English
Thus, what is said in terms of the three genders: "whoever (masculine), whatever (feminine), whatever (neuter)," and so on, these are words of exhaustive inclusion, so they should be understood. All of these are not particles; they are to be understood as having the nature of words resembling particles. If they were particles, they would remain in one form in the three genders and seven cases, but they do not remain so. Therefore, they are not particles, but only have the nature of words resembling particles. Moreover, when the suffixes -ttaka and -ttika are made from the pronouns "ya," "ta," "kiṃ," "eta" according to gender, the words that are formed by choice become non-pronominal words of limitation. Their nominal declension should be combined in the manner of "purisa," "citta," "kaññā." How is that? "However many men," "however much mind," "however many women." "That many," "that much," "that many." "How many?" "How much?" "How many?" "This many," "this much," "this many." These words, though non-pronominal, are stated for the skill of the wise in other meanings arising from the suffixes. Now, the nominal declension of the word "eka" (one), which is a word for number, etc., is stated: The word "eka" is indeed a word for number, and it is a word for incomparable, and it is a word for solitary, and it is a word for some, and it is a word for mixed. When it is a word for number, incomparable, solitary, then it is singular. "Eko" (one, nominative), "ekaṃ" (one, accusative), "ekena" (by one), "ekassa" (to/for one), "ekasmā" (from one), "ekamhā" (from one), "ekassa" (of one), "ekasmiṃ" (in/on one), "ekamhī" (in/on one). Thus, the word "eka," which is a word for number, etc., is singular. Indeed, in the context of numbers like "one, two, three," the word "eka" is singular. "I am the Fully Awakened One." "The king lies down alone." Even in speaking of incomparable and solitary, it is singular. This is the singular pronominal declension. But when many things, numbered and solitary, are to be spoken of, then, by adding the suffix "ka" to the word "eka," "ekakā" (ones, nominative), "ekake" (ones, accusative), "ekakehi" (by ones), "ekakebhi" (by ones). The nominal declension should be combined in the plural in the manner of "purisa." Thus, in the sense of number Even many are. "Four should be alone," it is said. Even unaccompanied, many are. Just as, when it is to be said, "this householder came alone, this one also came alone," "these householders came alone" is seen to be said. This method does not belong to the pronominal class due to the absence of a unique form, but it is stated for the purpose of conveying a different meaning. When it means 'some', then "eke, eke, ekehi, ekebhi, ekesaṃ, ekehi, ekebhi, ekesaṃ, ekesū" should be said. This too is a plural pronominal declension. Here, 'eke' means 'some'. This method applies to the rest too. But when it means 'united', then "ekā, eke, ekehi, ekebhi, ekāna" should be said in the masculine gender, in the plural. The Pāli text "Pañcāla and Videha, let both of them be one" is seen. This method does not belong to the pronominal class due to the absence of a unique form, but it is stated for the purpose of conveying a different meaning. There, 'ekā bhavantu' means 'let them become one, let them be united', like the water of the Ganges and the Yamuna, let them truly merge and unite, is the meaning of the word. But teachers, without showing such a distinction, taking 'eka' as only a pronoun, apply the nominal declension like that of 'sabba'. How? Eko, eke. Ekaṃ, eke. Ekena, ekehi, ekebhi. Ekassa, ekesaṃ, ekesānaṃ. Ekasmā, ekamhā, ekehi, ekebhi. Ekassa, ekesaṃ, ekesānaṃ. Ekasmiṃ, ekamhi, ekesūti. This should be known as the pronominal declension. Some say "the word 'eka' means number, similar, alone, or other. When it means number, then it is always singular, in other cases, it can also be plural, 'eko, ekā, ekaṃ' etc. are everywhere like the word 'sabba'. The difference is only in the endings" – they state this method of application in all three genders. And saying so, they speak without showing a distinction. But we, for the purpose of producing skill in usage for the listeners, speak by showing the distinction. Moreover, this special point should also be noted here: "eke" in the sense of 'one' or 'same' In Pāli passages, in equal parts, a designation ending in 'a' for the singular form of the word 'eka' is also seen. Masculine forms. One, some. One, some. The rest is like the masculine. There, 'some' means 'a few'. This method applies to the remaining plural forms as well. Neuter forms. One, one, some. One, one, some. By one, by some, by some. To one, of one, of some. From one, from some, from some. Of one, of one, of some. In one, in one, in one, in some. Here, in the plural places, 'some' means 'a few', 'by some' means 'by a few', 'of some' means 'of a few', 'in some' means 'in a few'. Feminine forms. All these pronouns are stated in terms of singular and plural. Moreover, when the word 'eka' is used distributively, the forms of the three genders are only singular. How? Each one, each one, by each one, to/of each one, from each one, from each one, of each one, in each one, in each one. Masculine forms. Each one, each one. The rest is like the masculine. Neuter forms. Each one, each one, by each one, of each one, from each one, of each one, in each one, in each one. Feminine forms. It is proper to call all these distributive pronouns. Plural forms do not exist here due to lack of usage. Therefore, in these forms of the three genders stated distributively, the thought of compounding should not be raised, because distributive words are indefinable (by compounding). For example, in phrases like "the formations break up, crackling like sesame seeds thrown into a hot pan, becoming joint by joint, section by section, interval by interval," the explanation of words like 'joint by joint' by means of compounding has not been shown by previous teachers. And since the reduplication of words occurring in a distributive sense is established by common usage, not by grammatical rule, therefore the thought of compounding should not be raised there. Now the nominal paradigms of the words 'ekacca', 'ekatiya', 'ekacciya' are stated: In the masculine, first, some, some. Some, some. The rest is like the word 'man'. Here, 'some' is only the individual plural. like pronominal forms due to its uncommon form. "Here, some young man of good family. Here, some foolish men." These are example words. Ekatiyo, ekatiye. Ekatiyaṃ, ekatiye. The rest is like the word 'purisa'. Here too, 'ekatiye' is only a plural form, like pronominal forms due to its uncommon form. Ekatiye manussā (some men). "One should not trust some people, whether householders or renunciants; Even good ones become bad; and having been bad, again become good." These are example words. But regarding the existence of the word 'ekacciya' – "Indeed, they said this, some men here; A floating log is better, but not some man." "Some food" These are example words. Ekacciyo, ekacciyā. Ekacciyaṃ, ekacciye. In all ways like 'purisa'. Masculine forms. Ekaccaṃ, ekaccāni. Ekaccaṃ, ekaccāni. The rest is like masculine. Ekatiyaṃ, ekatiyāni. Ekatiyaṃ, ekatiyāni. The rest is like masculine. Ekacciyaṃ, ekacciyāni. Ekacciyaṃ, ekacciyāni. The rest is like masculine. Neuter forms. "Ekaccā, ekaccā, ekaccāyo" are to be formed like 'kaññā', and similarly "ekatiyā, ekatiyā, ekatiyāyo. Ekatiya", and "ekacciyā, ekacciyā, ekacciyāyo. Ekacciya" are to be formed like 'kaññā'. Feminine forms. Now, noun forms are stated according to the words 'ekākī' and 'ekākiya' – Ekākī, ekākī, ekākino. Ekākiṃ, ekākī, ekākino. To be understood like 'daṇḍī'. Ekākiyo, ekākiyā. Ekākiyaṃ, ekākiye. Ekākiyena. To be understood like 'purisa'. Masculine forms. Ekāki kulaṃ, ekākī, ekākīni. Ekākiṃ, ekākī, ekākīni. The rest is like masculine. Ekākiyaṃ, ekākiyāni. Ekākiyaṃ, ekākiyāni. The rest is like masculine. Neuter forms. Ekākinī, ekākinī, ekākiniyo. Ekākiniṃ, ekākinī, ekākiniyo. 'Ekākiniyā' is like 'itthī'. Ekākiyā, ekākiyā, ekākiyāyo. Ekākiyaṃ, ekākiyā, ekākiyāyo. 'Ekākiyāyā' is like 'kaññā'. incomparable. Feminine forms. All these non-pronominal forms should be understood as having been stated for the purpose of conveying a different meaning. Now, the declension paradigm of the pronominal word 'ubha' (both), a synonym of 'two', always ending in the plural, is stated – Ubho, ubho, ubhohi, ubhobhi, ubhinnaṃ, ubhohi, ubhobhi, ubhinnaṃ, ubhosu – This is the declension paradigm stated according to the Pāli method. Here are the usages: Both boys are bought. Both women stand. Both minds stand. He gave both sons. He sees both girls. Having broken both feet, I will restrain you. With both hands. With both arms. With both minds. Of both people. Of both women. Of both minds. In both men. In both women. In both sides. This is our preference. Teachers, however, also desire "ubhehi, ubhebhi, ubhesu". For in Kaccāyana it is also said "ubhe tappurisā" (both men). All these should indeed be kept in mind. The compound of the word 'ubha' is well-known. Forms common to all three genders. Now, the declension paradigms of the numeral words 'dvi' (two) and 'catu' (four), which are pronouns always ending in the plural, are stated – Dve, dve, dvīhi, dvībhi, dvinnaṃ, duvinnaṃ, dvīhi, dvībhi, dvinnaṃ, duvinnaṃ, dvīsu. In the Cūḷanirutti, however, the paradigm "dvinnannaṃ" appears. These, like 'ahaṃ' and so on, being free from feminine gender and so forth, are used in all three genders, as in "dve purisā (two men), dve itthiyo (two women), dve cittāni (two minds)", and so on. These too are forms common to all three genders. The form "dve" of the word 'dvi', which may occur in compounds; is indeed of the nature of 'dvi', it may be by various substitutions. 'Dvi-bhāva' and 'dve-bhāva', 'dviratta' and 'duvassaka'; 'dohaḷinī' and 'dupatta';