SuttaCentral
Q1:
Yes, I think so.
Q2:
Jayam is a nom. present participle. The past participle is a different word. The subject of the sentence is unstated (he) but the present participle describes it adjectively.
(He), winning, generates hatred.
Or, Winning, he generates hatred.
Q4:
The ‘ca’ is not needed. The use of the absolutive sets the action apart from the action of the finite verb.
Can someone give an example of the “Age at which” category of ‘further uses of instrumental’ on page 45?
Have a look at Wijjesekera Syntax, Instrumental chapter, section 76 ff.
@stephen: How would you render jhānaṃ jhāyati in current English?
Dheerayupa has given Warder’s version & @johnk gives “He meditates on this absorption.”
John probably gets “this” from the preceding text, but as a stand alone sentence Dheerayupa’s sounds the most natural of the three to my ears.
@stephen I wanted to ask almost the same question because there are two absolutives:
Is this possible?
upasaṁkamitvāca abhivādetvāca bhagavantaṁ nisīdiṁsu
I looked in Wijesekera but found no examples; so is this possible?
dārako sattavassikena pabbāji The boy went forth when he was 7 years old.
Thanks for your patience.
Q11: I reckon so.
Q12: I reckon so.
Q13: I reckon so.
Q14: Pali doesn’t need commas; they get added by teachers to help students.
Q15; can’t speak for Warder!
Q16: As this is a negative sentence na belongs at the beginning of the sentence.
Q17: I reckon so is optional
That was fun!
Q.11
Yes, your alternative word order looks quite acceptable.
Q.12
Changed word order is fine, but not the use of ca, which is only really used in Pāli to connect nouns or noun-like objects, not verbs or verbal phrases.
Q.13
Yes, ahaṃ can be omitted since 1st person singular is inherent in the verb ending puchāmi.
The -e or -āni endings are both valid for masc and neut acc plural of -a stem nouns, but -e ending is more common for masc nouns and -āni for neut nouns.
Q.14 No commas in Pāli.
Q.15 Why not? bhavaṃ or bhavanto is just a respectful form of address.
Q.16 Either is fine.
Q.17 The word so is not needed. Like ahaṃ in previous examples, it can be used for emphasis.
This probably seems awkward since it’s missing an important word found the original. (See DN 19).
The relative clause starts “yo…karunam jhānam jhāyati”. So it’s ‘he who…meditates on the compassion jhāna”.
I see Ven. Sujāto has “whoever…practices the absorption on compassion…”
For the absolutive ‘ca’ question, see Mr. Kelly’s Q12 answer above.
For Warder’s “age at which”, I’m not entirely sure what he means, but how about the examples given in 77 ?
In 77 Mr W mentions the time throughout, during, within or for which an action extends. … time within which … time after which … or before which … the time by which or before which an action is terminated, or up to which point …
… Ah got it in the last paragraph of 79, p143. After talking about various ways of using the instrumental to express continuity of time he says,
c. Similar uses are found in the following where the space of time is so small that the idea of within or during is almost lost. They are very much like adverbs. e.g., tena khaṇena tena muhuttena yāva brahmalokā saddo abbhuggacchati A IV.120 “that very moment (simultaneously) the sound rose up as far as the world of Brahmas”; te ekena khaṇena ekena muhuttena ekamaṃsakhalaṃ – ekamaṃsapuñjaṃ karissāmi M I.377 “in a moment, in a second, I shall reduce you to a mash, a heap of flesh”. Again, a subtle variation of meaning is found in ekāhen’eva … pakkamiṃsu D I.48 “they went away at one and the same day …” (cp. SS §78 R.l. Skr. ekāhnā “at one and the same day”).
Meanwhile is my constructed eg admissible, or would it be expressed in Pali in a different way?
The boy went forth when he was 7 years old / at the age of 7.
dārako sattavassikena pabbāji
Perhaps, but I don’t find an analog in the canon.
It seem to me that using an ablative would be more normal.
Also, are you sure the a is strengthened for that aorist?
From AN 6.60:
Atha kho citto hatthisāriputto nacirasseva kesamassuṁ ohāretvā kāsāyāni vatthāni acchādetvā agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbaji
Q3:
gehaṃ is listed in Chapter 7 in the new noun list (neuter nouns)
I do not show padeso in any of my notes
Thank you for your help.
I looked up the DPD for the word jayaṁ, then I go to the root family Tab and search for the past participle (which DPD denotes as pp), the only one I found is jigiṃsita. And then in the declension Tab, it gives me jigiṃsito as nom masc sg.
So, if I want to use past participle, will I have something like?
jigiṃsito veraṁ pasavati
However, DPD gives translation for the past participle is “desired”, not what I originally thought something like “Having won” or “What was won”. After all, I am not even sure which one is the correct past participle for jayati and how to find it in DPD the correct way.
Thank you for finding it. I browse through Warder until Chapter 18 and padeso appears there…
Hi, this is the past participle I’m familiar with:
Jina Jina [pp. med. of jayati] conquering, victorious, often of the Buddha, “Victor”: jitā me pāpakā dhammā tasmâhaŋ Upaka jino ti Vin i.8=M i.171; Vin v.217; Sn 379, 697, 989, 996.
Ah so it becomes like:
jino veraṁ pasavati
And so is its meaning something like “The victor generates hatred”?
But it seems you find this jina from PED? or Digital Pāli Reader?
Do you know how to find this jina from jayaṁ?
Yes, this is the entry from PED.
The past participle has a separate entry.
The present participle is included in the entry for ‘jayati’.
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Textual-Studies/Syntax-of-the-Cases/03-Instrumental.htm#toc15
It has an example, but it looks like Sanskrit? I used this usage to try and find examples with searching, but I didn’t really succeed.
Thank you so much for the clarifications about the “gerund”/absolutive, @stephen and @johnk. I was comparing Warder’s gerund with how “gerúndio” works in my language and it all seemed to be upside down 
You’ve made it quite clear.
In translating “The lay disciples come to the place” into pali @john used a yena tena construction. Is it the only option or can we just use a verb for coming and a noun for place in the accusative, such as in: upāsakupā senāsanam āgacchanti
or
upāsakupā padeso upasaṃkamanti
instead of
upāsakupā yena padeso ten’upasaṃkamanti
?
Yes… especially as this lesson introduced ṭhānaṁ for “place” I just used that… yena… tena feels odd for such a simple English sentence…