Tena Hi and the Plural Aorist
A translation workshop is working on an unpublished Jātaka-style prose passage. The central sentence reads: 'Atha kho rājā mantī ca āhaṃsu: "tena hi, samma, tvaṃ gantvā taṃ purisaṃ ānāhi"ti.' One student renders tena hi as 'therefore' and samma as 'same', producing 'therefore, same, you having gone...' Another student treats tena hi as a discourse marker ('well then') and samma as a vocative ('friend'). The same sentence contains āhaṃsu, which the first student parses as a singular aorist agreeing with rājā, leaving mantī without a verb. The teacher asks the class to resolve the number of the verb, the case of samma, and the function of tena hi, and then to translate the quoted command so that the Hindi preserves the sequence of gantvā and ānāhi. A further constraint: taṃ purisaṃ must be identified as the object of ānāhi, not of gantvā.
1. Parse āhaṃsu and resolve its subject. Why is the first student's singular parse untenable?
Read the worked answer
Āhaṃsu is the third-person plural aorist of the root ah / āha ('said'). The ending -aṃsu is plural, not singular. The subject is the coordinated phrase rājā mantī ca, 'the king and the minister(s)'. Pali has no dual, so two coordinated subjects take a plural verb.
The singular parse is untenable on two counts. First, the ending itself is plural; a singular aorist would not have -aṃsu. Second, if the verb were singular and agreed only with rājā, then mantī would be left without a verb in a coordinated clause, which the syntax does not permit. The plural verb is exactly what the coordination requires.
2. Explain the function of tena hi and samma, and say why 'therefore' and 'same' are wrong.
Read the worked answer
Tena hi is an idiomatic discourse marker meaning 'well then', 'in that case', or 'let it be so'. Literally it contains the instrumental tena plus hi, but it does not function as an instrument or as a strict logical 'therefore'. It introduces a decision or a transition in dialogue. Rendering it as 'therefore' makes the sentence sound like a formal inference, which misrepresents the conversational frame.
Samma is a vocative singular meaning 'friend' or 'good fellow'. It addresses the person being spoken to. Translating it as 'same' is a false friend: the English word 'same' is not a vocative and makes the sentence ungrammatical.
The correct frame is therefore: 'Well then, friend, ...' with the address and the transition kept distinct.
3. Translate the quoted command and justify the roles of gantvā, ānāhi, and taṃ purisaṃ.
Read the worked answer
Translation: 'Well then, friend, go and bring that man.'
- gantvā is an absolutive marking a prior action: going happens before bringing. English can render it with 'go and ...' or 'having gone ...'; Hindi should preserve the sequence, e.g. jākar.
- ānāhi is the second-person singular imperative of ā + nī, 'lead here, bring'. It is the main verb of the quoted command.
- taṃ purisaṃ is accusative singular and is the object of ānāhi, not of gantvā. Gantvā is intransitive here and has no expressed object; the man is what is to be brought.
So the command is not 'having gone to that man' but 'go and bring that man'.