English
And its exclusive male denotation is known from the direct Pāli passage: "Here, monks, a woman invited a monk who had entered the rains retreat, saying: ‘Come, venerable sir, I will give you gold, or I will give you silver, or I will give you a field, or I will give you land, or I will give you a bull, or I will give you a cow. Or I will give you a male slave, or I will give you a female slave, or I will give you a daughter for a wife, or I will be your wife, or I will bring you another wife.’" Thus it is known from the direct Pāli passage. Here, indeed, by the word "gāvuṃ" a male is spoken of, by the word "gāviṃ" a female. But that which, in this declension table of the feminine gender ending in `o`... The word “gāvī” is used four times. This, like the word “kaññā,” is capable of indicating the indistinct usage of the feminine gender. For there is not a single word in other genders that appears four times with the same sound. We will later explain the common usage of these words, “gāvī gāvi,” in some places for both females and males. However, the declension table we have made for the feminine ending in ‘o’ — “go, gāvī, gāvo, gāvī, gavo. Gāvaṃ, gavaṃ, gāvi” — there, the ‘ī’ ending is substituted for ‘sī’ from the word ‘go,’ and the ‘iṃ’ ending is substituted for the ‘aṃ’ ending. Thus, the forms “gāvī gāvī gāvi” are shown for the feminine ending in ‘o.’ Indeed, in the Mukhamattadīpanī, the grammarian Vajirabuddhācariya, skilled in the science of etymology, stated the substitution of ‘ī’ for ‘yo’ from the word ‘go.’ Just as the ‘ī’ ending is substituted for ‘yo’ from the word ‘go,’ so too the ‘ī’ ending is substituted for ‘sī,’ and the ‘iṃ’ ending is substituted for the ‘aṃ’ ending. Here are the verses illustrating this method: Even in those perfected with the ‘ī’ suffix, such as “gāvī gāvī,” at the end of the first singular and so on, in the Buddha’s teaching, our preference is to give a rule stating the substitution of ‘ī’ for ‘yo’ in the word ‘go’ when it is feminine, to indicate its indistinctness. Furthermore, in the commentaries: Our preference is to give a rule to indicate indistinctness in the feminine, by saying “gāvī” after saying “gāvo.” Indeed, in commentaries like the Samantapāsādikā, in this passage: “A clever cowherd, taking pebbles in his lap, holding a rope and stick, goes to the pen early in the morning, strikes the cows on their backs, and sitting on top of a gatepost, counts each cow as it arrives, throwing a pebble for ‘one, two’,” by saying “gāvī” after saying “gāvo,” the indistinct usage of the word ‘go,’ which is feminine ending in ‘o’ and refers to both male and female, is established. For by “gāvo,” cows, both male and female, are taken generally, and by “gāvī” also, female… being female, being male, a bull. Thus, the words "gāvo" and "gāvi" are, by the expounders of words, the teachers of commentaries, skilled in the ways of etymology, collected in the same treatise, in the same sentence, by way of having the same gender. For if, in the paradigm of the word "go", which is in the feminine gender, and denotes both female and male, and ends in "o", the forms "gāvī gāvi" were not found, then in the commentary, having said "gāvo", it would have to be said "gāvaṃ" only, but not "gāviṃ". And just as the teachers of commentaries, having said "gāvo" as a collective term for all cattle, both female and male, then referring to those very cattle, made the word construction "dvāraṃ pattaṃ pattaṃ gāviṃ" (a cow, having reached the door), therefore, "gāviṃ" should also be understood as a collective term for all. If it is said that this is not a collective term, because "gāvi" refers only to a female? No, because a different meaning is known by way of the context. For it cannot be said that "only females live in all cow-pens, not males," or "only males live, not females." Moreover, the Pāli text says: "gāvimpi disvā palāyanti 'bhikkhū'ti maññamānā" (seeing even a cow, they flee, thinking 'monks'). Here too, by the word "gāvi", all cattle, both female and male, should be understood as included. Otherwise, it would follow that "only a female cow should be thought of as a monk." Thus, according to the Pāli method, it is understood that the "aṃ" ending becomes "iṃ" from the word "go", which is in the feminine gender and denotes both female and male. The Venerable Vajirabuddha, even though the "ī" suffix should be applied to the word "go", did not apply it, but made the "aṃ" ending into "iṃ". His intention might be this: if the "ī" suffix were applied to the word "go", then the word "gāvī" thus formed by means of the "ī" suffix, in any context, like "migī" (doe), "morī" (peahen), "kukkuṭī" (hen), etc., would be a word denoting only a female, and never a word denoting both female and male. Therefore, for the sake of usage conducive to the teaching, the "aṃ" ending should be made into "iṃ". Thus, the Venerable Vajirabuddha. It is known that the letter ‘ī’ is substituted for ‘yo’ in the word ‘go’. What more? Since the Aṭṭhakathā teachers have composed a word structure beginning with ‘‘the cows striking the back’’ and ending with the statement ‘‘counting the cows that have reached the gate, throwing a pebble for ‘one’ and ‘two’’’, the meaning-arrangement ‘‘one cow, two cows’’ must be stated, and the usage word ‘‘gāvīṃ’’ is also seen. Thus, it is known that in the opinion of the Aṭṭhakathā teachers, the letter ‘ī’ is substituted for ‘si’ and the letter ‘iṃ’ for ‘aṃ’ in the word ‘go’. Therefore, the word series that we have established for the feminine word ‘go’, which is of ‘o’ ending, in the manner of ‘‘go, gāvī, gāvo, gāvī, gavo, gāvaṃ, gāvi’’, is in accordance with the Pāḷi method, in accordance with the Aṭṭhakathā method, in accordance with the opinion of Kaccāyana teachers, and in accordance with the opinion of the venerable teacher who generates word formations. And because the word ‘‘gāvī’’ appears four times, it also proves the indistinct usage of the ‘o’ ending feminine word ‘go’. Thus, this is extremely fitting when properly examined with knowledge in the Pāḷi method and so on; there is not even the slightest fault here. Here, however, the word ‘‘gāviyo’’ in the plural of the nominative, accusative, and vocative cases, the word ‘‘gāviyā’’ in the singular of the instrumental, dative, ablative, and genitive cases, the words ‘‘gāvīhi gāvībhī’’ in the plural of the instrumental and ablative cases, the word ‘‘gāvīnaṃ’’ in the plural of the dative and genitive cases, and the words ‘‘gāviyā, gāviyaṃ, gāvīsū’’ in the locative case, these sixteen words are not mentioned because they are exclusively formed by the suffix ‘ī’ and exclusively denote the feminine gender. This is the decision stated here for the removal of doubt for the listeners: Indeed, among feminine words, ‘‘gāvī gāvi’’ are formed either by the suffix ‘ī’ or by the substitution of ‘ī’ and ‘iṃ’. Among these, the latter method is intended here, the former method elsewhere. Similarly, since ‘‘gāvī gāvi’’ are also formed by the suffix ‘ī’, and mostly they are feminine, being established by the substitution of ī and i. Sometimes, in one instance, they are both feminine and masculine, encompassing all. Among these, the latter method is intended here, the former method elsewhere. "Cows, by the cow, with the cows, of the cows, in the cow, among the cows" — these, however, being established by the suffix ī, are always feminine. Just as words like "doe, peahen, hen" are used exclusively for female animals, because they are specifically used in common parlance for female cattle. Although "river, earth," etc., are also feminine, and are established by the suffix ī, it is not appropriate to say that they refer to female entities, because their referents are inanimate. Their referents are devoid of feminine, masculine, or neuter gender. Since, however, in the feminine word "go" (cow), the suffix ena and the ending esu are not found, therefore words like "gāvena, gavena, gāvesu, gavesu" are not stated. And since, with the feminine word "go," the suffixes sma and smiṃ do not appear in their original form, therefore words like "gāvassa, gavassa, gāvasmā, gavasmā, gāvasmiṃ, gavasmiṃ" are not stated. And since, in that case, the substitutes ā and mhā for the suffix smā are not found, therefore words like "gāvā, gavā, gāvamhā, gavamhā" are not stated. And since, for the suffix smiṃ, the substitutes e and mhi are not found, therefore words like "gāve, gave, gāvamhi, gavamhi" are not stated. Moreover, because it is inappropriate to combine them with appositive words like "yāya, tāya," etc., words like "gāvena, gavena" are not stated in the feminine context. For indeed, "gāvena, gavena," etc., should not be combined with "yāya, tāya," etc., because they are exclusively masculine forms. Some might say here: The paradigm of the feminine word "go" of the o-ending base, which you have established in the manner of "go, gāvī, gāvo, gāvī, gavo," "Is it like the words 'mātugāmo itthī' (female person, woman) and 'mātugāmā itthiyo' (female persons, women)?" No. The words 'mātugāma' and 'itthi' are of different genders, masculine and feminine, and from different roots, 'gamu' and 'isu'. But in this context, the words 'go' and 'gāvī' are of one gender, feminine, and from one root, 'gamu'. Since Kaccāyana stated 'goṇa' as a substitute for 'go', and considering its substitutive nature and single root, should the word-list be mixed with it? No. Because 'goṇa' is exclusively masculine and ends in 'a'. Indeed, it is listed separately in the masculine section. This word-list, "go, gāvī, gāvo, gāvī, gavo," etc., should not be understood as a mixture of words ending in 'o' and 'ī'. Rather, it should essentially be considered a feminine word-list ending in 'o', due to the words being formed by the optional substitution of 'ī' and 'ī' for the 'si', 'yo', 'aṃ' endings after the word 'go'. Now we will explain the Sutta passages and common usages