English
just as the meaning of the word Devadatta in "I heard 'Devadatta'." Therefore, the elision should be made of the 'i' of 'iti' when it is subsequent, not of the 'i' that denotes the preceding 'i'. In Kaccāyana, however, considering the general prevalence, the elision of a dissimilar vowel after a dissimilar vowel is stated, not of a similar vowel after a similar vowel. Or it should be understood that the elision of a subsequent similar vowel is stated in the Mahāpadesa Suttas. In phrases like "Between Rājagaha and Nāḷandā," even when there is a connection with the word 'ca' (and) and so on, the words should not be pronounced by breaking them apart. And where augmentative letters and so on are seen, in those usages, the preceding words should not be pronounced by breaking them apart; they should be pronounced together with the subsequent words that contain the augmentative letters. For example, usages like "Like the king of stars among the constellations," "The Blessed One said this." Where a separate connection is seen for each word, and the meaning fits, there they should be pronounced by breaking them apart according to the meaning. For example, usages like "He showed zeal in bathing, he also showed zeal for gruel, for solid food, for rice." Here, by breaking it as "He showed zeal in bathing," it should be pronounced as "he also showed zeal for gruel, for solid food, for rice." For in this way, the 'api' word, which expresses the meaning of collection and is not used inappropriately, becomes capable of clarifying the meaning that not only did that bhikkhu show zeal in bathing, but also for gruel, for solid food, and for rice. But where a connection is seen for each single word, either with one or the other, or with both words, together with the fitness of meaning, there they should be pronounced by breaking them apart as appropriate. For example, "He teaches the Dhamma, beautiful in the beginning, beautiful in the middle, beautiful in the end, with meaning, with letter, he proclaims the perfectly complete, pure holy life. I will teach you, bhikkhus, dependent origination." I will speak, listen to it carefully, pay attention. “Inner serenity, one-pointedness of mind” and such usages. Here are verses explaining the intentions: A wise person should combine the word with “Dhamma-sound” or “holy life-sound” and utter it as “meaningful and well-phrased.” A wise person should combine the word “carefully” with the word “listen,” or with the word spoken as “pay attention,” or with both words, and utter it. A connection with each one, or a connection with both, should be understood to be seen by the proper arrangement of meaning. This meaning here was not uttered by my own opinion; it was uttered by me relying on the method of the lion-like former teachers. In other such passages, this method should be applied by one skilled in method, a seeker of the meaning of the teaching. A wise person, having considered the sound according to the meaning, and the meaning according to the sound, should speak, not just any way. This is the consideration of meaning and sound here. In the case of an intensified meaning, it should be understood thus: From the intensified meaning of the root *bhū* (to be/become), it is seen in the sense of increase, as in “Mahānāma the Licchavī, sitting to one side, uttered an exclamation: ‘The Vajjians will become! The Vajjians will become!’” or “I am indeed the one to be destroyed, the one who has become a great danger to the king.” or “The Vedas are no protection for that man, the betrayer of friends, the one who has become a great danger.” or “A great danger has been created by me.” Thus it is seen in the sense of increase. In the collection of words, it should be understood thus: The middle person plural of the *parassapada* in the present tense is similar to the middle person plural of the *parassapada* in the imperative. “You (plural) become.” In the *parassapada* of the present and imperative tenses, in the first person fourfold, the singular is similar to the singular, and the plural is also similar to the plural. “I become,” “We become.” The middle person singular of the *attanopada* in the present tense is similar to the two middle person singulars of the *attanopada* in the past (yesterday) and past (today) tenses, sometimes by way of the collection of sounds. Omitting any distinction, this rule is to be applied also further on. You are; this is the form for the present tense. You were; this is the form for the past and recent past. The present tense, middle voice, first person singular is similar to two forms: the imperative, middle voice, first person singular, and the perfect tense, active voice, second person singular. I may be; this is the form for the present and imperative. You have been; this is the form for the perfect tense. The present tense, middle voice, first person plural is similar to the two first person plural forms of the perfect and recent past, middle voice. We are; this is the form for the present tense. We have been; this is the form for the perfect tense. We were (recently); this is the form for the recent past. The imperative, middle voice, second person plural is similar to the perfect tense, middle voice, second person plural. You (pl.) should be; this is the form for the imperative. You (pl.) have been; this is the form for the perfect tense. The perfect tense, active voice, third person plural is similar to two forms: the past tense, active voice, third person plural, and the recent past, middle voice, third person plural. They have been; this is the form for the perfect tense. They were; this is the form for the past and recent past. The perfect tense, active voice, second person plural is similar to four forms: the middle voice, third person singular, the past tense, active voice, second person plural, the middle voice, third person singular, and the recent past, active voice, second person plural. You (pl.) have been; he has been; these are the forms for the perfect tense. You (pl.) were; he was; these are the forms for the past tense. You (pl.) were (recently); this is the form for the recent past. The perfect tense, active voice, first person singular and with the past tense, active voice, first person... The perfect (Parokkhā) active voice first person singular is similar to two forms: the past/present active voice first person singular, and the present (Ajjatanī) middle voice first person singular. "I became (babhūvaṃ)." This is the form of the perfect. "I was (abhavaṃ)." This is the form of the past (Hiyyattanī) and present (Ajjatanī). The perfect (Parokkhā) active voice first person plural is similar to the past (Hiyyattanī) active voice first person plural. "We became (babhūvimha)." This is the form of the perfect. "We were (abhavamha)." This is the form of the past (Hiyyattanī). The perfect (Parokkhā) middle voice first person singular is similar to two forms: the past (Hiyyattanī) middle voice first person singular, and the present (Ajjatanī) active voice first person singular. "I became (babhūviṃ)." This is the form of the perfect. "I was (abhaviṃ)." This is the form of the past (Hiyyattanī) and present (Ajjatanī). The past (Hiyyattanī) active voice third person singular is similar to the present (Ajjatanī) middle voice third person singular. "He was (abhavā)." The past (Hiyyattanī) active voice second person singular is similar to the present (Ajjatanī) active voice second person singular. "You were (abhavo)." The future (Bhavissantī) active voice second person plural is similar to two forms of the conditional (Kālātīpatti): the active voice second person plural, and the middle voice third person singular. "You (pl.) will be (bhavissatha)." This is the form of the future. "You (pl.) would have been (abhavissatha)." "He would have been (abhavissatha)." These are the forms of the conditional. The future (Bhavissantī) middle voice second person singular is similar to the conditional (Kālātīpatti) middle voice second person singular. "You will be (bhavissase)." This is the form of the future. "You would have been (abhavissase)." This is the form of the conditional. The future (Bhavissantī) middle voice second person plural is similar to the conditional (Kālātīpatti) middle voice second person plural. "You (pl.) will be (bhavissavhe)." This is the form of the future. "You (pl.) would have been (abhavissavhe)." This is the form of the conditional. The future (Bhavissantī) middle voice first person singular. "aṃ" is like the past tense, first person singular, active voice. "I shall be" – this is the future form. "I was" – this is the past tense form. The remaining forms of all eight conjugations are to be understood as mutually dissimilar. And here they are – In the present and imperative, the two "tha" are declared; "You (pl.) are/be" – here, the example is twofold. The two "mi" and the two "ma" are said in them, twofold each; "I am" and "we are" – here, the forms are indicated. In the present, imperfect, and aorist conjugations; the three "se" – "you (sg.) are" – from the present conjugation; "you (sg.) were" – from the imperfect and aorist conjugations. In the present, imperative, and perfect conjugations; the three "e" are spoken there, first, by way of the two. Know "I might be" and "you (sg.) were" from the perfect; In the present, perfect, and aorist, the three "mhe" are sounded. The three "mhe" are forms in order, specified with "we"; "We might be," "we were," "we were not" – thus are they indicated. In the imperative and perfect, the two "vho" are forms here; "You (pl.) be," "you (pl.) were" – specified with "you (pl.)". In the perfect, or imperfect, or aorist conjugations; the three "u" – "they were" – know the form from the perfect; From the imperfect and aorist, know "they were not." In the perfect, or imperfect, or aorist conjugations; the five forms with "ttha" are sounded, thus are they indicated.