English
because it is not a paccattavacana (pronominal word), there the middle person does not occur. The other two, however, occur with reference to a karmavācaka (agent in passive voice) that is a paccattavacana (pronominal word) and co-referential. What is that? An enemy is overcome by you, I am overcome by you. The excellent person (first person) occurs after all roots, even when the word "we" (amha-), which is a paccattavacana (pronominal word) and is co-referential with the verb, either as a sādhakavācaka (agentive word) or a karmavācaka (agent in passive voice), is used, or when it is not used but implied by its position. I insult, we insult, I insult, we insult. I am insulted by unwholesome states, we are insulted, I am insulted, we are insulted. Where, even though the word "we" (amha-) is a sādhakavācaka (agentive word), co-referentiality with the verb is not obtained because it is not a paccattavacana (pronominal word), there the excellent person does not occur. The other two, however, occur with reference to a karmavācaka (agent in passive voice) that is a paccattavacana (pronominal word) It depends on a co-referential term. How is that? Wealth is experienced by me, you are overcome by me. Thus, wherever the nouns and so on, which are individual expressions of agents or objects, attain co-referentiality with the verb phrases, there the first person and so on are obtained. Therefore, the co-referentiality of nouns and so on, which are individual expressions, is the cause for the arising of the first person and so on. When two or three persons are referred to as one, the superior person should be taken. Here, "referred to as one" means referring together and referring at the same time. And that is indeed only in the use of the word "ca" (and), because without the use of "ca", when referring at different times, there is no such taking. "You all are skilled in meaning, we are skilled in meaning" — such are its uses. In that, in the expression "you all are skilled in meaning", when two are referred to as one, such as "he is skilled in meaning, and you are skilled in meaning, you all are skilled in meaning" — the superior person should be taken. But in "we are skilled in meaning", when two are referred to as one, such as "he is skilled in meaning, and I am skilled in meaning, we are skilled in meaning", or "you are skilled in meaning, and I am skilled in meaning, we are skilled in meaning" — even so, the superior person should be taken. Or when three are referred to as one, such as "he is skilled in meaning, and you are skilled in meaning, and I am skilled in meaning, we are skilled in meaning", or "he is skilled in meaning, and they are skilled in meaning, and you are skilled in meaning, and you all are skilled in meaning, and I am skilled in meaning, we are skilled in meaning" — even so, the superior person should be taken. Another method of meaning is stated: "You are skilled in meaning, and he is skilled in meaning, you all are skilled in meaning" or "I am skilled in meaning..." I am, and he is skilled in meaning, we are skilled in meaning,” or in this way, the meaning of the word is of many kinds. Thus, in the remaining cases, in the fifth, seventh, etc., cases, the “other person” should be understood. And in all verb forms that express a plural meaning, ending in the plural, but not in those ending in the plural that express a single self, nor in verb forms that express a single meaning, should be emphasized. Here are these verses, clarifying the instruction: “You are, and he also is,” in such a statement; “You all are,” how can it be the “other person”? “I am, and he also is,” in such a statement; “We are,” how can it be the “best person”? And here it is said: The “other” is called that which is mentioned later, in the sequence of terms. Thus, it should be understood, that which is called the “other person.” The “other” from the first is the middle and also the best; The “other” from the middle is called the best person. Such an understanding here is in accordance with usage; There is no fault in an understanding that is in accordance with it. “You, good lady, be happy, and this great beast also”; Since this reading is seen, therefore we say it thus. “You two be happy,” that meaning is seen there; Even so, this method is stated, by my own opinion. Although my own opinion is said to be the weakest of all; Nevertheless, because it is stated by adopting a method, it is not objectionable. “While ruling the kingdom righteously, they banished me from the country; And you, the country folk, and the townspeople, gathered.” “And I and Maddidevī, and Jālī and Kaṇhājinā, both; Comforting each other’s sorrow, we lived in the hermitage then.” These verses also are proof of this meaning; By the method stated in them, the meaning would be very clear; Thus, it should be understood by the wise, what is the use of much speaking? If the meaning does not contradict when stated in any pleasing manner; That is the standard for the wise. From the three persons, this “other person” is not found individually, within that… which is as if plunged. For the skill of listeners, in all practical meanings; Though not obtained separately, it is extracted as if obtained. In brief here, the usage of persons should be understood thus: "in the sense of 'I' it is supreme, in the sense of 'you' it is middle, in the sense of 'others' it is first." The designation of persons for "tyā" and so on, since it is stated, therefore this; The verb ending in "ta" should be known, as indicating the person. Thus in every way, the indication of time, agent, and person by the verb is stated. Here, regarding "characteristic of action," how should the verb's characteristic of action be understood? This is characterized by action, or action is its characteristic; Thus, the characteristic of action, should be understood, and indeed so. Having heard "gacchati" and so on, a word indicating action; "Verb" by the wise, by those who know verbs, it is designated. The characteristic of a noun is, just as the designation of an entity; Similarly, the designation of action, is indeed the characteristic of a verb. But in terms of meaning, of this, the expression of action here; Should be known as its characteristic, as characterized by those who know characteristics. When asked "What are you doing?", by "I am cooking" and so on, "I"; By giving a reply, the expression of action is considered. Thus, the characteristic of action of the verb should be understood. Now, the usage of inflections in tenses should be understood thus – In the present tense, the present (inflection) occurs; In meanings of blessing, command, and request, in the present, the fifth (inflection) occurs. In the present, in meanings of supposition and permission, the seventh (inflection occurs); In the unobserved past, the aorist occurs. In the time from yesterday onwards, in the past, it occurs; Whether observed or unobserved, the hiyyattanī is declared. In the time from today onwards, in the past, it occurs; Whether observed or unobserved, it is called "ajjatanī" for the near past. In the future, the future (inflection), occurs in that tense; In the sense of an unfulfilled action, in the past, the conditional; And it also occurs in the future, so it is stated by those who know grammar. Thus, having known the usage of inflections in tenses, those which are in the suttas, having analyzed Many usages are seen, which are the domain of very clear, vast, and sharp intellect. For those desiring skill in them, the series of verb forms spoken in this order should be noted: (He) is, (they) are. (You) are, (you all) are. (I) am, (we) are. (He) becomes, (they) become. (You) become, (you all) become. (I) become, (we) become. This is a series of verb forms without explicit subjects. And in the suttas, even when there is a meaning, verb forms without explicit subjects are seen. For example: "All formations are impermanent," when one sees with wisdom. "What you say to me, charioteer." "I go to another Sepaṇṇī." ...and so on, this is a series of verb forms illustrating this meaning. Here, there are three kinds of usage in verb forms: tayoga, mayoga, and aññayoga. Therein, middle persons (second person) should be taken by way of tayoga, highest persons (first person) by way of mayoga, and first persons (third person) by way of aññayoga. For these, etc., in this order, this is the chant: By aññayoga, the first; And by tayoga, the middle; By mayoga, the highest are; To be understood by the discerning. For the skill of listeners in usages, we speak of another series of verb forms with explicit subjects: He is, they are. You are, you all are. I am, we are. He becomes, they become. You become, you all become. I become, we become. This is a series of verb forms with explicit subjects. And in the suttas, verb forms with explicit subjects are also seen. For example: "That this prince, O deva, has well-placed feet, this too is a mark of a great man for this great man." "For him, these seven jewels are." "He who crosses in a slow time, and delays when it's time to cross." "You are my teacher." "I too wish to see." "My father who has come here." ...and so on, this is a series of verb forms illustrating this meaning. That which falls into a meaning to be expressed by the word 'you', but is not a speaker of the meaning of 'you', that word does not establish the verb's being accompanied by tayoga (second person usage), but rather... but it is only by being conjoined with another usage that it is accomplished. And if a word falls into the meaning to be expressed by the word 'I/we', but is not a word expressing the meaning of 'I/we', that word also does not accomplish the conjunction of 'I/we' with the verb, but only accomplishes the conjunction with another usage. Here, regarding the meaning to be expressed by the word 'you/yours': "Does not your honor come for the merit,