner and you may be just right. Also: Common sense, I believe, might be quite a relative thing, and understandings clearly differ not seldomly, even among experts, isn't it?

Mettaa
A. Bhikkhu

[Assaji]

So what you are saying is basically that only by experience one may discern the correct reading in our case, and not that a specific rule exists, is that correct?

No. Duroiselle gives rules which you wrote about.

When it comes to common sense I personally still find an adverbial usage actually not off the mark, especially because Duroiselle mentions that the Acc. is very often used adverbially and because of no explicit rule yet known to me ...

Such adverbs are usually formed from adjectives, similarly to English:

real -> really
high -> highly
bright -> brightly
quick -> quickly

There are some cases with formation from nouns, similar to:

day -> daily

However this works only for some selected nouns, and not for:

praise -> praisely
table -> tabely

etc.

Mettena cittena

[Ṭhānuttamo]

However this works only for some selected nouns, and not for:

praise -> praisely
table -> tabely

I understand. However, I would like to say that especially in German, into which I try to translate, an Adverb of praise ("lobend", from the noun "Lob") is very frequently used. "Prasely" of course is odd, but prasingly is also not so seldomly found in English. "Tabely" seems very far off, yes. So I think I for one will stick to an adverbial sense in the case under discussion -- I cannot comprehend any violation of rules after all ...

With mettaa from Pattaya
A. Bhikkhu

[binocular]

I understand. However, I would like to say that especially in German, into which I try to translate, an Adverb of praise ("lobend", from the noun "Lob") is very frequently used.

The form lobend is Partizip I from the verb loben which is made from the noun Lob.
https://deutsch.lingolia.com/de/grammat ... artizipien
Partizip I forms can be used as adjectives, or, depending on the position/role in the sentence, as adverbs.

Adverbs can be made from nouns, with some additional steps.

"Prasely" of course is odd, but prasingly is also not so seldomly found in English.

Praising is a participle in English, and is also used as an adjective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle

"Tabely" seems very far off, yes.

There is tableside, which can be used as an adjective or an adverb [edit].

[Ṭhānuttamo]

The form lobend is Partizip I from the verb loben which is made from the noun Lob.
https://deutsch.lingolia.com/de/grammat ... artizipien
Partizip I forms can be used as adjectives, or, depending on the position/role in the sentence, as adverbs.

I appreciate the corrections, thank you! So probably loeblich would be the adverbial form proper, formed from Lob.

Adverbs can be made from nouns, with some additional steps. [...]

I think the -lich and -s suffix in German is readily used to form adverbs from nouns ... But further potential corrections are welcomed.
(cp: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverb, s. v. "Formen von Adverbien"). Or were you just referring to the previously mentioned example?

In mettaa
A. Bhikkhu

[binocular]

I wouldn't call it a "correction." There have been substantial developments in the German theory of word formation. Older editions of the widely used "Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache" by Fleischer and Barz present one way to theoretically describe word formation. Newer works, such as "Wortbildung des modernen Deutschen : ein Lehr- und Übungsbuch" by Lohde take a different approach (much simpler). If you can, you might look at those books to get an overview.
Anyway, this is relevant only in that the grammar theory of a particular language may be specific to that language (and changing) and that it shouldn't automatically be applied to other languages (as doing so can give one a headache).

[Assaji]

Anyway, in most languages, at least Indo-European ones, adverbs are usually formed from adjectives:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverb#In ... _languages

and this is also the case in Pāli.

[Ṭhānuttamo]

Anyway, in most languages, at least Indo-European ones, adverbs are usually formed from adjectives:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverb#In ... _languages

and this is also the case in Pāli.

If Duroiselle would not have stated that adverbs are formed very much with the Accusative and I would have a reference to your statement that "[...] this is also the case in Pāli." I would subscribe to your position. In any case, even if not provided with such I still appreciate your statement as one based on probably a good amount of experience and I will continue to bear this in mind ... Thank you for that!

In metaa
A. Bhikkhu

[Assaji]

Duroiselle would not have stated that adverbs are formed very much with the Accusative

In the overwhelming majority of cases, it's accusative of adjectives.

I've found you a reference from Bhante Anandajoti:

§47. The Adverbial Accusative.

The acc. singular of substantives and neuter adjectives is copiously employed in the Nikāyas in adverbial sense. As in the other languages adverbs formed from adjectives predominate and it is only rarely that substantives are so used, most of them being treated by local grammarians as particles (nipāta), especially those stereotyped adverbial accusatives inherited from Vedic like nāma etc. (cp. §2). In their particular functions these adverbs admit of the usual classification into local, temporal, modal, causal and so on. On the whole Brugmann’s division as found in his Greek Grammar (§441) tallies with the distinctions that appear in the Nikāya prose. In the preceding paragraphs we have already referred to a few such uses. The following is a more exhaustive treatment:

...

http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/T ... .htm#toc18

Mettena cittena