Dear Rich,<br><br>     I think Edgerton&#39;s suggestion seems to point in the right historical direction.  The other explanation I found in Bhikkhu Sujato&#39;s book on &quot;A History of Mindfulness&quot; (p. 296fn), but I don&#39;t think it is correct:  &quot;Presumably this was merely a reciter&#39;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.&quot;  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&#39;s suggestion.  Best,<br>
<br>Madhav<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Richard G Salomon <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:rsalomon@u.washington.edu" target="_blank">rsalomon@u.washington.edu</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Madhav,<br>
<br>
Edgerton, BHSG #25.4, p. 129 notes &quot;frequent use of atthi with plural subject,&quot; referring to Geiger 141.1 (&quot;otherwise this usage seems to be virtually ignored in the books on Pali or Pkt.&quot; -- I haven&#39;t checked Oberlies on this).<br>

<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Rich<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Madhav Deshpande wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hello Colleagues,<br>
<br>
     I am reading the Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta from the Dīghanikāya with a few students.  In<br>
this Sutta, phrases like atthi kāyo, atthi cittam, atthi vedanā are quite frequent, and<br>
pose no problems.  However, then comes the phrase atthi dhammā a few times.  It is quite<br>
clear from the context that dhammā is nominative plural (other refs in the context in<br>
plural: dhammesu dhammānupassī).  I am wondering how to explain the syntax of the phrase<br>
atthi dhammā.  Any suggestions?  Perhaps, K.R. Norman might have an explanation.  Does<br>
anyone have his email address?  Thanks.<br>
<br>
Madhav<br>
<br>
--<br>
Madhav M. Deshpande<br>
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics<br>
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures<br>
202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111<br>
The University of Michigan<br>
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Madhav M. Deshpande<br>Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics<br>Department of Asian Languages and Cultures<br>202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111<br>The University of Michigan<br>
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA<br><br>