Question on Pali syntax

[Richard G Salomon]

Dear Madhav,

I wouldn't discount Sujato's explanation either. I think the two types of explanations are on different levels, and not mutually exclusive; more like two sides of the coin.

As Mark pointed out in his response, we see this sort of thing ("wrong" verb forms, syntax, etc.) all over the place in Gandhari manuscript texts; language change in action! I also suspect there is more of it than meets the eye (because leveled out by editors ancient and modern) in Pali and even in Sanskrit.

Rich

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Madhav Deshpande wrote:

> Dear Rich,
> 
>      I think Edgerton's suggestion seems to point in the right historical direction.  The
> other explanation I found in Bhikkhu Sujato's book on "A History of Mindfulness" (p.
> 296fn), but I don't think it is correct:  "Presumably this was merely a reciter's glitch,
> as they mechanically repeated the phrase from earlier sections, without noticing the
> change in number from singular to plural.  Innocuous enough, but a reminder of the
> fallibility of the tradition."  This is too strong a conclusion, since this phrase, and
> this pattern of atthi with a plural noun is fairly widespread in the Pali texts.  Thanks
> for pointing me to Edgerton's suggestion.  Best,
> 
> Madhav
> 
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Richard G Salomon <rsalomon at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>       Dear Madhav,
> 
>       Edgerton, BHSG #25.4, p. 129 notes "frequent use of atthi with plural
>       subject," referring to Geiger 141.1 ("otherwise this usage seems to be
>       virtually ignored in the books on Pali or Pkt." -- I haven't checked Oberlies
>       on this).
> 
>       As noted by Edgerton, this is a manifestation of a broader phenomenon in MIA
>       whereby  the 3rd. sg. verb is beginning to be generalized to all persons and
>       numbers.
> 
>       Rich
> 
>       On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Madhav Deshpande wrote:
> 
>             Hello Colleagues,
> 
>                  I am reading the Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta from the Dīghanikāya
>             with a few students.  In
>             this Sutta, phrases like atthi kāyo, atthi cittam, atthi vedanā
>             are quite frequent, and
>             pose no problems.  However, then comes the phrase atthi dhammā a
>             few times.  It is quite
>             clear from the context that dhammā is nominative plural (other
>             refs in the context in
>             plural: dhammesu dhammānupassī).  I am wondering how to explain
>             the syntax of the phrase
>             atthi dhammā.  Any suggestions?  Perhaps, K.R. Norman might have
>             an explanation.  Does
>             anyone have his email address?  Thanks.
> 
>             Madhav
> 
>             --
>             Madhav M. Deshpande
>             Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
>             Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
>             202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
>             The University of Michigan
>             Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Madhav M. Deshpande
> Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
> Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
> 202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
> The University of Michigan
> Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA
> 
> 
>