English
The rule here in the Dispensation of the Sugata is: in verse and in prose, "kaññā ratti With feminine nouns like 'woman', 'gruel', 'bride', these words 'nā', 'sa', 'smā', 'smiṃ', 'mhā', 'mhi' do not go to the end in their original form. But the word 'mhi' in a verse goes to the end with feminine nouns ending in 'i'. In this regard, it is said: In a verse, and also in prose, 'nā', 'sa', 'smā', etc., in their original form, become suffixes for feminine nouns ending in 'ā' and 'i'. But the word 'mhi' in a verse, with feminine nouns ending in 'i', from which its usages become suffixes indeed. Just as in a crane's birth, no male is ever found; in Kusāvatī city, a king, earth's lord, there was. Thus, 'Kusāvatī' and so on are different; being names of cities, they are singular, not plural like names of countries. "Kāsī, Kāsiyo. Kāsīhi, Kāsībhi. Kāsīnaṃ. Kāsīsu. O Kāsiyo. Similarly, Avanti, Avantiyo" and so on, the declension table should be constructed. Other words should also be taken. Thus, 'Kāsī' and so on, being names of countries, are conventionally plural, even when the meaning is singular. Candavatī, Candavatī, by Candavatī, in Candavatī, O Candavatī, thus in the singular form, or Candavatī, Candavatī, by Candavatī, by Candavatī, of Candavatī, in Candavatī, O Candavatī, thus in the plural form, the declension table should be known. Other words should also be constructed. For 'Candavatī' and so on, being designations for one or many women, they should be constructed either in the singular or in the plural, according to the usage. This method applies elsewhere too. This is the detailed division of the declension table for the natural forms of feminine nouns ending in 'ī'. The section on feminine nouns ending in 'ī' with their natural forms is concluded. Now, since the feminine nouns ending in 'u' derived from the root 'bhū' are not clear, we will complete the declension table with another feminine noun ending in 'u': Gruel, gruels, gruels. Gruel, gruels, gruels. By gruel, by gruels, by gruels. Of gruel, of gruels. From gruel. with gruel, with gruel. Of gruel, of gruels. In gruel, in gruel, among gruels. O gruel, O gruels, O gruels. Thus are "element, cow, coffin, ringworm, itch, scab, rope," etc. Here, the word "dhātu" (element) is masculine, denoting the elements of essence, blood, flesh, fat, sinew, bone, marrow, and semen. But when denoting nature, or the bodily elements of the Sugatas, or the world-elements, or the eye-elements, it is feminine. When denoting the words "bhū," "hū," "kara," "pacā," etc., it is both feminine and masculine. Here, however, the feminine gender is intended. This is the discriminative division of the nominal word-series for feminine nouns ending in "u." The feminine nouns ending in "u" with "u" as their base are completed. Now we shall explain the nominal word-series of words like "bhū," etc., following the opinion of the ancient teachers as our guide— Jambu, jambu, jambus. Jambu, jambu, jambus. By jambu, with jambus, with jambus. Of jambu, of jambus. By jambu, with jambus, with jambus. Of jambu, of jambus. In jambu, in jambu, among jambus. O jambu, O jambus, O jambus. The opinion of Yamaka Mahāthera. Here, the feminine gender of the word "jambū" is well-known from phrases like "mangoes, sāla trees, and jambu trees." However, in "these jambuka trees," it should be understood that the masculine designation "jambukā" is used with reference to the word "rukkhā" (trees). Thus, what should be called "jambū" is "jambukā." The root is "ke re ge" (to sound). Alternatively, in the feminine sense, "jambū" itself is "jambukā," and "jambukā" are those trees, hence "jambukārukkhā," like "Laṅkādīpo" (the island of Laṅkā). Or, in the masculine case, in a compound, where "jambukarukkhā" should be said, due to the nature of the verse, to preserve the meter, it is elongated to "jambukārukkhā," as in "saraṇāgamane kañcī." Earth, earth, earths. Earth, earth, earths. By earth, with earths, with earths. Of earth, of earths. By earth, with earths, with earths. Of earth, of earths. In earth, in earth, among earths. O earth, O earths, O earths. Thus, "non-existent, non-existent, non-existents. Non-existent, non-existent, non-existents. By non-existent should be connected with "thus". Here, "Why do you speak to me thus, you utter evil" is an example phrase. "The bride and the river, the river and the beautiful body; The beautiful-thighed, the elephant-nosed," and so on, are like the jambu fruit. This subtle point should be well considered. "Vadaññū, vadaññū, vadaññuyo. Vadaññuṃ, vadaññū, vadaññuyo. Vadaññuyā" should be connected like the jambu fruit. Similarly, in "maggaññū, dhammaññū, kataññū," and so on. But, sirs— "Having gone from here, having obtained a human birth; Generous and endowed with virtue, I shall do much good" Since such usages are seen, the masculine gender of words like vadaññū is well-known. If so, why is the feminine gender rule shown here? Because vadaññū and similar words do not exclusively belong to the masculine gender; they are of two genders, their gender being determined by what they refer to. Thus— "Having gone to human existence, generous and free from envy; I shall give gifts to the Saṅgha, diligently again and again," and "Angry and ungrateful," many Pāli texts with feminine usages are seen. Therefore, this rule has been established by us. This is the analytical division of the nominal declension of the natural form of feminine words ending in ū. The feminine ending in ū, whose natural form ends in ū, is concluded. A word ending in o, formed from the root bhū, is an uncommon feminine word. However, other feminine words ending in o are common. A feminine word ending in o, should be understood as the word "go"; Some say its form is like the masculine "go" word; Thus, some desire the forms of the feminine word "go" to be like the forms of the masculine word "go" as stated by "go, gāvo, gavo. Gāvu," and so on. In their view, just as there is no difference in the color of different gold pieces, there is no difference in form, so establishing the feminine gender of the word "go" is not suitable for consideration. Why, if you ask? Because, just as for the word "mātugāma," two declensions are made, one for the masculine That is a word-series, and this statement appears to us like the statement that it is a feminine word-series, and therefore it is not fit for consideration. Moreover, when the forms of the feminine word 'go' are the same as the forms of the masculine word 'go', how can the word 'go' be feminine? Because there is no distinction in the word-series of forms. Just as for the words 'ratti' (night), 'aggi' (fire), 'aṭṭhi' (bone), even though they are similar in ending with 'i', a distinction in the word-series of forms is seen, which is characteristic of feminine, masculine, and neuter genders. But just as a distinction in the word-series of forms is seen for two root-words belonging to masculine and feminine genders, so no distinction in the word-series of forms is seen for the feminine word 'go' as accepted by those teachers. But just as a distinction in the word-series of forms occurs for two root-words belonging to masculine and feminine genders, so there should be a distinction in the word-series of forms for two words 'go' belonging to masculine and feminine genders, and just as a distinction in the word-series of forms is seen for two words 'āyu' belonging to masculine and neuter genders, so there should be a distinction in the word-series of forms for two words 'go' belonging to masculine and feminine genders. If there is no distinction, how can there be a determination of their masculine and feminine genders? And how can there be a clear and unclear mode of usage? This point is extremely subtle, profound, and very intricate, and cannot be fully grasped or untangled by anyone who does not properly understand the method of the natural language, the Magadhan, which is the root language of all beings and was spoken by the Omniscient Buddha, and who is not endowed with accumulated knowledge. However, in our view, a distinction in the word-series of forms is indeed seen for two words 'go', and a determination of masculine and feminine genders is also seen, and a clear and unclear mode of usage is also seen, and a mode of usage that transcends both of these for the neuter gender is also seen. Now, to make this meaning clear, we will establish this rule in this place. Thus, those who practice the Pāli Canon will not be troubled by doubt. Here, in understanding the meaning, for the wise, For the development of skill, we will explain three noun declension tables—namely? Cow, two cows, cows. Cow, two cows, cows. By a cow, by cows. To a cow, to cows. From a cow, from cows. Of a cow, of cows. In a cow, in cows. O cow, O two cows, O cows. This is the noun declension table of the word `gāvī`, which denotes a female, is of the feminine gender ending in `ī`, and is formed by means of the `ī` suffix derived from the word `go`. Bull, two bulls, bulls. Bull, two bulls, bulls. By a bull, by bulls. To a bull, to bulls. From a bull, from bulls. Of a bull, of bulls. In a bull, in bulls. O bull, O two bulls, O bulls. This is the noun declension table of the word `go`, which denotes a male, and is of the masculine gender ending in `o`. Cow/bull, two cows/bulls, cows/bulls. Cow/bull, two cows/bulls, cows/bulls. By cows/bulls. To cows/bulls. From cows/bulls. Of cows/bulls. In cows/bulls. O cow/bull, O two cows/bulls, O cows/bulls. This is the noun declension table of the word `go`, which denotes both male and female, and is of the common gender ending in `o`. Here, however, the word "gāvuṃ" should be understood as not having been stated (in the common gender declension) because it denotes exclusively a male.