English
among "Rājā, Brahmā, Sakhā, Attā, Sā, Pumā" and so on, in terms of their word-series, making it impossible to take them by analogy. In such a situation, to take by analogy, Indeed, it would be faulty. Therefore, they should not be taken, even by way of a wrong view. Further, it should be said here: Just as when it is said, "they go with those women," the word `sā` (she/that), which is feminine and meaningful, like `kaññā` (maiden), as in "one's own woman" or "that woman," its forms are like those of `kaññā`: `sā, sā, sāyo. Saṃ, sā, sāyo. Sāya, sāhi, sābhi. Sāya, sānaṃ. Sāya, sāhi, sābhi. Sāya, sānaṃ. Sāya, sāyaṃ, sāsū`. But the forms of this word `sā` (dog), which refers to a dog, are not like that. This being so, why do those teachers desire the forms `sāhi, sābhī` in the third plural case, and `sāsū` in the seventh plural case? This too is unreasonable, because it is a masculine word ending in `ā`. And why then do they desire the form `sassa` in the fourth and sixth singular cases, by shortening the preceding vowel? This too is unreasonable, because the word `sā` (dog), which refers to a dog, naturally ends in `ā`. And for the word `sā` (dog), which naturally ends in `ā`, just as for the word `purisa` (man), which naturally ends in `a`, the fourth and sixth singular form is `purisassā`, there is no such form. Therefore, the venerable Kaccāna, showing the form of the word `sā` (dog) in the Niruttipiṭaka, stated the form `sāssa` in the fourth and sixth singular cases, by lengthening the preceding vowel. And why then do those teachers desire the form `sāya` in the fourth singular case? This too is unreasonable, for apart from the substitution of `āya` for `nādī` (case endings) after `ā` in feminine words ending in `ā` (which are `gha` class nouns), and the substitution of `āya` for the fourth singular case ending after `a` in neuter words ending in `a`, the substitution of `āya` for the fourth singular case ending after `ā` in masculine words ending in `ā` (which are not `gha` class nouns) is nowhere seen. And such a form is not stated in the Niruttipiṭaka. Its non-statement is more appropriate, as it does not appear in the Buddha's words or in the commentaries, etc. But what by us, relying on the Niruttipiṭaka and the Buddha's words, (regarding the dog...) The nominal declension of the word 'sa' has been stated; that alone should be understood as the essence. Here too, the similarity and dissimilarity of the words 'sā', 'so', 'saṃ' – these three words, which belong to all three genders and occur in various meanings, to the words in the nominal declension of the root form, should be observed. Here it might be asked: If the word 'sā' is desired by you to occur in the meaning of 'that', and 'dog', and 'one's own', how do they know, when 'sā' is merely said, that "it is the indicator of this meaning"? They do not know (just by hearing 'sā'), but ordinary people and scholars know by means of usage. For by means of usage, in phrases like "Sā Maddī mounted the elephant, not like a tightly bound elephant," the meaning of 'that' for the word 'sā' is understood. Thus, the word 'sā' occurs in the meaning of 'that'. In phrases like "Where 'sā' is not present. Having heard even the 'sā'-birth of the Blessed One, beings become partakers of the deathless taste," the meaning of 'dog' for the word 'sā' is understood. "This glorious food is prepared by you, It is eaten, consumed, and drunk. You know me as one who lives on what others give, Let the dog-cook obtain the leftover food." Here, however, by shortening the word 'sā', the Pāli word "sapāko" stands. Not taking the meaning "that", but taking the meaning "this meat is for dogs" as "saṃ", it should be understood that "sapāko" is said as "one who cooks 'saṃ' (meat for dogs)". In the commentary, however, "sapāko" is said to mean "a dog-cook outcast." That too indicates this very meaning. Thus, the word 'sā' also occurs in the meaning of 'dog'. When "Sā dārā jantūnaṃ piyā" is said, however, by explaining the meaning as "One's own wives are dear to beings," the meaning of 'one's own' for the word 'sā' is understood. Thus, the word 'sā' also occurs in the meaning of 'one's own'. Therefore, they know the word 'sā' as indicating such meanings by means of usage. Here it is said: In the meaning of 'that', and 'dog', And also in 'one's own' it occurs; The word 'sā' - that indeed should be known, By means of usages, truly. And here in the Pāli, the usage of the singular number "where 'sā' is not present" shows... and also, "Indeed, non-existent ones, call me 'father, father'; Ogres in the form of sons, drive away the boars." From the observation of the use of the plural, and from the observation of "sāno" etc. in the Nirutti Piṭaka, the declension of the word "sā" which means dog, has been stated as "sā, sā, sāno. Sānaṃ, sāne. Sānā" etc. Now, the declension of the word "puma" (man) is stated: Pumā, pumā, pumāno. Pumānaṃ, pumāne. Pumānā, pumunā, pumena, pumānehi, pumānebhi. Pumassa, pumuno, pumānaṃ. Pumānā, pumunā, pumānehi, pumānebhi. Pumassa, pumuno, pumānaṃ. Pumāne, pumānesu. Bho puma, bhavanto pumā, pumāno. The rule for "Bho pumā" in the plural should also be understood. Here, however, "Females are born to him, no males are born in the family; He who, knowing, answers a question otherwise." This Pāli passage proves the plural nature of the word "puma". In Kaccāyana, the vocative singular "he pumaṃ" with anusāra is seen. Since vocative words with anusāra are not seen in many other Pāli passages and commentaries, I do not state it here. If it is suitable upon examination, it should be adopted. In "Yasassi naṃ paññavantaṃ visayhā", however, the anusāra is due to the preservation of meter and tradition, not its inherent nature, so it should be understood. This is the declension based on the a-ending. "Of sixteen thousand women, there was no man then; After the passing of days and nights, I alone was born." and, "Just as in the stork species, there is never a male; When the clouds thunder, they then conceive." From the observation of these Pāli passages, the declension based on the o-ending should also be understood. Pumo, pumā. Pumaṃ, pume. Pumena, pumehi, pumebhi. Pumassa, pumānaṃ. Pumā, pumasmā, pumamhā, pumehi, pumebhi. Pumassa, pumānaṃ. Pume, pumasmiṃ, pumamhi, pumesu. Bho puma, bhavanto pumā. Or "Bho pumā". Thus, the word "puma" has two types of declension. The word-declension is. Now the mixed method is stated – A man, a man, men, men. A man, a man, men, men. By a man, by a man, by a man, by men, by men, by men, by men. To a man, to a man, to men. From a man, from a man, from a man, from a man, from a man, from men, from men, from men, from men. Of a man, of a man, of men. In a man, in a man, in a man, in a man, in men, in men. O man, O men, O men. Or "O men, O men". Now the word-declension of the word `raha` is stated – `Raha` is called an evil quality. Evil, evil, evils. Evil, evils. By evil, by evils, by evils. To evil, to evils. From evil, from evils, from evils. Of evil, of evils. In evil, in evils. O evil, O evils, O evils. Now the word-declension of the word `daḷhadhamma` is stated – Firm in Dhamma, firm in Dhamma, firm in Dhamma (plural). Firm in Dhamma, firm in Dhamma (plural). By firm in Dhamma, by firm in Dhamma (plural), by firm in Dhamma (plural). To firm in Dhamma, to firm in Dhamma (plural). From firm in Dhamma, from firm in Dhamma (plural), from firm in Dhamma (plural). Of firm in Dhamma, of firm in Dhamma (plural). In firm in Dhamma, in firm in Dhamma (plural). O firm in Dhamma, O firm in Dhamma (plural), O firm in Dhamma (plural). Also, "O firm in Dhamma (plural), O firm in Dhamma (plural)" should be understood as a separate plural form. In this way, the word-declension of the word `paccakkhadhamma` should be constructed. And here, "Just as, monks, four archers firm in Dhamma" is the example. However, in this Pāli passage, because "daḷhadhammā" appears in the plural, the word "daḷhadhamma" is indistinguishable as either a-ending or o-ending, due to the similarity of their plural forms. Nevertheless, the word-declension by us has been arranged as a-ending. Indeed, in such places, the word "daḷhadhamma" is suitable to be spoken as either a-ending or o-ending, due to its indistinct form. However, in another Pāli passage, it is very p... When clearly expressed, the word "daḷhadhamma" ending in 'o' appears in two ways: as a qualitative noun and as a proper noun. There, in "skilled in sovereignty, he is known as Daḷhadhamma," the word "daḷhadhamma" ending in 'o' is a qualitative noun. But in "In Bārāṇasī, a king named Daḷhadhamma ruled," it is a proper noun. Thus, the word "daḷhadhamma" ending in 'o' is seen in two ways. Its nominal paradigm, "daḷhadhammo, daḷhadhammā. Daḷhadhammaṃ, daḷhadhamme," should be known according to the masculine paradigm, and also a mixed paradigm based on 'ā'-ending and 'o'-ending. How so? Daḷhadhammā, daḷhadhammo, daḷhadhammāno, daḷhadhammā. Daḷhadhammānaṃ, daḷhadhammaṃ, daḷhadhammāne, daḷhadhamme. Daḷhadhamminā, daḷhadhammena, daḷhadhammehi, daḷhadhammebhi. Daḷhadhammassa, daḷhadhammānaṃ. Daḷadhamminā, daḷhadhammā, daḷhadhammasmā, daḷhadhammamhā, daḷhadhammehi, daḷhadhammebhi. Daḷhadhammassa, daḷhadhammānaṃ. Daḷhadhamme, daḷhadhammasmiṃ, daḷhadhammamhi, daḷhadhammesu. O Daḷhadhamma, O sirs Daḷhadhammāno, O sirs Daḷhadhammā. Similarly, the mixed paradigm of "paccakkhadhammā, paccakkhadhammo" should also be applied. Now, the nominal paradigm of the word "vivaṭacchada" is stated – Vivaṭacchadā, vivaṭacchadā, vivaṭacchadāno. Vivaṭacchadānaṃ, vivaṭacchadāne. Vivaṭacchadena, vivaṭacchadehi, vivaṭacchadebhi. Vivaṭacchadassa, vivaṭacchadānaṃ. Vivaṭacchadā, vivaṭacchadehi, vivaṭacchadebhi. Vivaṭacchadassa, vivaṭacchadānaṃ. Vivaṭacchade, vivaṭacchadesu. O Vivaṭacchada, O sirs Vivaṭacchadā, O sirs Vivaṭacchadāno. This nominal paradigm is stated as 'ā'-ending, based on the Pāli passage: