[INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?

Thu Mar 20 20:06:23 UTC 2025

> 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 <
mmdesh at umich.edu>:

> 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/20250320/1bfe1d1d/attachment.htm>