[INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?

Mon Mar 24 21:31:09 UTC 2025

Dear Harry,

There is a thorough account in Tubb and Boose's Scholastic Sanskrit (2007). It is hard to get it in print these days.

Best
Aleksandar

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> on behalf of Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:18:45 PM
To: Dominik A. Haas <dominik at haas.asia>
Cc: indology at list.indology.info <indology at list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?

Dear list members,
What are the recommended materials covering the intricacies of sanskrit compounds. The only book I've seen devoted to this is "Hints to the Study of Sanskrit Compounds by R J Ratanjanakara" from 1898.
 I'm also aware of a couple of articles:
Exocentric (bahuvrIhi) compounds in Classical Sanskrit. by Brendan Gillon
Sanskrit compounds and the architecture of grammar by Adriana Molina-Munez
There is some material in MacDonell's grammar.  I don't see anything in Apte's Students guide to sanskrit composition, or in Speyer's Syntax.

Harry Spier

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 8:49 AM Dominik A. Haas <dominik at haas.asia<mailto:dominik at haas.asia>> wrote:

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- = indraḥ śatrur yasya saḥ  clearly different from the TP indra-śatrú- = indrasya śatruḥ, 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 śatruś 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 rathaḥ, and then can be viewed as the "corresponding" "karmadhāraya-bahuvrīhi" mahā-rathaḥ = mahān (or mahāntaḥ !) rathaḥ (or rathāḥ !) yasya saḥ. 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 saḥ "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 mukhacandra...). 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-prabhaḥ = vidyutaḥ [gén.] iva prabhā yasya saḥ, cannot be said to correspond to the TP vidyut-prabhā = vidyutaḥ 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 colleges, 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<mailto: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<mailto: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-kṣatajātmakaṃ […] śarīram […]
(Saundarananda 9.9)

medo-’sthi-māṃsa-majjāsṛksaṅghāte [...] | 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 onlyśukra 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 (Rājataraṅgiṇī3.12)

„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<mailto: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”— vyadhikaraṇa-bahuvrīhi with the vigraha : akṣamālā aṅgulīyake yasya (saḥ) ?

• a dvandva adjective:  “wearing an akṣamālā and a finger ring” — here, despite the (misleading) English translation, there is no possible bahuvrīhi vigraha, 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, gṛhītapratimukta 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 vigraha, 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 akṣamālāṅgulīyakaḥ, with the secondary adj. suffix -ka, instead of akṣamālāṅgulīyaḥ 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<mailto: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<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>" <indology at list.indology.info<mailto: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 devas and asuras” 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 asuras with the devas”?
– 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:dominik at haas.asia>>
Cc: indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>
Répondre à: Christian Ferstl <christian.ferstl at univie.ac.at<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Lyne.Bansat-Boudon at ephe.psl.eu>>
Cc: "indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>" <indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>>
Répondre à: Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:dominik at haas.asia>>
Cc: Indology Mailing List <indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>>
Répondre à: Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:dominik at haas.asia>>
Cc: indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>
Répondre à: Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:dominik at haas.asia>>, "indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>" <indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>>
Répondre à: "Uskokov, Aleksandar" <aleksandar.uskokov at yale.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:dominik at haas.asia>>, Indology Mailing List <indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>>
Répondre à: Nataliya Yanchevskaya <markandeia at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY at list.indology.info<mailto: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/20250324/09cf3656/attachment.htm>