Dear all, A nice introduction to Sanskrit compounds in Sanskrit is the Samāsacandrikā ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J0UBtY6Ix5slHxLaYNIoqgNoXI5hlpkw/view?usp=sharing ; I have reset it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IT8IvaAjAeq-v5uUh4lWyFdb0kkrAj3_/view?usp=sharing) and the Samāsacakra ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y8PATqtpKozz6f1ckfKD2BXERWesidE4/view?usp=sharing ; electronic version by Gary Tubb: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TF3wSiupcvKxdwLSJMg9YtFZY6Oss_dL/view?usp=sharing). I would also add here a reference to Vāmana's Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra (from GRETIL below) and Nāgeśa's comment ad P. 1.3.3. hal antyam in the Laghuśabdenduśekhara: karmadhārayayogyapadānāṃ samāsābhāvasya sūtrakāraśailīsiddhatvāc ca (p. 17 of vol. 1 of the Kāśī Saṃskṛta Granthamālā edition).
I look forward to discussing Christophe's paper when he comes to Oxford later this year! All the Best, Victor na karmadhārayo bahuvrīhipratipattikaraḥ // VKal_5,1.7 // bahubrīhipratipattiṃ karoti yaḥ karmadhārayaḥ sa na prayoktavyaḥ / yathā ---- adhyāsitaścāsau taruścādhyāsitataruḥ iti //7// tena viparyayo vyākhyātaḥ // VKal_5,1.8 // bahuvrīhirapi akrmadhārayapratipattikaro na prayoktavyaḥ / yathā ---- vīrāḥ puruṣā yasya sa vīrapuruṣaḥ / kalo ravo yasya sa kalaravaḥ / iti //8// On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 6:47 PM Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY < [email protected]> wrote: > As Christophe points out, terms like कर्मधारय-बहुव्रीहि are not part of > the traditional Paninian grammar. In this connection, one may consider the > traditional dictum: न कर्मधारयात् मत्वर्थीयो बहुव्रीहिश्चेत् > तदर्थप्रतिपत्तिकर: "One should not add a possessive affix [like -वत्/मत्] > after a कर्मधारय, if a बहुव्रीहि can yield the same meaning." For example, > the compound नीलकण्ठ can be either a कर्मधारय or a बहुव्रीहि, but one > should not take the कर्मधारय नीलकण्ठ and add the possessive affix -वत् to > it to get the same sense as that of the बहुव्रीहि नीलकण्ठ. > > Madhav > > Madhav M. Deshpande > Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics > University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA > Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies > Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India > > [Residence: Campbell, California, USA] > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 9:10 AM Christophe Vielle via INDOLOGY < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Dominik, >> >> I am sorry to say that I fully disagree with your approach of the >> compounds which follows the (wrong and misleading) path of Scharpé etc. As >> Antonia has reminded us, when you see an (unaccented) compound like >> *rājaputrau* in isolation, you cannot know for certain whether it is a >> KDh, TP, BV or DD. But when you determine what it is according to the >> context, it cannot be two things/types of compounds in the same time for >> one and the same meaning (of course a double meaning // to two different >> explanations of the compound is always possible). This is precisely the >> confusion you introduce with your special terminology using such >> (absolutely non indigenous) odd categories as "karmadhāraya-bahuvrīhi", >> "tatpuruṣa-bahuvrīhi" or even "dvandva-bahuvrīhi" (the examples of which >> are strictly speaking not bahuvrīhis but dvandva adjectives as I have tried >> to show), and which betrays, by their names themselves (contrary to what >> you say), the old (Western in fact) idea that bahuvrīhi, because mainly >> adjectival, is a kind of "secondary" type of compounds formed on the basis >> of the others (mainly substantival). >> >> Already with the good example of *rājaputrau*, as a BV meaning "both >> (ones) whose (respective or numerous; or even single if one talks of the >> parents) son(s) was/were king(s)", in comparison to the TP "the two sons >> of the king(s)", the KDh "the two sons (who were) kings" and the DV "the >> king and the son", I do not see how you could call it, following your >> intuitive frame, a "karmadhāraya-bahuvrīhi" or a "tatpuruṣa-bahuvrīhi" and >> how you could decide between these two. >> In the Vedic example of the BV *índra-śatru- *= *in**draḥ** śatrur >> yasya sa**ḥ* clearly different from the TP *indra-śatrú- *= *indrasya >> śatru**ḥ*, the latter is certainly not implied by the former (one could >> add also here the possible Vedic DD *índra-**śatrú- *(or *indra-śatrú-* >> )* = **indraś ca **śatru**ś ca*). >> >> For justifying your terminology, you give the apparently "obvious" >> example of the compound made of 1 adj. + 1 subst. mahā-rathaḥ which "at >> first" is understood as a KDh = *mahān ratha**ḥ,* and then can be viewed >> as the "corresponding" "karmadhāraya-bahuvrīhi" *mahā-rathaḥ *= *mahān *( >> or *mahānta*ḥ !) *ratha**ḥ *(or *rath**ā**ḥ *!) *yasya sa**ḥ. *However, >> semantically, it is very different, they do not function/cannot be analysed >> in the same manner, and according to the bahuvrīhi *vigraha* even the >> function of the "qualifying" adj. is slightly different (an attr. is not >> exactly the same as an epith.) and the number of the adj.+ substantive >> (singular or plural) can also be different. Why therefore introduce such a >> confusion through the terminology. >> >> Let us now take the example of a KDh made of subst. + subst. of the type >> *mukha-candraḥ* = *mukhaṃ candra iva* "moon-like face",* the >> semantically "corresponding" "karmadhāraya-bahuvrīhi" should in this case >> be, with an inversion of the terms, *candra-mukhaḥ* = *candra iva **mukhaṃ >> yasya **sa**ḥ* "moon-faced", which one in turn could therefore also be >> considered, differently, as, formally (but in this cas not semantically), a >> "tatpuruṣa-bahuvrīhi" in regard to the TP *candra-mukham* = *candrasya* >> *mukham >> *"the face of the Moon" (I do not try a meaning for the BV *mukha* >> *candra...*). But the BV *candra-mukha- *cannot be considered as >> "corresponding" to the TP *candra-mukha- *(which is devoid of >> comparative element in its meaning), like, as noted by Renou himself, the >> BV *vidyut-prabha**ḥ** = **vidyuta**ḥ* [gén.]* iva prabhā yasya **sa**ḥ*, >> cannot be said to correspond to the TP *vidyut**-prabhā = **vidyuta**ḥ * >> *prabhā.* >> >> One could perhaps say that the "possessive" BV *su-putra *"looks like" >> the KDh *su-putra *semantically, but the BV *a-putra *has not very much >> to do with the meaning of the Kdh* a-putra*. >> >> The examples could be multiplied. I would conclude this discussion on my >> side by adding that when teaching the nominal composition to students, it >> is important that the main clear indigenous categories remain well >> distinct. I do not see the interest to add confusion by unjustified >> additional qualifications mixing them: to take up your words, the better >> designations are the original ones. From my own experience, I can say >> that students having learned that "behind" the bahuvrīhi they can "search >> for" a karmadhāraya or a tatpuruṣa present a less accurate knowledge of the >> matter than the others. >> >> With best wishes, >> >> Christophe >> >> (*) This sub-type of KDh (substantive) involving a comparison, defined by >> indigenous grammar as an *upamānottarapada-karmadhāraya*, is analysed by >> a comparison (*upamā*) stricto sensu, with a vigraha of structure * >> mukhaṃ candra iva*, but can also be analysed, according to the >> poeticians, by a metaphor (*rūpaka*), with in this case a vigraha of >> structure *mukham eva candraḥ*, depending on whether the predominance of >> meaning is placed on, respectively, the compared (*upameya*) or the >> comparing (*upamāna*). On this point, see the remarks of M. R. Kale, *A >> higher Sanskrit grammar: for the use of schools and college*s, 3rd >> revised and enlarged ed., Bombay: Gopal Náráyen and Co, 1905, § 221 note 2, >> and Michael Coulson, *Sanskrit: An Introduction to the Classical >> Language*, 2nd ed. revised by Richard Gombrich & Jim Benson, Oxford, >> Teach Yourself Books, 1992, pp. 92 and 120 (§ 4). >> >> >> >> Le 20 mars 2025 à 21:22, Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA <[email protected]> >> a écrit : >> >> Dear Antonia and Christophe, >> >> first of all, sorry for the mistake – I wanted to write “copulative >> dvandvas,” an ad-hoc designation I came up with to distinguish these >> dvandvas from those formed with the help of affixes. >> >> As you know, the components of bahuvrīhis can have the same relation as >> in karmadhārayas and tatpuruṣas, and when coming across a compound in a >> text, I guess that most of us would first determine that relation. If I >> encounter the word *mahāratha*, I would analyze it as a word in which *mahā >> *qualifies *ratha*, that is, as a karmadhāraya. If that doesn’t make >> sense, I will (try to) analyze it as a bahuvrīhi. >> >> I have not read your paper, Christophe, but it makes sense that one could >> generate a bahuvrīhi in which the first component qualifies the second one >> without first constructing a karmadhāraya and then *deriving *a >> bahuvrīhi from it (mutatis mutandis this also applies to tatpuruṣas). But >> even then, the relations between the compounds can be as in karmadhārayas >> and tatpuruṣas. Even in a bahuvrīhi, *mahā *still qualifies *ratha*, as >> in a karmadhāraya. This is why I call it a karmadhāraya-bahuvrīhi. To me, >> this does not entail (or presuppose) that bahuvrīhis are secondary. Is >> there a better designation? >> >> Best, >> Dominik >> >> >> Am 20.03.2025 um 14:44 schrieb Antonia Ruppel: >> >> Dear Dominik, >> >> I am confused by the last sentence in your email: >> >> 'As long as no further examples are available, I assume that my intuition >> was correct and that, unlike karmadhārayas and tatpuruṣas, *copulative >> cannot be regularly used as bahuvrīhis* without further modification.' >> >> I would argue that karmadhārayas and tatpuruṣas can also never be used as >> bahuvrīhis; but rather that, when looking at just a compound without >> context (say: mahāratha-), you often cannot decide whether what you are >> looking at is e.g. a karmadharaya or a bahuvrīhi. Is that what you mean? >> >> I'd argue that when you see an (unaccented) compound like rājaputrau in >> isolation, you cannot know for certain whether it is a KDh, TP, BV or DD. >> You can of course see in dictionaries in which uses it is indeed attested. >> >> All my best, >> Antonia >> >> >> *De: *Walter Slaje <[email protected]> >> >> >> > Another possibility is that śarīram is simply equated with asthimāṃsam. >> Śarīra, [that is] asthimāṃsaṃ. >> >> Would śarīram also *be *raktādi? Would a body not rather *have *blood >> and other [bodily fluids]? >> (*śarīram *asthimāṃsaṃ ca tyaktvā *raktādy *aśobhanam). >> >> The very stanza also occurs in the Laghuyogavāsiṣṭha (4.5.48c-49b) and is >> explained there in this way: >> śarīram iti asthi-māṃsa-raktādi*-rūpaṃ*. ata evāśobhanaṃ śarīraṃ >> tyaktvety anvayaḥ. >> >> As can be seen, the commentator places *raktādi *on the same level of >> explanation as *asthimāṃsa *and assigns the same function to each of its >> members. >> In the same sense of possessing/consisting of, cp. also: >> >> tvag-asthi-māṃsa-kṣataj*ātmakaṃ* […] śarīram […] >> >> (Saundarananda 9.9) >> >> medo-’sthi-māṃsa-majjāsṛk*saṅghāte* [...] | śarīranāmni […] >> (Nāgānandanāṭaka 5.24) >> >> An interesting case is presented by >> >> tvag-asthi-māṃsaṃ śukraṃ ca śoṇitaṃ ca [...] | śarīraṃ varjayanty [...] >> (MBh 13.112.22), >> >> where it appears that *tvag-asthi-māṃsa* is expressed as belonging to >> the body (*śarīra*), since only*śukra *and *śoṇita *are mentioned as >> separate terms with *ca *(double). This leaves only *tvag-asthi-māṃsaṃ* as >> a construction with *śarīram*, which is reminiscent of the Mokṣopāya >> passage under consideration. >> >> Best, >> >> WS >> >> Am Do., 20. März 2025 um 19:42 Uhr schrieb Madhav Deshpande < >> [email protected]>: >> >>> Another possibility is that śarīram is simply equated with asthimāṃsam. >>> Śarīra, [that is] asthimāṃsaṃ. A Samāhāra Dvandva is partially >>> semantically like a Bahuvrīhi, in that it refers to the collectivity >>> [samāhāra], rather than just "x and y". This may explain why it feels like >>> it is a Bahuvrīhi, and yet technically it is not. Of course, this is not an >>> accented text. If it were, the difference between a Dvandva and a Bahuvrīhi >>> would show up immediately. >>> >>> Madhav >>> >>> Madhav M. Deshpande >>> Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics >>> University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA >>> Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies >>> Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, >>> India >>> >>> [Residence: Campbell, California, USA] >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:59 AM Christophe Vielle via INDOLOGY < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Thank you, dear Walter, for these two excellent additional examples of >>>> dvandva adjectives made of two or more substantives: it is indeed >>>> impossible to explain them by a *vigraha* corresponding to what is >>>> rightly called a bahuvrīhi in the indigenous tradition ! >>>> >>>> Le 20 mars 2025 à 18:49, Walter Slaje <[email protected]> a écrit >>>> : >>>> >>>> >>>> > I should have specified that I’m looking for [...] bahuvrīhis >>>> directly based on copulative dvandvas >>>> >>>> This is indeed an important clarification. In this new and limited >>>> respect, the two passages quoted below deserve perhaps attention: >>>> >>>> 1) *śarīram asthimāṃsaṃ* ca tyaktvā raktādy aśobhanam (*Mokṣopāya* >>>> IV.43.16ab) >>>> >>>> Here it is indisputable that it is the *body *(*śarīra*) that >>>> *possesses/consists >>>> of bone and flesh* (*asthimāṃsa*) as well as blood, etc. (*raktādi*). >>>> The German translation runs accordingly as: „[Nachdem man] den >>>> abstoßenden, *aus >>>> Knochen und Fleisch* sowie aus Blut usw. [bestehenden] *Körper* >>>> fahrengelassen >>>> [hat], […]“ (Roland Steiner, *Der Weg zur Befreiung. Das Vierte Buch. >>>> Das Buch über das Dasein. Übersetzung* von Roland Steiner. Wiesbaden >>>> 2013, p. 287). >>>> >>>> Cp. also Martin Straube's determination of this compound as "Bahuvrīhi >>>> mit einem Dvandvaverhältnis zwischen den Gliedern" (*Mokṣopāya*. Das >>>> Vierte Buch. *Sthitiprakaraṇa*. Stellenkommentar. Wiesbaden 2016, p. >>>> 208). >>>> >>>> 2) […] *bhikṣavaḥ *[…] gārhasthyagarhyāś ca *sastrī-putra-paśu-striyaḥ* >>>> (*Rājataraṅgiṇī*3.12) >>>> >>>> „*Bhikṣus *[…] *with wives, cattle, and ** married sons* (lit. sons >>>> with wives ) […] deserving the blame of being householders [...]”. >>>> Note that -*striyaḥ* (all mss.) was emended by Durgāprasāda to - >>>> *śriyaḥ* without compelling necessity. Presumably, he was irritated by >>>> two occurrences of *strī*. According to the following analysis of the >>>> wording as handed down, however, *sa*- is not a Bahuvrīhi marker of >>>> the compound: >>>> "sons *(°putra°) *accompanied by [their] wives (*sastrī*-°), plus >>>> cattle *(°paśu°), *plus wives *(°striyaḥ)* of the bhikṣus." >>>> "Sons accompanied by their wives" are married sons. The words of the >>>> compound describe a typical extended family (*kula*), which fits the >>>> concept of a householder (*gṛhastha*). >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> WS >>>> >>>> >>>> Am Do., 20. März 2025 um 14:54 Uhr schrieb Christophe Vielle via >>>> INDOLOGY <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> Dear list, >>>>> >>>>> it happens that I deal a bit with this issue in a little article I >>>>> just published (unfortunately in French), >>>>> http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/297046 >>>>> >>>>> https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/fr/object/boreal%3A297046/datastream/PDF_01/view >>>>> <https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/fr/object/boreal:297046/datastream/PDF_01/view> >>>>> the main linguistic lines of which will be presented at the Linguindic >>>>> Conference in Oxford in next June (see the attached abstract). >>>>> Accordingly, a dvandva cannot "become" (secondarily) a bahuvrīhi, >>>>> strictly speaking, and terms like "dvandva-bahuvrīhi" or >>>>> "karmadhāraya-bahuvrīhi" are incorrect and misleading. >>>>> >>>>> For instance, the compound *akṣamālāṅgulīyaka-*, following the >>>>> context, can be: >>>>> >>>>> • a dvandva substantive (°*ke*): “an *akṣamālā *and a finger ring” >>>>> >>>>> • ? a bahuvrīhi adjective or substantive: “having a rosary for a >>>>> finger ring” or “the one wearing an *akṣamālā *as a finger ring”— >>>>> *vyadhikara**ṇa-bahuvrīhi* with the vigraha : *akṣamālā* *aṅgulīyake >>>>> yasya *(s*a**ḥ*) ? >>>>> >>>>> • a dvandva adjective: “wearing an *akṣamālā *and a finger ring” — >>>>> here, despite the (misleading) English translation, there is no >>>>> possible bahuvrīhi *v**igraha*, unless to imagine an implied initial >>>>> *sa-*, by a sort of ellipsis. >>>>> >>>>> The examples of dvandva adjectives made of two (or more) substantives and >>>>> meaning "having/concerned by/related to/with/for etc. such and such", are >>>>> indeed rare (examples of dvandva adjectives made of simple adjectives are >>>>> of course more "common+numerous": *śubhāśubha**,* *g**ṛhītapratimukta* >>>>> etc.), especially in classical Sanskrit: >>>>> >>>>> Renou in his *Grammaire élémentaire* §28 (p. 24) gives only one: >>>>> >>>>> *• hastyṛṣabha- "*qui porte (la marque) de l’éléphant et du taureau" >>>>> (for the text-reference, Vedic in fact, see Whitney below) >>>>> >>>>> And Scharpé in his unpublished grammatical notes (see my article p. >>>>> 212) has: >>>>> >>>>> • Nala 13.2 [ed. Caland = MBh 3,62.2bc] : *taḍāgaṃ padmasaugandhikam* [« >>>>> un >>>>> étang (*taḍāga-*) doté/couvert de lotus (*padma*-) et de nénuphars ( >>>>> *saugandhika*-) » [1]] ; >>>>> >>>>> • BhG 11.40 : *anantavīryāmitavikramaḥ* *tvam* [« toi dont la >>>>> puissance (*vīrya-*) est infinie (*ananta-*) et l’héroïsme (*vikrama-*) >>>>> incomparable (*amita-*) »] ; — on this (bad) example see the remark >>>>> below. >>>>> >>>>> • Jātakamālā XIV (Kern p. 91, r. 9) : *vismayakautūhalās te vaṇijaḥ* [« >>>>> ces >>>>> marchands dotés/empreints d’étonnement (*vismaya-*) et de curiosité ( >>>>> *kautūhala-*) » [2]] ; >>>>> >>>>> • Daṇḍaviveka p. 222,[l. 1-]2 [éd. GOS] : [*yathākramaṃ*] >>>>> *dvipaṇacatuṣpaṇāṣṭapaṇaṣoḍaśapaṇā >>>>> daṇḍāḥ* [« des amendes, respectivement, de deux *paṇa*, de quatre >>>>> *paṇa*, de huit *paṇa*, et de seize *paṇa *»]. — on this (bad) >>>>> example see the remark below. >>>>> >>>>> For these cases, both Renou and Scharpé say that these are bahuvrīhi >>>>> (adjectives) formed on the basis of dvandva (substantives), according to a >>>>> questionable "generative" idea (following which bahuvrīhi = adjective >>>>> compounds are "secondary" compounds made on the basis of "primary" = >>>>> substantive ones, esp. tatpuruṣa and karmadhāraya) that I discuss in >>>>> my paper. >>>>> >>>>> However, in the absence of possible bahuvrīhi *v**igraha, *I think it >>>>> is better to talk here of a special type of "dvandva adjectives". >>>>> >>>>> Whitney in his grammar (1889, cf. the examples given by Wackernagel) § >>>>> 1293 >>>>> (quoted in the article p. 217) has for this a better formulation: >>>>> >>>>> b. A copulative [should add: substantive] compound is not convertible >>>>> into an adjective directly, any more than is a simple noun, but requires, >>>>> like the latter, a possessive suffix or other means (...). A very >>>>> small number of exceptions, however, are found : thus, *somendrá* [« >>>>> relatif >>>>> à/pour Soma et Indra »] (TS.), *stómapṛṣṭha*[« comportant chants et >>>>> (mélodies dites) proéminentes »] (VS. TS.), *hastyṛ̀ṣabha*[« qui >>>>> porte (la marque) de l’éléphant et du taureau », Renou supra] (ÇB.), >>>>> *dāsīniṣka*[erreur = dāsī + niṣkaḥ non cp.] (ChU.), and, later, >>>>> *cakramusala* [« qui porte/avec le disque et la massue »], *sadānanda* >>>>> , *saccidānanda*, *sān̄khyayoga* (as n. pr. [type non valable]), >>>>> *balābala* [« doté de/avec force et/ou faiblesse »], *bhūtabhautika* [« >>>>> fait >>>>> d’éléments et de choses élémentaires »]. >>>>> >>>>> In § 1294b Whitney adds examples of old “derivative adjective >>>>> compounds” “which are with probability to be viewed as survivals of a >>>>> state >>>>> of things antecedent to the specialization of the general class as >>>>> possessive”, among which are a few of (primary) dvandva structure too, >>>>> such >>>>> as *somendrá* ‘for Soma and Indra’ (already cited), and, in the more >>>>> recent language, *devāsura* [*saṁgrāma*] ‘[battle] of the gods and >>>>> demons’, *narahaya* ‘of man and horse’, *cakramusala* ‘with discus >>>>> and club’ (already cited). >>>>> >>>>> [for the discussion of the examples taken up by Wackernagel, see Haas] >>>>> >>>>> I am in the opinion that such compounds (*not confirmed as bahuvrīhi >>>>> by the accent in the case of the Vedic ones*) should be placed in the >>>>> class of dvandva, in this case formed from substantives but used as an >>>>> adjective and which consequently takes on the value of a determinative >>>>> complement (with different possible values for the latter) — it would be >>>>> indeed necessary to add a *sa-* as a front member to formally obtain >>>>> authentic bahuvrīhis (a one in this case made of *sa*- as first >>>>> member, and of a dvandva as the second member). >>>>> >>>>> As noted by Whitney, the adjective characteristic can be better >>>>> (grammatically speaking) marked with suffixes like in the examples of >>>>> >>>>> • Kumārabhārgavīya[m kāvyam], Arjunarāvaṇīya[m kāvyam] >>>>> >>>>> (the use of *akṣamālāṅgulīyaka**ḥ*, with the secondary adj. suffix >>>>> *-ka*, instead of *akṣamālāṅgul**īy**a**ḥ *is relevant in this >>>>> respect; cf. also the derived form used as second member in >>>>> *padmasaugandhikam*) >>>>> >>>>> Differently, in the above examples *anantavīryāmitavikramaḥ *and >>>>> *dvipaṇacatuṣpaṇāṣṭapaṇaṣoḍaśapaṇā >>>>> daṇḍāḥ*, we have in fact dvandva adjectives of the common "simple" >>>>> type, of which the two or more members are themselves bahuvrīhi >>>>> adjectives (*ananta-vīrya + amita-vikrama, **dvi-paṇa + catuṣ-paṇa + >>>>> aṣṭa-paṇa + ṣoḍaśa-paṇa*). >>>>> >>>>> As for the examples provided by Uskokov, if one remembers that, except >>>>> for the dvandva, a compound has only two members, they have to be analysed >>>>> as mere bahuvrīhis, the first or second member of which being itself a >>>>> dvandva (it could also be a tatpuruṣa). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> [1]. À moins de comprendre « parfumé par (/qui sentait bon, >>>>> *saughandika- *adj.) les lotus » (tp. adj.). >>>>> >>>>> [2]. À moins de comprendre « dont la curiosité était dénuée >>>>> d’arrogance » (*vi-smaya-* adj.). >>>>> >>>>> *De: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* >>>>> *Date: *20 mars 2025 à 11:10:00 UTC+1 >>>>> *À: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you again for your replies. I should have specified that I’m >>>>> looking for bahuvrīhis like *akṣamālāṅgulīyakaḥ *might be one, that >>>>> is, bahuvrīhis directly based on copulative dvandvas – not bahuvrīhis >>>>> derived from karmadhārayas containing dvandvas (such as >>>>> *aneka-vaktra-nayana* and *vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodha*) or bahuvrīhis >>>>> formed with affixes (*a*-, *sa*-, *nis*-; -*vat*, -*mat*, -*in*). >>>>> Those are indeed very common. >>>>> >>>>> Joel Brereton and Walter Slaje referred me to Wackernagel’s *Altindische >>>>> Grammatik* (II/1: 280), according to which dvandva-bahuvrīhis are >>>>> rare. A number of examples are given there. I had a quick look at them: >>>>> >>>>> – *somapṛṣṭha *could also mean “carrying Soma on their back” >>>>> – *somendra *“belonging to Soma and Indra” has the alternative, >>>>> regular form *saumendra *(as well as irregular *somaindra*) >>>>> – *dīrghābhiniṣṭhāna *“having a long (vowel) or a visarga” has the >>>>> alternative form *dīrghābhiniṣṭhānānta *“having a long (vowel) or a >>>>> visarga at the end” >>>>> – *cakramusala *in Harivaṃśa 47.29*586:2 does not seem to be a >>>>> bahuvrīhi to me (*bhaviṣyanti mamāsrāṇi tathā bāhusthitāni te * / >>>>> *śārṅgaśaṅkhagadācakramusalaṃ >>>>> śūlam eva ca* /) >>>>> – *bhūtabhautika *can be derived from *bhūtabhauta *“beings and those >>>>> related to beings.” >>>>> – *devāsura *“between *deva*s and *asura*s” and *narahaya *“between >>>>> men and horses” are used with reference to fighting. Perhaps they were >>>>> supposed to be tatpuruṣas with the first member in the instrumental? The >>>>> fight “of the *asura*s *with *the *deva*s”? >>>>> – *ayānaya *“right-left” is the name of “a particular movement of the >>>>> pieces on a chess or backgammon board” (MV). To me, this seems to be a >>>>> product of metonymical thinking; interpreting it as a bahuvrīhi is not >>>>> really necessary. >>>>> – I have not succeeded in finding a passage where *saccidānanda *“being, >>>>> consciousness, and bliss” is used as an adjective. >>>>> – There remains *balābala *“at one time strong at another weak” (MV) >>>>> from the Mārkaṇḍeya-Purāṇa. According to lexicographers, *bala *can >>>>> be an adjective, but maybe this is an actual case of a dvandva-bahuvrīhi. >>>>> >>>>> This does not look very promising. As long as no further examples are >>>>> available, I assume that my intuition was correct and that, unlike >>>>> karmadhārayas and tatpuruṣas, *copulative cannot be regularly used as >>>>> bahuvrīhis* without further modification. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> D. Haas >>>>> >>>>> P.S.: *akṣamālāṅgulīyakaḥ *is used in an appendix passage of the >>>>> critical edition of the Ādiparvan: >>>>> 01,210.002d@113_0011 tridaṇḍī muṇḍitaḥ kuṇḍī akṣamālāṅgulīyakaḥ >>>>> 01,210.002d@113_0012 yogabhāraṃ vahan pārtho vaṭavṛkṣasya koṭaram >>>>> 01,210.002d@113_0013 praviśann eva bībhatsur vṛṣṭiṃ varṣati vāsave >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 20 mars 2025 à 07:29, Walter Slaje via INDOLOGY < >>>>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> When it comes to confirmatory entries in grammars, Wackernagel is the >>>>> place to look (p. 280 with examples). In essence: >>>>> >>>>> „Dvandvaverhältnis zwischen den Gliedern [of a bahuvrīhi, WS] ist >>>>> selten, doch von Saṃhitā bis spät zu belegen.“ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jakob Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik. Band II, 1: Einleitung >>>>> zur Wortlehre, Nominalkomposition. Neudr. der 2., unveränd. Aufl. >>>>> Göttingen >>>>> 1985: p. 280, § 109d. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> WS >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *De: *Christian Ferstl via INDOLOGY <[email protected]> >>>>> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* >>>>> *Date: *20 mars 2025 à 06:35:41 UTC+1 >>>>> *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Cc: *[email protected] >>>>> *Répondre à: *Christian Ferstl <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Dominik, >>>>> >>>>> compounds are rather a matter of syntax than grammar. Speyer, however, >>>>> has no example for a DD used as BV without prefix, possessive suffix >>>>> (-ka?), or an adjective or participle in first position. That makes the DD >>>>> interpretation suspicious, indeed. >>>>> >>>>> Christian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *De: *Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY <[email protected]> >>>>> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* >>>>> *Date: *20 mars 2025 à 00:47:11 UTC+1 >>>>> *À: *Lyne Bansat-Boudon <[email protected]> >>>>> *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Répondre à: *Madhav Deshpande <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> I was going to make the same suggestion as Lyne. An अक्षमाला held in >>>>> the hand is a common picture of divinities like Sarasvati. Here is a well >>>>> known verse: >>>>> >>>>> तव करकमलस्थां स्फाटिकीमक्षमालां नखकिरणविभिन्नां दाडिमीबीजबुद्ध्या | >>>>> प्रतिकलमनुकर्षन्येन >>>>> कीरो निषिद्धः स भवतु मम भूत्यै वाणि ते मन्दहासः || >>>>> >>>>> One can easily imagine the अक्षमाला being seen as an अङ्गुलीयक. >>>>> >>>>> Madhav M. Deshpande >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 4:12 PM Lyne Bansat-Boudon via INDOLOGY < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear colleague, >>>>> >>>>> In order to understand the adjective, it is necessary to know the >>>>> syntactic context (as well as the semantic context): since it is an >>>>> adjective, it should qualify a substantive. Therefore the first step would >>>>> be to know what is the entire syntagm. Only then will it be possible to >>>>> determine whether or not it is a dvandva-BV (as you say). But, in my >>>>> opinion (and given the absence of context in your message), it is a >>>>> regular BV, which could be translated as "having a rosary for a finger >>>>> ring" (the image is stronger understood in this way, and more appropriate >>>>> to the Indian system of representations, whether literary or iconic, as it >>>>> can be easily verified in wordly practices). >>>>> >>>>> As for reading *akṣamālo ’ṅgulīyakaḥ*, this proposition doesn't seem >>>>> possible, neither grammatically nor semantically. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Lyne >>>>> >>>>> Lyne Bansat-Boudon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *De: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* >>>>> *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 22:40:27 UTC+1 >>>>> *À: *[email protected] >>>>> >>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your replies! It would make a lot if sense if >>>>> *akṣamālāṅgulīyakaḥ* was a dvandva-bahuvrīhi. Neverthesss, if I >>>>> haven’t overlooked it, the possibility of dvandva-bahuvrīhis is not >>>>> mentioned in the grammars of Whitney, Müller, Macdonell (Vedic & >>>>> Sanskrit), >>>>> Kale, Mayrhofer, or Gonda, nor do I find it in Tubb’s and Boose’s book on >>>>> scholastic Sanskrit. I would therefore be very grateful if you could >>>>> provide examples. (The examples from the Bhagavad-Gītā beginning with >>>>> *aneka *are karmadhāraya-bahuvrīhis.) >>>>> >>>>> Thank you again, >>>>> D. Haas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *De: *Dominik Wujastyk via INDOLOGY <[email protected]> >>>>> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* >>>>> *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 21:35:18 UTC+1 >>>>> *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Cc: *Indology Mailing List <[email protected]> >>>>> *Répondre à: *Dominik Wujastyk <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> On the epic form of m. sing. dvandvas see also pp. 361--362, n.3 of >>>>> Oberlies, Thomas, *A Grammar of Epic Sanskrit*, Indian Philology and >>>>> South Asian Studies (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003) (DOI >>>>> <https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899344>) >>>>> >>>>> That doesn't address the bahuvrīhi issue, though. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> The other Dominik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dominik Wujastyk, Professor Emeritus, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *De: *Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY <[email protected]> >>>>> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* >>>>> *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 19:42:06 UTC+1 >>>>> *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Cc: *[email protected] >>>>> *Répondre à: *Madhav Deshpande <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> Hello Dominik, >>>>> >>>>> Aṅgulīyakaḥ alone does not become a Bahuvrīhi, and does not seem >>>>> grammatical. As others have pointed out, Dvandvas can indeed become >>>>> Bahuvrīhis. >>>>> >>>>> Madhav >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *De: *"Uskokov, Aleksandar via INDOLOGY" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* >>>>> *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 19:38:21 UTC+1 >>>>> *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]>, " >>>>> [email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Répondre à: *"Uskokov, Aleksandar" <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Dominik, >>>>> >>>>> Look at the 11th chapter of the BhG, you'll find several. For >>>>> instance: >>>>> >>>>> 11.10: aneka-vaktra-nayanam (anekāni vaktrāṇi nayanāni ca yasmin rūpe >>>>> tad aneka-vaktra-nayanam = Shankara) >>>>> 11.16: aneka-bāhūdara-vaktra-netraṃ (aneka-bāhūdara-vaktra-netram >>>>> aneke bāhavar udarāṇi vaktrāṇi netrāṇi ca yasya tava sa tvam >>>>> aneka-bāhūdara-vaktra-netras tam = Shankara) >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Aleksandar >>>>> >>>>> Aleksandar Uskokov >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *De: *Nataliya Yanchevskaya via INDOLOGY <[email protected]> >>>>> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* >>>>> *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 19:37:18 UTC+1 >>>>> *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]>, Indology >>>>> Mailing List <[email protected]> >>>>> *Répondre à: *Nataliya Yanchevskaya <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Dominik, >>>>> The dvandva-based bahuvrīhis are not uncommon. I saw several such >>>>> compounds in the epics – first of all, in the Mahābhārata, but also in the >>>>> Rāmāyaṇa, Yogavāsiṣṭha, etc. (I can find the quotes for you later, if >>>>> needed) >>>>> So – no problem at all. >>>>> Nataliya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 19.03.2025 um 19:26 schrieb Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA: >>>>> >>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >>>>> I have a question: Can dvandvas become bahuvrīhis? Specifically, I’m >>>>> looking at the compound *akṣamālāṅgulīyakaḥ*. Does it just mean >>>>> “wearing an *akṣamālā *as a finger ring,” or could it also mean >>>>> “wearing an *akṣamālā *and a finger ring”? I don’t recall ever seeing >>>>> a dvandva-bahuvrīhi, but in this case it would make much more sense, which >>>>> is why I wonder if this is perhaps a rare, non-standard form. Of course, >>>>> it’s also possible that it’s just a misspelling of *akṣamālo >>>>> ’ṅgulīyakaḥ*. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your time and best regards, >>>>> Dominik A. Haas >>>>> >>>>> __________________ >>>>> *Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA* >>>>> >>>>> ––––––––––––––––––– >> Christophe Vielle <https://www.uclouvain.be/en/people/christophe.vielle> >> Louvain-la-Neuve >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> INDOLOGY mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >> > > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list > [email protected] > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
