> 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 < [email protected]>: > Dear list, > > it happens that I deal a bit with this issue in a little article I just > published (unfortunately in French), > http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/297046 > > https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/fr/object/boreal%3A297046/datastream/PDF_01/view > <https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/fr/object/boreal:297046/datastream/PDF_01/view> > the main linguistic lines of which will be presented at the Linguindic > Conference in Oxford in next June (see the attached abstract). > Accordingly, a dvandva cannot "become" (secondarily) a bahuvrīhi, strictly > speaking, and terms like "dvandva-bahuvrīhi" or "karmadhāraya-bahuvrīhi" > are incorrect and misleading. > > For instance, the compound *akṣamālāṅgulīyaka-*, following the context, can > be: > > • a dvandva substantive (°*ke*): “an *akṣamālā *and a finger ring” > > • ? a bahuvrīhi adjective or substantive: “having a rosary for a finger > ring” or “the one wearing an *akṣamālā *as a finger ring”— *vyadhikara* > *ṇa-bahuvrīhi* with the vigraha : *akṣamālā* *aṅgulīyake yasya *(s*a**ḥ*) > ? > > • a dvandva adjective: “wearing an *akṣamālā *and a finger ring” — here, > despite the (misleading) English translation, there is no > possible bahuvrīhi *v**igraha*, unless to imagine an implied initial *sa-*, > by a sort of ellipsis. > > The examples of dvandva adjectives made of two (or more) substantives and > meaning "having/concerned by/related to/with/for etc. such and such", are > indeed rare (examples of dvandva adjectives made of simple adjectives are > of course more "common+numerous": *śubhāśubha**,* *g**ṛhītapratimukta* > etc.), especially in classical Sanskrit: > > Renou in his *Grammaire élémentaire* §28 (p. 24) gives only one: > > *• hastyṛṣabha- "*qui porte (la marque) de l’éléphant et du taureau" (for > the text-reference, Vedic in fact, see Whitney below) > > And Scharpé in his unpublished grammatical notes (see my article p. 212) > has: > > • Nala 13.2 [ed. Caland = MBh 3,62.2bc] : *taḍāgaṃ padmasaugandhikam* [« un > étang (*taḍāga-*) doté/couvert de lotus (*padma*-) et de nénuphars ( > *saugandhika*-) » [1]] ; > > • BhG 11.40 : *anantavīryāmitavikramaḥ* *tvam* [« toi dont la puissance ( > *vīrya-*) est infinie (*ananta-*) et l’héroïsme (*vikrama-*) incomparable > (*amita-*) »] ; — on this (bad) example see the remark below. > > • Jātakamālā XIV (Kern p. 91, r. 9) : *vismayakautūhalās te vaṇijaḥ* [« ces > marchands dotés/empreints d’étonnement (*vismaya-*) et de curiosité ( > *kautūhala-*) » [2]] ; > > • Daṇḍaviveka p. 222,[l. 1-]2 [éd. GOS] : [*yathākramaṃ*] > *dvipaṇacatuṣpaṇāṣṭapaṇaṣoḍaśapaṇā > daṇḍāḥ* [« des amendes, respectivement, de deux *paṇa*, de quatre *paṇa*, > de huit *paṇa*, et de seize *paṇa *»]. — on this (bad) example see the > remark below. > > For these cases, both Renou and Scharpé say that these are bahuvrīhi > (adjectives) formed on the basis of dvandva (substantives), according to a > questionable "generative" idea (following which bahuvrīhi = adjective > compounds are "secondary" compounds made on the basis of "primary" = > substantive ones, esp. tatpuruṣa and karmadhāraya) that I discuss in my > paper. > > However, in the absence of possible bahuvrīhi *v**igraha, *I think it is > better to talk here of a special type of "dvandva adjectives". > > Whitney in his grammar (1889, cf. the examples given by Wackernagel) § 1293 > (quoted in the article p. 217) has for this a better formulation: > > b. A copulative [should add: substantive] compound is not convertible > into an adjective directly, any more than is a simple noun, but requires, > like the latter, a possessive suffix or other means (...). A very small > number of exceptions, however, are found : thus, *somendrá* [« relatif > à/pour Soma et Indra »] (TS.), *stómapṛṣṭha* [« comportant chants et > (mélodies dites) proéminentes »] (VS. TS.), *hastyṛ̀ṣabha* [« qui porte > (la marque) de l’éléphant et du taureau », Renou supra] (ÇB.), *dāsīniṣka* > [erreur = dāsī + niṣkaḥ non cp.] (ChU.), and, later, *cakramusala* [« qui > porte/avec le disque et la massue »], *sadānanda*, *saccidānanda*, > *sān̄khyayoga* (as n. pr. [type non valable]), *balābala* [« doté de/avec > force et/ou faiblesse »], *bhūtabhautika* [« fait d’éléments et de choses > élémentaires »]. > > In § 1294b Whitney adds examples of old “derivative adjective > compounds” “which are with probability to be viewed as survivals of a state > of things antecedent to the specialization of the general class as > possessive”, among which are a few of (primary) dvandva structure too, such > as *somendrá* ‘for Soma and Indra’ (already cited), and, in the more > recent language, *devāsura* [*saṁgrāma*] ‘[battle] of the gods and > demons’, *narahaya* ‘of man and horse’, *cakramusala* ‘with discus and > club’ (already cited). > > [for the discussion of the examples taken up by Wackernagel, see Haas] > > I am in the opinion that such compounds (*not confirmed as bahuvrīhi by > the accent in the case of the Vedic ones*) should be placed in the class > of dvandva, in this case formed from substantives but used as an adjective > and which consequently takes on the value of a determinative complement > (with different possible values for the latter) — it would be indeed > necessary to add a *sa-* as a front member to formally obtain authentic > bahuvrīhis (a one in this case made of *sa*- as first member, and of a > dvandva as the second member). > > As noted by Whitney, the adjective characteristic can be better > (grammatically speaking) marked with suffixes like in the examples of > > • Kumārabhārgavīya[m kāvyam], Arjunarāvaṇīya[m kāvyam] > > (the use of *akṣamālāṅgulīyaka**ḥ*, with the secondary adj. suffix *-ka*, > instead > of *akṣamālāṅgul**īy**a**ḥ *is relevant in this respect; cf. also the > derived form used as second member in *padmasaugandhikam*) > > Differently, in the above examples *anantavīryāmitavikramaḥ *and > *dvipaṇacatuṣpaṇāṣṭapaṇaṣoḍaśapaṇā > daṇḍāḥ*, we have in fact dvandva adjectives of the common "simple" type, > of which the two or more members are themselves bahuvrīhi adjectives > (*ananta-vīrya > + amita-vikrama, **dvi-paṇa + catuṣ-paṇa + aṣṭa-paṇa + ṣoḍaśa-paṇa*). > > As for the examples provided by Uskokov, if one remembers that, except for > the dvandva, a compound has only two members, they have to be analysed as > mere bahuvrīhis, the first or second member of which being itself a > dvandva (it could also be a tatpuruṣa). > > > ------------------------------ > > [1]. À moins de comprendre « parfumé par (/qui sentait bon, > *saughandika- *adj.) les lotus » (tp. adj.). > > [2]. À moins de comprendre « dont la curiosité était dénuée d’arrogance » > (*vi-smaya-* adj.). > > *De: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]> > *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* > *Date: *20 mars 2025 à 11:10:00 UTC+1 > *À: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > 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@113_0011 tridaṇḍī muṇḍitaḥ kuṇḍī akṣamālāṅgulīyakaḥ > 01,210.002d@113_0012 yogabhāraṃ vahan pārtho vaṭavṛkṣasya koṭaram > 01,210.002d@113_0013 praviśann eva bībhatsur vṛṣṭiṃ varṣati vāsave > > > Le 20 mars 2025 à 07:29, Walter Slaje via INDOLOGY < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* > *Date: *20 mars 2025 à 06:35:41 UTC+1 > *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *[email protected] > *Répondre à: *Christian Ferstl <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* > *Date: *20 mars 2025 à 00:47:11 UTC+1 > *À: *Lyne Bansat-Boudon <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Répondre à: *Madhav Deshpande <[email protected]> > > 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 < > [email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> > *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* > *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 22:40:27 UTC+1 > *À: *[email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> > *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* > *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 21:35:18 UTC+1 > *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *Indology Mailing List <[email protected]> > *Répondre à: *Dominik Wujastyk <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* > *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 19:42:06 UTC+1 > *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *[email protected] > *Répondre à: *Madhav Deshpande <[email protected]> > > 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" <[email protected]> > *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* > *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 19:38:21 UTC+1 > *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Répondre à: *"Uskokov, Aleksandar" <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > *Objet: **Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi?* > *Date: *19 mars 2025 à 19:37:18 UTC+1 > *À: *"Dr. Dominik A. Haas, BA MA" <[email protected]>, Indology Mailing > List <[email protected]> > *Répondre à: *Nataliya Yanchevskaya <[email protected]> > > 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 > [email protected] > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
