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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : Vous n’obtenez pas souvent d’e-mail à partir de [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Pourquoi c’est important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> > 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]<mailto:[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”— 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" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Objet: Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi? Date: 20 mars 2025 à 11:10:00 UTC+1 À: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[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 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@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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Répondre à: Christian Ferstl <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Objet: Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi? Date: 20 mars 2025 à 00:47:11 UTC+1 À: Lyne Bansat-Boudon <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Répondre à: Madhav Deshpande <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Objet: Rép. : [INDOLOGY] dvandva → bahuvrīhi? Date: 19 mars 2025 à 22:40:27 UTC+1 À: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Indology Mailing List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Répondre à: Dominik Wujastyk <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Répondre à: Madhav Deshpande <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Répondre à: "Uskokov, Aleksandar" <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Indology Mailing List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Répondre à: Nataliya Yanchevskaya <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology ––––––––––––––––––– 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
