Ven @Vimutti, here Warder is referring to something called the future active participle - but, as he says, it is hardly ever used. So you can safely ignore that.
2 Likes
@stephen when I look up udapÄdi in the DPD, it shows this is an aorist. See screenshot. Is it something else? Thanks 
Going down the rabbit hole yet again, she remembered a most perplexing grammatical question ā this to avoid doing an actual Lesson 16 exercise.
1 Like
Yes, it certainly is. The aorist of uppajjati.
Uppajjati [ud + pajjati of pad ] to come out, to arise, to be produced, to be born or reborn, to come into existence
Happy Thanksgiving !
3 Likes
@johnk No expert has responded here. My guess would be that itās the same sort of lexical/stylistic variation that Bethās translations show in English?
When you find an expert @Gillian, please let me know! 
I donāt think there is very much difference between using locative to express time or using instrumental, other than stylistic, as you and @BethL state. But, Iāll look into it some more and let you all know if I find anything.
Note too, that the accusative is often used adverbially in many situations, and also with time.
Ekaį¹ samayaį¹ BhagavÄ SÄvatthiyaį¹ viharati ā¦
At one time the Blessed One was living at SÄvatthÄ« ā¦
3 Likes
In answer to this question about the different cases used for time raised here about 3 weeks ago, I was able to discuss it with Bhikkhu Bodhi and he sent me the following response:
I donāt think the different cases for time have a difference in meaning, but there is a different in usage. The accusative usually opens a sutta or a passage. To indicate something occurring at the time previously referred to, the instrumental is used. And the locative, I think, is used when setting up a relative-demonstrative relationship, āon which occasion / on that occasion.ā
Hopes this helps clarify this issue.
4 Likes