[INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?

Thu Mar 20 17:49:43 UTC 2025

> 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 <
indology at list.indology.info>:

> 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" <dominik at haas.asia>
> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?*
> *Date: *20 mars 2025 à 11:10:00 UTC+1
> *À: *"indology at list.indology.info" <indology at list.indology.info>
>
> 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 at 113_0011 tridaṇḍī muṇḍitaḥ kuṇḍī akṣamālāṅgulīyakaḥ
> 01,210.002d at 113_0012 yogabhāraṃ vahan pārtho vaṭavṛkṣasya koṭaram
> 01,210.002d at 113_0013 praviśann eva bībhatsur vṛṣṭiṃ varṣati vāsave
>
>
> Le 20 mars 2025 à 07:29, Walter Slaje via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> 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 <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?*
> *Date: *20 mars 2025 à 06:35:41 UTC+1
> *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <dominik at haas.asia>
> *Cc: *indology at list.indology.info
> *Répondre à: *Christian Ferstl <christian.ferstl at univie.ac.at>
>
> 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 <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?*
> *Date: *20 mars 2025 à 00:47:11 UTC+1
> *À: *Lyne Bansat-Boudon <Lyne.Bansat-Boudon at ephe.psl.eu>
> *Cc: *"indology at list.indology.info" <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Répondre à: *Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu>
>
> 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 <
> indology at list.indology.info> 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" <dominik at haas.asia>
> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?*
> *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 22:40:27 UTC+1
> *À: *indology at list.indology.info
>
> 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 <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?*
> *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 21:35:18 UTC+1
> *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <dominik at haas.asia>
> *Cc: *Indology Mailing List <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Répondre à: *Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com>
>
> 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 <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?*
> *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 19:42:06 UTC+1
> *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <dominik at haas.asia>
> *Cc: *indology at list.indology.info
> *Répondre à: *Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu>
>
> 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" <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?*
> *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 19:38:21 UTC+1
> *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <dominik at haas.asia>, "
> indology at list.indology.info" <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Répondre à: *"Uskokov, Aleksandar" <aleksandar.uskokov at yale.edu>
>
> 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 <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?*
> *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 19:37:18 UTC+1
> *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <dominik at haas.asia>, Indology Mailing
> List <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Répondre à: *Nataliya Yanchevskaya <markandeia at gmail.com>
>
> 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
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20250320/9b076d4b/attachment.htm>