[INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?
Dominik A. Haas
dominik at haas.asia
Mon Mar 31 10:22:03 UTC 2025
Dear Victor,
Thank you for this message, you are quite right. Using one system
consistently is generally preferable over mixing – especially since
Vyākaraṇa is so rigid and there is no modern linguistic system for
compound analysis that is universally accepted.
It is also correct that, when it comes to derivation from individual
words, bahuvrīhis are not “based” on other compounds. But I would argue
that in usage, compounds are being “transformed” quite often. I can
imagine that the producer of the expression /akṣamālāṅgulīyakaḥ /first
had the dvandva /akṣamālāṅgulīye /in mind and then wondered how to turn
this into a bahuvrīhi (just as an English speaker may wonder what to
call “someone who has a red head”, or “someone who has cats and dogs”).
Imprecise and untraditional as they may be, expressions like
dvandva-bahuvrīhi may occasionally serve a purpose – in this discussion,
even those who resented it understood what I meant, even though we then
realized that exocentric/possessive collective compounds formed from
nouns (*/akṣamālāṅgulīyakaḥ /“someone who has an /akṣamālā /and an
/aṅgulīyaka/”) are quite irregular. No wonder there is no word for them.
I have a question: Are there more examples of the /cakrapāṇi/-type? It
appears to me that, if we perform a /vigraha /analysis, the head
constituent in bahuvrīhi compounds is usually in the nominative (/jitaḥ
kāmo yena sa jitakāmaḥ śivaḥ/ etc.) and the subordinate constituent
either qualifies the head noun (/nīlakaṇṭha /“blue-eyed”, as in a
karmadhāraya) or complements it (/gokarṇa /“having the ears of a cow”,
as in a tatpuruṣa).
Best regards,
Dominik
Am 30.03.2025 um 15:34 schrieb victor davella via INDOLOGY:
> Dear Harry,
>
> A lot of the confusion arises from "based on" and how one imagines the
> derivations. All derivations and linguistic descriptions are, in a
> sense, imaginary since only the language itself exists. The problem
> with "karmadhāraya-bahuvrīhi" and even "bahuvrīhi based on a
> karmadhāraya" is that within the Sanskrit system of grammatical
> derivation, and I think most others, one does not start with a
> karmadhāraya and then form a bahuvrīhi. In usage, of course, one does
> not start with one kind of compound and then turn it into another
> type, one simply uses the compound. There is, however, some sense to
> this somewhat loose terminology and is perhaps a reflection of the
> Sanskrit terminology vyadhikaraṇa- and samāṇādhikaraṇa-bahuvrīḥis.
>
> In most simple terms, a samānādhikaraṇa-bahuvrīhi will have a vigraha
> in which the two words are placed in the same case. These are the most
> common type of bahuvrīhi: jatakāmaḥ śivaḥ = jit*aḥ* kām*o* yena śivaḥ.
> Here both elements of the bahuvrīhi are in the same case in the
> vigraha so it's a samānādhikaraṇa-bahuvrīhi. If you look into the
> Sanskrit sources on compounds you will find this very terminology but
> not, to the best of my knowledge, karmadhāraya-bahuvrīhi. Outside of
> the Sanskrit tradition people have wrongly stated that this bahuvrīhi
> is therefore "based" on the karmadhāraya. I say "wrongly" because no
> such compound ever existed nor indeed would one expect to find
> jitakāmaḥ as a karmadhāraya compound meaning "conquered Kāmadeva". Cf.
> my previous email. The similarity with the karmadhāraya is only in
> that a karmadhāraya also has elements that are samānādhikaraṇa. Cf. P.
> 1.2.42 tatpuruṣaḥ samānādhikaraṇaḥ karmadhārayaḥ.
>
> The vyadhikaraṇa-bahuvrīhi is one whose virgraha will contain words in
> different cases because they refer to different objects such a
> cakrapāṇir viṣṇuḥ = cakr*aṃ* pāṇ*au* yasya sa cakrapāṇir viṣṇuḥ.
> Again, there was never any tatpuruṣa cakrapāṇiḥ meaning "the discus in
> the hand" so it doesn't really make sense to speak of a bahuvrīhi
> based on the tatpuruṣa.
>
> The best approach to these and other grammatical topics is to gain a
> clear understanding of each grammatical system on its own terms before
> attempting to mix them or use the terminology in novel ways. A good
> note on this can be found in the Oxford Handbook on Compounding, p. 36:
>
> Problems identified under (a) can be exemplified by the term
> bahuvrīhi. This Sanskrit word, meaning (having) much rice (Whitney
> 1889: 502), has been used for identifying nominal compounds with
> possessive interpretation but ended up by indicating exocentric
> compounds tout court. As shown by Bauer (2001b: 700), the term
> bahuvrīhi was finally applied ‘to any compound which is not a
> hyponym of its own head element’. The use of the term bahuvrīhi as
> a generic label for exocentric compounds is thus an incorrect
> extension; bahuvrīhi in fact refers to a specific subclass of
> exocentric compounds, namely possessive compounds.
>
> I have also seen English compounds like director-producer (i.e., one
> and the same person is both the director and the producer) analyzed as
> dvandvas, but these are karmadhāraya compounds within the Sanskrit
> system because each word refers to the same person.
>
>
> All the Best,
> Victor
>
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 12:57 AM Harry Spier via INDOLOGY
> <indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
> Dear Christophe,
>
> You wrote about the confusion introduced by the special
> terminology using such "(absolutely non indigenous) odd categories
> as "karmadhāraya-bahuvrīhi", "tatpuruṣa-bahuvrīhi" . . . .and
> which betrays, by their names themselves . . ., 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)".
>
> Note that this idea of bahuvrīhi compounds being based
> on karmadhāraya or tatpuruṣa compounds is used by Coulson in his
> textbook. He even differentiates these in his notation, underline
> under dash for bahuvrīhi derived from tatpuruṣa and underline
> under colon for bahuvrīhi derived from karmadhāraya .
>
> See page 118 from Coulson relevant section below.
> image.png
>
> Harry Spier
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 12:11 PM 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-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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20250331/0b87742a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1002656 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20250331/0b87742a/attachment.png>
More information about the INDOLOGY
mailing list