SuttaCentral
Yeah. I guess I overspoke when I called -ss- an “infix” in class: -[ia]ssa is a (root? stem? trunk?) sufix that then gets conjugated like a normal -a verb 
* - though thinking of -ss- and -yy- as infixes is still helpful for me to recognize the future and optative (ch 14) tenses in context.
First exercise, Lesson 11:
na kho ahaṃ āvuso addasaṃ
Indeed, friend, I did not see.
Isn’t a demonstrative pronoun called for here?
…I did not see [them].
Because the context is the 500 carts that Āḷāra Kālāma was asked about seeing.
Why would pāli not use a pronoun here?
A good question, since in English “to see” is often a transitive verb and takes a direct object. (But not always - “I didn’t actually see”)
Yes, clearly what is seen are the carts, and in translating into English we can use an object, ‘no, friend, I did not see them. ‘
It is possible to translate as an intransitive verb:
api, bhante, pañcamattāni sakaṭasatāni atikkantāni addasā’ti?
na kho ahaṃ āvuso addasaṃ
Friend, in fact I didn’t see.
Interestingly, in the next exchange the verb ‘to hear’ does take an object, saddam.
It seems to me that they are aptly described as infixes, and the regular inflection endings as suffixes.
I studied the future forms given by the DPD for some of the verbs Warder has given us and found the following regularities:
First conjugation
pucchati - pucchissati
bhavati - bhavissati
bhāsati - bhāsissati
harati - harissati
Sixth conjugation
karoti - karissati
tanoti - tunissati
pappoti - papissati
Seventh conjugation
katheti kathessati
chaḍḍeti. chaḍḍessati
deseti - desessati
manteti mantessati
So it seems my “(o/e)” must have referred to the vowel before the “ss”, and that the “o” likely belongs in a declension we’ve not yet met. Thank you for applying close scrutiny to my table. 
PS: I really appreciate some of Warder’s analyses. ATM the verb conjugations don’t look anything like the labyrinth they once did.
Does dakkhiṇa only mean “right” in the sense of the direction or does it also mean “right” as in “correct”?
And another question relating to the word, but not to lesson 11: In the Lokanta Vihara chanting book we have dakkhiṇeyyo, which is translated as “worthy of a religious donation”. (It occurs as a qualifier of sāvakasaṅgho, which is translated as “the Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples”) Is it correct that the literal translation of dakkhiṇeyyo would be “worthy of right (hand)”? Is the idea here that the Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples is worthy to receive from the disciples right hand or what does it mean?
The word in this context stems from the Brahamical tradition: Offerings dedicated to the gods - #8 by sujato
Question re. Translate into Pali
The king saw the boy. &
We saw the fortunate one.
Kelly and Brahmali both use addasā and addasāma, but I translated these
rajā kumāraṃ adakkhi &
mayaṃ bhagavantaṃ adakkāma
Is that OK?
(When I looked these verbs up I found them to be variants of the same verb from √dis. … It’s like swimming through treacle or walking through quicksand, not sure which!)
Aorist verbs based on the base ‘dakkh’ seem very rare, ‘adakkāma’ doesn’t seem to exist in the Canon at all.
The PTS dictionary gives addakkhi and 1st sg. addakkhiŋ.
The forms offered in the Key are much more common, particularly ‘addasā’.
Hi,
I think it seems there are differences in the tables for aorist of root dis and root gam in Warder comparing with the DPD.
Hi,
One can find most, if not all of the attested forms here, with citations.
I think maybe you need the “asmi” for the main verb of the sentence as: Ahaṁ maggaṁ paṭipanno asmi
I think dinnaṁ is the past participle nt nom sg of dinna so it fits the passive sense.
Also, adāsi is aorist 3rd sg of adāsi so maybe you can change it into present passive as dīyati then to aorist passive as dīyāmi or dīyami (not sure which is correct form though)
I don’t see this at all in D.1.148 (that part of the sutta):
My life was given (spared) by him, his life was given (spared) by me
Am I missing something?
It is found in the Vinaya instead:
Iminā ca me jīvitaṁ dinnaṁ, mayā ca imassa jīvitaṁ dinnan’ti.
Right, it would take the passive sense.
Sure!
Thanks.
Exactly, yes.
I guess it’s just not idiomatic? I don’t see any reason to not use the pronoun.
Hmm. It strikes me as somewhat coincidental that in one of the very few statments attributed to Alara’s counterpart Udaka we find exactly the same ambiguity around the use of “see” as a transitive verb.
"dn29:16.8": "Udako sudaṁ, cunda, rāmaputto evaṁ vācaṁ bhāsati: ",
"dn29:16.9": "‘passaṁ na passatī’ti. ",
"dn29:16.10": "Kiñca passaṁ na passatīti? ",
"dn29:16.11": "Khurassa sādhunisitassa talamassa passati, dhārañca khvassa na passati. ",
"dn29:16.8": "Uddaka, son of Rāma, used to say: ",
"dn29:16.9": "‘Seeing, one does not see.’ ",
"dn29:16.10": "But seeing what does one not see? ",
"dn29:16.11": "You can see the blade of a well-sharpened razor, but not the edge. ",
This passage is directly inspired by Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.7, which has the same intransitive usage.
Maybe this is irrelevant, or maybe he was echoing this idiom?
It means “right” as in direction, or else “south” (which is to the right when facing the rising sun). But it also takes on a connotation of “rightness”, as opposed to the left hand (vāma) which is wrong.
dakkhiṇā in the sense of “donation” and hence “honor” is also conflated with this sense. You perform padakkhina by circumnambulating with your right side facing the object of honor. The dictionary says they originally had separate roots, but in any case the senses are certainly mixed in Pali.
So dakkhiṇeyyo means literally “worthy of religious donation”, the dakkhiṇā being a formal payment expected by brahmins for their services. Obviously Buddhists don’t require payment, but the Buddha co-opted the language. It would also be felt that the offering should be given with the right hand. And it then extends as above to the circumnambulation with the right side facing.
A complex idea!
adakkhi is correct, but adakkāma (which presumably would be adakkhāma) doesn’t seem to exist. The canon instead has addassatha for second plural.
But yeah these are rare forms.
You often find such minor variants in rarely used verb forms. The exact form is sometimes not settled in the manuscript tradition, as they might be attested only once or twice or not at all. So dictionaries and grammars like to list all the possible forms. But just focus on the main forms and look the other ones up when you come across them.
You’re right, thanks for reminder, dear Gillian.
I agree 
Thanks Stephen. So glad u r hanging around. 
Questions Part 1
pāmujjaṃ bhavissati, sukho ca vih ā ro
Aj Brahmali = There will be joy and a happy way of life.
Question: I wonder whether my rendering: ‘There will be a joyous and happy way of life’ is acceptable as it would be something I would say?
If I wanted to mean what Ajahn Brahmali says, I’d say: There is a happy way of life and that will be a great joy. Is this what the sentence mean?
sassato loko
Aj Brahmali = The world is eternal.
Another ‘equational sentence’, i.e. one thing ‘is’ something else. Note that the words ‘equated’ are in the nominative case.
Me = Eternal world
Question: Can this sentence be just a noun phrase ‘eternal world’, not a sentence?
kusalan ti pi na bhavissati, kuto pana kusalassa kārako
Aj Brahmali = There will not even be the concept ‘good’, let alone a doer of good.
Question: I got it the other way round… My interpretation: There will not only be the wholesome, but also the wholesome doer.
Please enlighten me if I want to say what I said, what would the Pali be?
ahaṃ kho maggaṃ agamāsiṃ
Ajahn Brahmali = I travelled the road.
Question: Is this ok? ‘I went on that path.’
kaly* ā na ṃ vuccati br ā hma ṇ *a
Ajahn Brahmali = It is beautifully said, brahmin.
Question: Another total failure. My version: The good (people) is/are called (a) saint(s)/paragon(s).
Is there a remote possibility that my rendering could, in a parallel universe, be right?
