འགྲེལ་བའི་སྒྲ་
Sixth Case: Connective
གི་ ཀྱི་ གྱི་ འི་ ཡི་
Connective
Apposition and Composition
Postpositional
Imitating Other Cases
Linking Adjectives To Nouns
Clause Connectives: Verbal Adjectives
Except for topical nominative, the topical locative, and the separative and comparative uses of the originative case, all the case usages listed elsewhere are ways of indicating how nouns and pronouns relate to verbs.
Connective case particles, on the other hand, are used to link nouns, pronouns, and sometimes adjectives with other nouns and pronouns (not with verbs).
Case markings relate NOUNS to VERBS, except the following (which relate nouns, pronouns, and adjectives to other nouns):
The first group of connectives are similar in that they indicate actual or metaphoric possession. This type is very broad and likely covers the most common use of the 6th case. However, note that it translates into many different English prepositions depending on context.
Sometimes other translators (who will not be named) have said that the 6th case can be translated with “of.” This may be a decent first try, but it is hardly true all of them time or even most of the time.
my hand
ངའི་ལག་པ་
our teacher
བདག་ཅག་གི་སྟོན་པ་
lifetime of a degenerate age
སྙིགས་དུས་ཀྱི་ཚེ་
instructions of the highest vehicle
ཐེག་པ་མཆོག་གི་གདམས་པ་
a land in the east
ཤར་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་ཡུལ་
stars during the day
ཉིན་མོའི་སྐར་མ་
king of Tibet
བོད་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་པོ་
The next three link two nouns that are similar. They indicate that two nouns, or a pronoun and a noun, are appositives, or that the second is made up of the first, or that the second is a metaphor for the first.
bad migrations such as animals (this is Wilson's translation, but it isn't apposition)
animals and so forth, [the] bad migrations
དུད་འགྲོ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་ངན་འགྲོ་
faith of conviction (this isn't apposition, not sure why Wilson put it here)
faith, that is to say ‘conviction’ (an attempt to make it apposition, but still not apposition because faith conviction is a type of faith, not the same thing as faith)
ཡིད་ཆེས་ཀྱི་དད་པ་
spiritual community of superiors (āryas)
འཕགས་པའི་དགེ་འདུན་
a book of sutras
མདོའི་དཔེ་ཆ་
water of compassion
སྙིང་རྗེའི་ཆུ་
In this group, the connective particle follows a noun or pronoun, connecting it to Tibetan postpositions—which, themselves, usually translate into prepositions such as because of, in order to, in front of, before, and so on.
in front of one
རང་གི་མདུན་དུ་
because of being impermanent
མི་རྟག་པ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར།
In the examples above, མདུན་དུ་ and ཕྱིར་ are the postpositions.
Used where the two words linked could be in other syntaxes:
Some connectives marks words that—if they were in a phrase or sentence with a verb—would be the agents. That is, they mark the agent bringing about the action or acting on the objects indicated by the words that follow them. This is potentially confusing because it seems as if the 6th case connective is acting as a different case ending. This happens frequently and can basically be used to imitate any other case ending “flavor.”
In the examples below, the agent here is the word prior to the connective particle, the word that the particle marks. It is for this reason called an agentive connective.
teaching of [that is, taught by] Buddha
སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་བསྟན་པ་
effects of [that is, produced by] non-virtuous actions
མི་དགེ་བའི་ལས་ཀྱི་འབྲས་བུ་
In contrast, other connectives mark words that would be objects of verbs whose agents are indicated by the words that follow them.
the causes of pleasant rebirths
བདེ་འགྲོའི་རྒྱུ་
the observed-object condition of [that is, giving rise to] a visual consciousness apprehending blue
སྔོན་འཛིན་མིག་ཤེས་ཀྱི་དམིགས་རྐྱེན་
Other connectives mark words that are destinations and would be in the objective case were the connective phrase made into a sentence.
path to awakening
བྱང་ཆུབ་ཀྱི་ལམ་
Connectives can also indicate separative and originative functions that are, in more complete phrases or sentences, performed by the originative case.
the second of the five paths
ལམ་ལྔའི་གཉིས་པ་
the best of refuges
སྐྱབས་ཀྱི་མཆོག་
the merit from giving
སྦྱིན་པའི་བསོད་ནམས་
the suffering of knowing one must experience suffering
སྡུག་བསྔལ་མྱོང་དགོས་པར་ཤེས་པའི་སྡུག་བསྔལ་
Typically in Tibetan, nouns precede the adjectives that follow them. The connective case can be used to link adjectives to nouns that follow them. Verbal adjectives (in the next section) are technically a case of this, but they are treated separately.
NOUN + ADJECTIVE is the typical order.
ADJECTIVE + 6th + NOUN is also possible.
holy doctrine (Wilson's translation, but “holy” is problematic)
excellent doctrine or supreme doctrine is probably better
དམ་པའི་ཆོས་
nonvirtuous attitude
མི་དགེ་བའི་བསམ་པ་
Blue Hackett has a nice discussion of this on pages 50-52
VERBAL = VERB + པ་ or བ་
Very often an entire phrase or clause will be connected to a following noun, phrase, or clause by means of a connective case particle. Such usage of the connective case is very important in Tibetan. It is considered a open verb construction, as opposed to a final or closed verb construction.
Verbals (verbal nouns and adjectives) are an incredibly important topic and must be understood well. They are formed by adding པ་ or བ་ to a core verb. This turns the verb--as well as the clause whose grammar it controls--into what acts as an adjective or noun in the rest of the sentence.
Classical Tibetan “sentences” often correspond to English paragraphs, with logical sequences and dependent, appositional, and parenthetical clauses. Verbals are one way Tibetans get away with having a verb end a “sentence” while still having many verbs within the sentence.
It is helpful when analyzing clauses and sentences to name these connectives after the grammatical function the nouns that follow them would play were they to appear in the clause that precedes them. You can think about this as creating a “hypothetical” sentence with the verbal turned into a terminal verb.
Thus, the verbals may be followed by different “flavors” of clause connectives:
Thus verbals can imitate or function in a way similar to basically any case ending, marking agents, objects, qualifiers, and complements.
In Yellow Hackett on pp. 15-16, Hackett points out that a participle (a verbal noun or adjective phrase) is CONSTRUCTED EXACTLY THE SAME as verbal nouns (and verbal adjectives). Both are created by adding པ་ or བ་ to a core verb. However, they function differently. A participle is a phrase has its own grammar and puts the words whose grammar it determines into a separate “box.” In contrast, a verbal noun is simply a core verb modified by a པ་ or བ་ to create a related noun or adjective (<todo examples of this? seems harder to find than verbal nouns>). The distinction is between a verb or noun phrase acting as an adjective or noun versus a single word being a noun or adjective. In a verbal adjective phrase, the verb is still acting as a verb within the context of the phrase, denoting an action that can have subjects, objects, qualifiers, and complements. In a verbal noun or adjective, no action is signified. The verb has truly become a noun or a phrase.
རྟོགས་ (v) to realize
རྟོགས་པ་ (n) realization
རྟོགས་པའི་ verb, to realize, plus 6th case, “realizing …” or “that realizes …”
མཁྱེན་ (v) to know
མཁྱེན་པ་ (n) exalted knower or exalted knowledge
མཁྱེན་པ་འི་ “realizing …” or “that realizes …”
The actual meaning of the verbals above would depend greatly on the context and in isolation cannot really be determined.
If you have a phrase such as:
བསྟན་པའི་སངས་རྒྱས་
It could mean:
[the] Buddha that taught …
Or:
Buddha teaching … (for example: Buddha teaching the dharma is good).
You might be tempted to try to translate this as two nouns, using one of the various connective types discussed above (possessive, appositional, compositional, metaphorical, etc…). If you try this, you'll find the various resulting phrases to be awkward.
“the Buddha of the teachings” or “the teaching's Buddha”
To say “the Buddha's teachings," for example, using the possessive connective, one would write:
the Buddha's teachings
སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་བསྟན་པ་
Or one could write a noun-adjective phrase:
The teachings of the Buddha
བསྟན་པ་སངས་རྒྱས་
But with བསྟན་པའི་སངས་རྒྱས་, it can't really be made (except in the most contrived sense) to be ADJECTIVE + 6TH + NOUN, “the teaching's Buddha.”
If you look at our canonical verbal phrase, you can begin to see how verbals operate:
the Buddha who taught the doctrine
ཆོས་བསྟན་པའི་སངས་རྒྱས་
Buddha, སངས་རྒྱས་, is acting as if it were the agent of བསྟན་. Yet the verbal is acting as a adjective phrase that modifies Buddha by telling us which Buddha or more about the Buddha (Which Buddha? The Buddha that taught the doctrine).
From this verbal, you could create a hypothetical sentence with Buddha as an agent like this:
Buddha taught the doctrine.
སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་ཆོས་བསྟན་
In the verbal adjective phrase, “teaching the doctrine” informs us about the Buddha, restricting the Buddha to the Buddha that taught dharma. In the hypothetical sentence, “teaching” is the core action of the sentence and doesn't actually restrict the agent, Buddha, at all. Buddha in the second sentence is only implicitly “the Buddha that taught the doctrine.”
But in no way is this verbal phrase, ཆོས་བསྟན་པའི་སངས་རྒྱས་, ever going to mean, “doctrine, teachings of the Buddha,” which it could erroneously be mistaken to mean if one read apposition between ཆོས་ and བསྟན་ and misunderstood the use of the 6th as an adjective between བསྟན་པ་ and སངས་རྒྱས་.
Another example:
appearing object
སྣང་བའི་ཡུལ་
NOT “object of appearance[s]” or “appearanc[es] of object[s]”
Notice how the Tibetan above, if you take སྣང་བ to be a simple noun or adjective and not a verbal, it could be erroneously read as “object of appearance” or “appearanc[es] of object[s]” instead of “appearing object.”
The point of all of this is to show how Tibetan grammar is highly contextual. Often, it is only through understanding the meaning and context that one can parse the grammar and understand what the sentence is saying. Sometimes it feels like one needs to know what it says to know what it says. This isn't entirely inaccurate. Most of this writing is not intended to be read outside of the context of aural teaching from highly studied teachers, or to be read by people that do not already have a strong understanding of the technical language and grammar.
Now some examples.
wisdom which realizes emptiness
སྟོང་ཉད་རྟོགས་པའི་ཤེས་རབ་
The hypothetical sentence for this verbal would be the following. Notice how སྟོང་ཉད་ becomes the nominative object of our hypothetical sentence using the Class V agentive-nominative verb རྟོགས་.
Wisdom realizes emptiness.
ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་སྟོང་ཉད་རྟོགས་
This is the canonical paradigm that we all know and love. It was discussed above.
the Buddha who taught the doctrine
ཆོས་བསྟན་པའི་སངས་རྒྱས་
More examples:
appearing object [object which appears]
སྣང་བའི་ཡུལ་
a person who is travelling the path to awakening
བྱང་ཆུབ་ཀྱི་ལམ་ལ་བགྲོད་པའི་གང་ཟག་
the happiness of pleasant rebirths that depends on virtue [as its] cause
རྒྱུ་དགེ་བ་ལ་བརྟེན་པའི་བདེ་འགྲོའི་བདེ་བ་
a Superior who remains in the first concentration
བསམ་གཏན་དང་པོ་ལ་གནས་པའི་འཕགས་པ་
Hungry ghosts are sentient beings who need food and water.
ཡི་དྭགས་ནི་ཟས་དང་ཆུ་དགོས་པའི་སམས་ཅན་ཡིན།
the doctrine which was taught by the Buddha
སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་བསྟེན་པའི་ཆོས་
leisure and opportunity which we have achieved
རང་ཅག་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་ཐོབ་པའི་དལ་འབྱོར་
the place where the Buddha taught the dharma
སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་ཆོས་བསྟེན་པའི་ཡུལ་
the human physical support [on which] virtue is accumulated
དགེ་བ་བསགས་པའི་མིའི་ལུས་རྟེན་
the reason why pots are impermanent
བུམ་པ་མི་རྟག་པ་ཡིན་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་
a place where there are no human beings
མི་མེད་པའི་ས་
a visual consciousness to which a snow mountain appears blue
གངས་རི་སྔོན་པོར་སྣང་བའི་མིག་ཤེས་
the city to which [we] are going
གང་ལ་འགྲོ་བའི་གྲོང་ཁྱེར་
phenomena that are impermanent
མི་རྟག་པ་ཡིན་པའི་ཆོས་
The connective particles are also used after verbs to show disjunction (and very rarely conjunction). See Wilson pp. 677.
First is our canonical Class V agentive-nominative sentence. Agent in the 3rd case, subject in the nominative. This is the “hypothetical” sentence of the verbal phrases derived from it.
Buddha taught the doctrine.
སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་ཆོས་བསྟན་
Next is the same sentence reframed as a verbal with the agent, Buddha, moved to the right of the verb and connected with 6th case. In this example, you can think of the 3rd case being transformed into the 6th case connective.
the Buddha who taught the doctrine
ཆོས་བསྟན་པའི་སངས་རྒྱས་
Now you have the subject, dharma or doctrine, moved across to the right of the verb. In this case, the 6th case is acting as if it were marking the nominative subject of the agentive-nominative verb.
the doctrine which was taught by the Buddha
སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་བསྟེན་པའི་ཆོས་
Finally, here is the verbal with an added qualifier, a 2nd case place of activity.
the doctrine that was taught by the Buddha in India
སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་རྒྱ་གར་ལ་བསྟེན་པའི་ཆོས་
the Buddha who taught the doctrine in India
རྒྱ་གར་ལ་ཆོས་བསྟན་པའི་སངས་རྒྱས་
Lets try that again with another example. This one will likely feel a little more contrived, but it should help illustrated how it all works.
He looked at forms with [his] eyes.
ཁོས་མིག་གིས་གཟུགས་ལ་བལྟས།
Moving the agent, he, or ཁོ, across the verbal.
his looking at forms with his eyes [caused a lot of problems, or whatever]
མིག་གིས་གཟུགས་ལ་བལྟས་པའི་ཁོ
Moving the 3rd case instrument, with his eyes, མིག་གིས་, across the verbal.
[the] eyes with which he looked at forms
ཁོས་གཟུགས་ལ་བལྟས་པའི་མིག་
Moving the object, form[s], གཟུགས་, across the verbal.
[the] forms at which he looked with his eyes
ཁོས་མིག་གིས་བལྟས་པའི་གཟུགས་
Another example starting with our canonical example of a 2nd case complement of an agentive verb. This one feels even more contrived but still demonstrates the basic idea.
[they] know all beings to be [their] mother.
སེམས་ཅན་ཐམས་ཅད་མར་ཤེས།
Moving the 2nd case complement, mother, across.
[the] mother that they know all being to be
སེམས་ཅན་ཐམས་ཅད་ཤེས་པའི་མ་
The agent is unstated, so we can't move that across. We can move སེམས་ཅན་ཐམས་ཅད་, or all beings, across.
all beings that are known as mother
མར་ཤེས་པའི་སེམས་ཅན་ཐམས་ཅད་