Paticca-uppajjati versus paticca-sam-uppáda and Buddhaghosa?

This question may be related to the [Dr. Alexander Wynne question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/53914/8157) . The Visuddhimagga says: > This has been said by the Blessed One, “This dependent origination is profound, Ánanda, and profound it appears” (D II 55; S II 92). And the profundity is fourfold as we shall explain below (XVII.304f.); but there is none of that in simple arising. And this dependent origination is explained [by the teachers] as adorned with the fourfold method (XVII.309); but there is no [need of] any such tetrad of methods in simple arising. So dependent origination is not simple arising, since that (i.e., simple arising) admits of no profound treatment > > **It is ungrammatical: this word paticca** (lit. “having > depended”; freely “due to,” “dependent”), [being a gerund of the verb > pati + eti, to go back to], **establishes a meaning** [in a formula of > establishment by verb] **when it is construed as past with the same > subject** [as that of the principal verb], **as in the sentence “Having > depended on** (paticca = ‘due to’) **the eye and visible objects, eye- > consciousness arises** **(uppajjati)**” (S II 72). **But if it is construed > here with the word uppáda (arising),** [which is a noun], **in a formula > of establishment by noun, there is a breach of grammar, because there > is no shared subject** [as there is in above-quoted sentence], **and so it > does not establish any meaning al all. So the dependent origination is > not simple arising because that is ungrammatical.** > > [Page 356](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf) Alternative translation: > Because of a difference in word usage, the word paṭicca (‘depending > on’) ordinarily makes sense when used with the same agent and with > reference to an earlier time. For example: ‘**Dependent on (paticca)** eye and > forms, eye-consciousness **arises (uppajjati)**’ (SN II 43). But here, when it is > combined with the term **uppāda (‘arising’)**, which expresses the sense > of existence, since there is no common agent, the word changes its > usage and adds nothing to the meaning. Thus, even on the basis of word > analysis, paṭiccasamuppāda cannot mean simply ‘mere arising.’ What is Buddhaghosa's salient point in this text about paticca-uppajjati versus paticca-sam-uppáda?