SuttaCentral
Thank goodness, I’m the only beginner in this group.
I find that doing all the exercises from lesson 1 till 8 from De Silva’s book helps to strengthen my grasp on noun cases. Well, maybe some of the exercises confused me because my translation is different from the answers in the key book. Watching @stephen video lesson 1-5 helps to reinforce what I learned. I don’t have any background in latin language, so to speak. It’s a struggle.
No such thing as ‘stupid’ questions in this class. Pāli is tricky and very new to all of you. I will always do my best to answer clearly.
You are definitely not the only beginner in this group, Way Chuang (which I think is what you meant to say!)
Oops, the omission. Yes, that’s what I meant
Wow!
Thank you so much. I’ve found that it’s an eccentric (nice way of saying weird and annoying) trait in me to try to understand every single detail that constitutes to the big picture. In other words, I want to understand both the big picture and the details. This frustrates even myself sometimes!
Again, thank you so much, Ayya, for the detailed explanation! 
Hello John… I am sorry for being a slow learner. I am still puzzled by the order of words in a Pali sentence. Even for a short sentence like ’ buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi’, I already got stuck. I looked at the answer you gave to Dheerayupa, you said that " saraṇaṃ is also in the accusative being a second object of gacchāmi", my puzzle is, can buddhaṃ be the second object instead? My mind is so fixated by the idea that the word in accussative case that is nearest to the verb should be the first object. I must be wrong about this. Please help me understand this.
Also, I am under the impression that when apposition is used it also means that both words are equal but the relations between the two words can be adjectival. I must be wrong again, ain’t I? So in this case (I know it can’t be right), I should not see the word buddhaṃ as an adjective for saraṇaṃ or vice versa? I am hopeless. Thank you for your patience.
Hi Mickey,
I am sorry for being a slow learner.
You’re not necessarily slow or fast. Everybody learns different things at different speeds, and anyway you are likely expressing questions that others have but are quiet about it. Don’t forget - the Buddha cautioned against ‘comparing mind.’
I am still puzzled by the order of words in a Pali sentence
There is no strict word order in Pāli. Just some orders are more common than others.
you said that " saraṇaṃ is also in the accusative being a second object of gacchāmi", my puzzle is, can buddhaṃ be the second object instead?
I should really have said ‘another object’ instead of ‘second’. I wasn’t implying any particular order.
My mind is so fixated by the idea that the word in accusative case that is nearest to the verb should be the first object.
Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t.
under the impression that when apposition is used it also means that both words are equal but the relations between the two words can be adjectival. I must be wrong again
No, you are actually quite right. The sentence can equally be translated as “I go to a refuge which is the Buddha” or “I go to the Buddha who is a refuge.” In the former Buddha is adjectivally qualifying refuge, and in the latter refuge is adjectivally qualifying Buddha. They are essentially the same - the Buddha is the refuge and the refuge is the Buddha. Hope that helps.
I am hopeless
Please, please don’t say that!
Thank you John for your patience and clarifications. They help. Best regards.
Hi,
For those who may be still puzzling over the G&K Lesson 1 Initial Reading #2, this may offer a little more help.
Starts slightly before the 1 hour 9 minute mark:
Can someone direct me to the class recoerdings please.
Ven. @Sobhana provides an excellent method for decomposing the pāli sentence.
I think I’m not far off doing this in a chicken-scratch kind of way. Especially for these types of formulas in the Aṅguttara Nikāya. So here’s how I decomposed, in Microsoft Word, AN 4.106 (the first paragraph in Reading Passage #4):
the bhikkhu janeti (generates) chandaṃ [desire for];
vāyamati [strives for];
viriyaṃ ārabhati [arouses himself energetically for];
cittaṃ paggaṇhāti [takes up the mind / uplifts the mind for];
padahati [applies himself to];
anuppādāya [the non-arising]
anuppannānaṃ [(of) unarisen] pāpakānaṃ [bad] akusalānaṃ [unwholesome] dhammānaṃ.
(I didn’t intuit mental states for dhammānaṃ (had to look at the answer key eventually) but figured it was stuff to contemplate or something along those lines.)
Looked for the verb(s) first, put them at the top.
Figured out who or what is the subject.
Put the objects last.
If there had been enclitics in this sentence – which there weren’t – I would have put them last. Then figured out where they might add meaning.
Thus chopping up the sentence like it’s a bunch of puzzle pieces.
Doing this particular sentence in this way took me a while. Then, once I had it, the remaining three were much easier.
More motivation for me re: Passage #4 (AN 1.406-409):
The formula is very similar to The Four Great Efforts that constitute sammāvāyāma or wise effort on the Noble 8fold path.
Amazing! Anything to help with vocabulary 
I’ll do whatever it takes
AN 4.13
Thank you, this was very helpful.
The analysis that I sent in on Sunday was incorrect. The noun following yathayidaṃ has to be nominative, not accusative. It is not the mind which is the object of seeing, but the mind which is the subject of leading! “I do not see even a single thing like the mind, which leads to such harm when untrained, unguarded, unprotected, and unrestrained.” The way yathayidaṃ works is more clear in further reading about pamādo heedlessness.
@johnk @stephen, regarding Reading Passage #3 (AN 1.308):
“Nāhaṁ, bhikkhave, aññaṁ ekadhammampi samanupassāmi yena anuppannā vā kusalā dhammā nuppajjanti uppannā vā kusalā dhammā parihāyanti yathayidaṁ, bhikkhave, micchādiṭṭhi. Micchādiṭṭhikassa, bhikkhave, anuppannā ceva kusalā dhammā nuppajjanti uppannā ca kusalā dhammā parihāyantī”ti.
In the first sentence, are the verbs uppajjanti and parihāyanti acting as adjectives (somehow) modifying the plural nouns kusalā dhammā? The English translation treats those two verbs as if they are 1st person singular conjugations agreeing with aññaṃ ekadhammaṃ. And I don’t see how it could be translated any other way, in order to make sense.
My (completely untested) chicken-scratch method of decomposing a pāli sentence hangs in the balance 
depending on your answer!
yena anuppannā vā kusalā dhammā nuppajjanti uppannā vā kusalā dhammā parihāyanti
…by which unarisen wholesome dhammas don’t arise or arisen wholesome dhammas diminish…
Here, ‘anuppanna’ and ‘uppanna’ and ‘kusala’ are adjectives.
Is this sort of what you had?
(The first ‘vā’ is just reflected back)
(“decompose” sounds a bit ominous??)
Ven. @Sobhana thank you for such diligence and attention to the translation 
. I was inspired to check out AN 1.31 again not only for the grammar but for the meaning! Although, for the life of me, I can’t find an exact match between G&K Reading Passage #2 and what’s in AN.
I was reminded this may be an equational sentence where both words on either side will be in the same case. This from the Warder book. Current students: my comment is totally irrelevant!
Yes, that would be it.
Why did I have “decompose” on the brain… I need to take more walks in the sunlight
