English
Let him do. We do. Forms stated in the imperative mood. Here, someone might say – "No marriage with nāgas was ever done by us; That unassociated marriage, how can we do it?" According to Pāli grammar, why is the word "karomase" not mentioned here? Does not the 'ā' which is a part of the 'āmase' ending, after the root 'kar' and before the 'o', undergo elision? That is not so, because in "karomase" there is no 'āmase' ending, but the 'ma' ending is present. Here, indeed, the 'sa' is an augment, therefore the meaning should be taken as in the present tense, like "karomā", not in the imperative mood. And such an augment 'sa' sometimes comes after a nominal word, as in "those who have gone to the Buddha for refuge" (gatāse), "what power we had" (ahuvamhase), and so on. And sometimes after a verbal word, by way of substitution or non-substitution – "We did that deed for you; We have overcome beings; This has been heard often, therefore we speak thus." And so on. He should do. They should do. You (sg) should do. You (pl) should do. I should do. We should do. He should do. They should do. You (sg) should do. You (pl) should do. I should do. He should do. We should do. Forms stated in the optative mood. He did. They did. You (sg) did. You (pl) did. I did. We did. You (pl) did. They did. You (sg) did. You (pl) did. I did. We did. Forms stated in the perfect tense. Here, "kara" (he did) should be construed as a third person singular usage, meaning "the man did the deed." Even in "O king, you committed a fault, you did a bad deed," it should be construed as a third person singular usage, meaning "O king, you committed a fault." If this is the case, this usage becomes a third person usage, like "I think he desires the king's faithful wife," and so on. However, in the Jātaka Commentary, a second person usage is stated: "O king, you committed a great offense, a great evil. A bad deed." What is done badly, that is a bad deed, 'do not do it'. Therefore, sometimes, in the Jātaka commentaries, 'karaiti', 'karīti', and 'akaranti' are seen as second person usages. But mostly, 'puriso kammaṃ kara' (man does work), 'puriso kammaṃ kari' (man did work), 'ahaṃ kammaṃ akara' (I did work) are seen as first and third person usages. Here, 'karaiti' is said in the sense of the aforementioned ending, 'karīti' in the sense of the present perfect, 'akaranti' in the sense of the past tense. There, the word 'karittho' is like the word 'kisittho' in "seek another husband, do not waste away without me," as a second person singular, aorist, middle voice form. Such a method should be applied elsewhere as appropriate. 'Akā', 'akarā', 'akara' are also short readings. 'Akaru'. Here, the word "he made all enemies victorious" is an example. 'Akarā' (he did) is to be understood as a third person usage, expressing past action, like 'puriso kammaṃ akāsi' (the man did the work). Thus, the Pāli phrase "fearing the kingdom, it is said, he made many dwellings" is seen. However, in "do not do this deed for me, do not bring water for me," even though there are third person usages expressing the past, due to the connection with 'mā' (do not), the past and present perfect endings become timeless in the sense of the imperative, and are suitable for second person usages like "you do not do, you do not bring." Furthermore, in phrases like "do not decay, subject to old age, an unattainable state," even though there are third person usages expressing the past, due to the connection with 'mā', the present perfect ending in the sense of the imperative becomes timeless, and is suitable for third person usages like "may it not decay." Therefore, the commentators said: " 'do not decay, subject to old age' means, 'that which is my nature of old age, may it not decay.' This method applies to others as well." And what was said by us, " 'akara' is also a short reading," its existence is known by this Pāli phrase: "O teacher, you did too much, this does not please me either." abbā. Its meaning is to be taken in the sense of the third person singular: "Teacher, you did what was to be surpassed." Or, with the intention that the word "you" should be said where "bhava" (sir) would be said, the construction "Teacher, you do what is to be surpassed" should also be made. He did, you did, you all did. I did, I did, we did, we did. Here, the Pāli passage "having built up the sand, I made a sand stupa" is an example. You did, they did. You did, you all did. I did, I did, we did. These forms are stated in the sense of the past tense (hiyattanī). Here, the five kinds of 'se' sound should be brought forth and shown. Thus, the five kinds of 'se' sound are: as part of a word, not as part of a word, as an uncertain part of a word, as an emphatic sound, and as a substitute. Among these, the 'se' sound as part of a word is to be seen in "you do the action," "you were skilled in meaning," and so on. The 'se' sound not as part of a word is to be seen in "therefore, we speak thus," "the roots of unwholesome things are uprooted," and so on. The 'se' sound as an uncertain part of a word is to be seen in "and we may be healthy," "my dear, we may take the gem," and so on. Here, if the 'se' sound is part of the 'āmase' ending in the fifth case, then it is part of the words "bhavāmase, gaṇhāmase" which express wishes or blessings and are connected with the fifth case. But if it is an augment, it is not part of the words "bhavāma, gaṇhāmā" which express wishes or blessings and are connected with the fifth case. Thus, in "bhavāmase" and so on, the 'se' sound is to be understood as an uncertain part of a word. The emphatic sound is to be seen in "esese eke ekaṭṭhe." For "esese," the meaning is "this one, this one, one, standing alone." The substitute is to be seen in "we did your work" and "we have overcome beings," by way of substituting 'a' and 'i' for 'e'. There, "we did your work" means "we did your work." If the 'se' sound in "akaramhase" is an augment, then the word "karamhā" in the past tense, active voice... It is the first person plural. If it is a part of the word "mhase", then the word "akaramhase" is first person plural in the aorist, middle voice. Thus, it should be understood that there are five kinds of "se" forms. He did, he did, he did, they did, they did, they did, they did. You did, you did, you did. Here, "akaro" should be connected with "tvaṃ akaro" (you did). For the word "akaro" is to be seen as "ado" in "varañce me ado sakkā" (if you give me a boon, Sakka), meaning second person singular, even though it is not found in Pāli, it should be taken by way of analogy. However, teachers prefer "akāsī" for the second person where "akaro" is stated. Such a word is mostly in the third person. Thus, many Pāli passages like "adāsi me, akāsi me" (he gave me, he did for me) are found in the third person. In "mākāsi mukhasā pāpaṃ, mā kho sūkaramukho ahū" (do not do evil with your mouth, do not be pig-faced), etc., due to the presence of "mā", the word connection should be "tvaṃ pāpaṃ mā akāsi" (you should not do evil) and "mā sūkaramukho ahosī" (do not be pig-faced). I did, I did, I did, we did, we did, we did. You did, you did. You did, you did. I did, we did. These forms are stated in the aorist. He will do, they will do. You will do, you will do. I will do, we will do. He will do, they will do. You will do, you will do. I will do, I will do. Thus, the Pāli is seen: "kassaṃ purisakāriyaṃ" (I will do a man's work). We will do. Similarly, he will do, they will do. You will do, you will do. I will do, we will do. He will do, they will do. You will do, etc., should be connected as appropriate. These forms are stated in the future tense. He would have done, he would have done, they would have done, and all the rest should be connected. These forms are stated in the conditional. It is done, they are done. You are done, you are done. I am done, we are done. It is done. The rest should be connected. These forms are stated in the present tense. Let it be done, let them be done. The rest should be connected. These forms are stated in the imperative. forms. He should do, he should do. He should do. Here is the Pāli: “He should make a cupped hand at the pot, and also circumambulate the shrine.” Here, “a cupped hand at the pot” is the division. You should do, you should do. I should do, we should do. He might do, they might do. You might do, you might do. I might do, we might do. These are forms stated in the sense of the optative mood. Here, “he should do” should be construed in the sense of the third person singular from the example “if a person should do merit.” In “the charioteer should do wrong,” it should also be construed in the sense of the third person singular, meaning “the venerable charioteer should do wrong,” not in the sense of the second person. Or else, it should be understood that “kayirā” is stated as a second person singular word by dropping the ‘s’ sound, where “kayirāsi” should have been said. Here, it might be asked: just as in the Pāli “O giver of boons, you might obtain a son,” the meaning of the word “labhethā” was not taken in the third person singular sense, like “samāsethā” etc. in “one should associate only with the good, one should make friends with the good,” etc., but by reversing the person, the meaning “I might obtain” was taken by the Aṭṭhakathā teachers; similarly, should you also, in “the charioteer should do wrong,” reverse the person of the word “kayirā” and state the meaning as “you should do,” because the Aṭṭhakathā teachers also stated its meaning as “you should do”? It is true, even so, because the Aṭṭhakathā teachers were endowed with supreme skill in conventional meanings, they considered that the word “bhavaṃ” (venerable sir) is used where “tvaṃ” (you) should be said, and the word “tvaṃ” is used where “bhavaṃ” should be said, and thus stated the meaning “you should do” in the sense of the intended meaning, not by reversing the person.