(Through which) Yen'ajja = yena + ajja. Yena agrees with dvārena (both being neuter singular instrumental) and thus yena qualifies dvārena, 'through which gate'.

(clothes are) Note again that the verb 'to be' is missing in the Pali.

Here the genitive word (assa, from pi‘ssa = pi + assa) comes after the word to which it relates. The reason for this may be that there are two independent genitive words here (i.e., assa and aññesaṃ), both relating to the same noun, vatthāni, 'clothes'. When translating into English 'clothes' needs to be repeated.

(What is the meaning) Ko is the interrogative pronoun, here agreeing with attho. The verb 'to be' must be supplied.

i.e., we will do as we like. Yaṃ, lit. 'which', is often better translated with 'what'. When yaṃ is used in this type of general statement it can mean 'whatever'/'whichever'. Note the future tense in both the subordinate and the main clause, see Warder p.88.

(Of what action) In the Pali, a noun and a pronoun that agrees with it (i.e., they refer to the same thing), can often be separated by other words. What matters is agreement (in gender, case, and number). In this case both kissa and kammassa are genitive neuter singular and one can therefore assume that the pronoun qualifies the noun, i.e. '(of) what action'. The same is true for idaṃ and phalaṃ. It is therefore important to scan sentences (or individual clauses within longer sentences) for such agreement.

(of mine) The case of me here could also be instrumental, '(what action) by me', or even dative, '(this the fruit) for me'.

(is this) Idaṃ refers back to something just mentioned.

i.e. 'what did I do to get this?' This is yet another sentence with no verb, and the verb 'to be' must be added on translation.

I read taṃ as an indeclinable, 'now' or 'then'. It could also be regarded as an accusative of specification of state (see Warder p.17), 'about that', referring to what has been said or what is to follow, i.e. 'what do the honourable deities think about that: ...' (see Warder p.29). Bhonto devā is nominative rather than vocative because the verb maññanti is in the third person (plural).

i.e., after death. Atthi at the beginning of a sentence makes for an emphatic assertion, see Warder p.31.

Ko'si = ko + asi. Note the agreement between ko and tvaṃ, both being nominative singular.

Equational sentence with all the elements being nominative (neuter). The verb 'to be' must be added.

Another equational sentence, nominative plural.

(what) Kiṃ, accusative patient of labhati, 'he gets what?'

For further comments see sentence 12, exercise 8 (opens in new tab).

(my) Me can be instrumental, genitive, or dative, but the context - this is being spoken by Prince Udāyibhadda's father - indicates the genitive, 'of me'.

(be) Hotu, 'may ... (he) be', third person imperative, expressing a wish, see Warder p.35.

Samannāgato ('possessed with') is a past participle agreeing with Udāyibhaddo kumāro. A form of the verb 'to be' with a participle immediately preceding it, is a common feature of Pali. The combination forms what in effect is a single verb and should be translated together. In this example we therefore have: 'may ... be possessed with', cf. Warder pp.233-238.

Samannāgata takes the instrumental, see Warder p.44.

(Ask) Puccha, imperative.

(Great King) Mahārāja, vocative.

(what) Yad, lit. 'which', but the meaning is often best conveyed with 'what' or 'whatever'.

i.e., he agrees to see you. Te is dative of advantage, see Warder p.67.

(pleasing) (k)khamati, present tense. Again, note that when translating the present tense into English one may use the ordinary present tense (i.e. 'pleases') or the 'continuous' present (i.e. 'is pleasing'). Context and natural idiom must decide which is preferable.

(to him) Assa, 'to him', dative. Khamati requires the dative, see Warder pp.67 and 74.

This is another case of a sentence structured with a relative clause preceding a demonstrative clause.