[INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?

[Madhav Deshpande]

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 <
indology at list.indology.info> 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 <dominik at haas.asia> 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 <walter.slaje at gmail.com>
>
>
> > 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 :
>>>
>>>
>>> > 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/20250321/3d37676a/attachment.htm>