[INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?
Dominik A. Haas
dominik at haas.asia
Mon Mar 24 12:48:37 UTC 2025
Dear Christophe, dear Lyne, dear colleagues,
The question is whether we need to adhere strictly to the Sanskrit
tradition when using terms borrowed from Sanskrit. Given the fact that
bahuvrīhi, karmadhāraya and tatpuruṣa have become part of the English
language and the anglophone linguistic tradition (cf. the spellings
bahuvrihi, karmadharaya, tatpurusha), this is not self-evident. I am not
introducing the confusion, it is already there.
That being said, I see three possibilities:
1. One studies traditional Vyākaraṇa and uses its terms in accordance
with the tradition, which makes sense because the tradition provides a
context in which one can speak of correctness/incorrectness.
2. One uses the (in this case anglicized) terms in their modern, more
vague usage and gives a definition when needed. Apparently, the terms
were needed, even if not for the exact same purposes.
3. One avoids Sanskrit(ic) terms and instead uses terms such as
attributive, copulative/coordinative, determinative,
exocentric,endocentric, etc.
All three approaches have advantages and disadvantages, but I strongly
doubt that one of them can – or should – be apodictically categorized as
incorrect, wrong, and misleading.
Best regards,
Dominik
Am 21.03.2025 um 17:10 schrieb Christophe Vielle via INDOLOGY:
> 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-ratha/ḥ/
> /= /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 abahuvrīhi, /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
>> <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 11^th 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/20250324/4b38487d/attachment.htm>
More information about the INDOLOGY
mailing list