[INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?

[victor davella]

Dear all,

A nice introduction to Sanskrit compounds in Sanskrit is the Samāsacandrikā
(
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J0UBtY6Ix5slHxLaYNIoqgNoXI5hlpkw/view?usp=sharing
; I have reset it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IT8IvaAjAeq-v5uUh4lWyFdb0kkrAj3_/view?usp=sharing)
and the Samāsacakra (
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y8PATqtpKozz6f1ckfKD2BXERWesidE4/view?usp=sharing
; electronic version by Gary Tubb:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TF3wSiupcvKxdwLSJMg9YtFZY6Oss_dL/view?usp=sharing).
I would also add here a reference to Vāmana's Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra (from
GRETIL below) and Nāgeśa's comment ad P. 1.3.3. hal antyam in the
Laghuśabdenduśekhara: karmadhārayayogyapadānāṃ samāsābhāvasya
sūtrakāraśailīsiddhatvāc ca (p. 17 of vol. 1 of the Kāśī Saṃskṛta
Granthamālā edition).

I look forward to discussing Christophe's paper when he comes to Oxford
later this year!

All the Best,
Victor

na karmadhārayo bahuvrīhipratipattikaraḥ // VKal_5,1.7 //

bahubrīhipratipattiṃ karoti yaḥ karmadhārayaḥ sa na prayoktavyaḥ / yathā
----

adhyāsitaścāsau taruścādhyāsitataruḥ iti //7//

tena viparyayo vyākhyātaḥ // VKal_5,1.8 //

bahuvrīhirapi akrmadhārayapratipattikaro na prayoktavyaḥ / yathā ----

vīrāḥ puruṣā yasya sa vīrapuruṣaḥ / kalo ravo yasya sa kalaravaḥ / iti //8//

On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 6:47 PM Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info> wrote:

> As Christophe points out, terms like कर्मधारय-बहुव्रीहि are not part of
> the traditional Paninian grammar. In this connection, one may consider the
> traditional dictum: न कर्मधारयात् मत्वर्थीयो बहुव्रीहिश्चेत्
> तदर्थप्रतिपत्तिकर: "One should not add a possessive affix [like -वत्/मत्]
> after a कर्मधारय, if a बहुव्रीहि can yield the same meaning." For example,
> the compound नीलकण्ठ can be either a कर्मधारय or a बहुव्रीहि, but one
> should not take the कर्मधारय नीलकण्ठ and add the possessive affix -वत् to
> it to get the same sense as that of the बहुव्रीहि नीलकण्ठ.
>
> Madhav
>
> Madhav M. Deshpande
> Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics
> University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
> Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies
> Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India
>
> [Residence: Campbell, California, USA]
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 9:10 AM Christophe Vielle via INDOLOGY <
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ef9be16b/attachment.htm>