> 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 < [email protected]>: > 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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> Vous n’obtenez pas souvent d’e-mail à partir de [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]>: >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> ––––––––––––––––––– >> 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
