[INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?

Thu Mar 20 18:41:22 UTC 2025

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 <
indology at list.indology.info> 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 <walter.slaje at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Vous n’obtenez pas souvent d’e-mail à partir de walter.slaje at gmail.com. Pourquoi
> c’est important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
> > 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
>>
>
> –––––––––––––––––––
> 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/20250320/4ebe211e/attachment.htm>