Alan: Yes, past participles are adjectives. I just noticed that Rett and Dr.
Pind have both responded to you explaining why Bahubbiihi compounds must
end with nouns, so I won't go any further as I'm sure that their
comments are clearer than anything that I could write. However, I am
very happy to continue discussing compounds as they are fascinating to
me, and I have much to learn still, so I will pay close attention to
this conversation as it continues.



R: I absolutely agree on the value of this conversation, and have learned so much in the last week that I am neglecting my Latin! I hope this discussion will continue to be conducted by all in a friendly and mutually-supportive way, one that benefits not only our own learning but also the spread of the dhamma.

The grammars contradict that a Bh must end with a noun. One class of compounds, namely the Kh with a noun and adjective “used as a noun” can be converted to Bh (Pern/170). “manopubba.ngamaa dhammaa” is an example of several that Perniola gives. The same construction is used in Kh’s that involve ordinal numbers, e.g., aanando atta-dutiyo, “Ananda with his self as second,” i.e. who relies on himself. In the same abstract vein, puriso ta.nhaa-dutiyo, “a man full of craving.” These ordinals numbers are adjectives. Perniola writes that the adjective ‘matta’ (“by measure, measured”) “is often used at the end of a bahubbiihi samaasa in the sense of ‘in the measure of, as much aas, as little as, merely, only.’” He gives several examples (171), including: maran.na-matta.m dukkha.m, “a pain as great as death.”

From Warder (138) come other examples of adjectives that end the Bh compound: dosantaro [manusso], “[a man] with hatred within”; asama [bhagavant], “unequalled [fortunate one].” Warder writes: “Compounds which formally resemble tappurisas, kammadhaarayas, or dvandas may be used as bahubbiihis….” This would presumably also include those compounds which are noun + adj., noun + adv., or even adv. + adj. I ventured an example of this last type in a prior post: ‘sammaapa.tipannaa ariyaa,’ “The noble ones who have rightly seen.”

Regarding order of the components, Warder continues that “In a two-member bahubbiihi the order of the members may be reversed (as compared with the strict order of the tappurisa).” By “strict order of the Tp” he writes in another place (108): “If a Tp were divided, the first member would show the case relation inherent in the compound, the second member the same case as the original compound, determined by its function in the sentence.” We note, again, that no law is laid down as to which element is a noun, adjective, etc., only which shows the internal case relation, and which shows the external case relation. As we have seen, in a Bh, the order of the internal elements may be reversed (but this is optional, of course).

Dr. Pind wrote: Bh cpd.s are possessive cpd.s i.e. they describe x as possessing y. Now buddhabhaasita does not, it simply denotes x as spoken by the Buddha. There is no notion of possession involved here.

R: This is exactly what I needed to read, and put me on the right track today in the sense of looking not at the formal aspect of the components, but at the possessive aspect of the overall construction. So, with this particular example, it is not a Bh because ‘dhammaa’ does not in any sense possess ‘buddhabhaasitaa.’ With a change, however, we can make it Bh: dhammaabhaasito buddho. Here, the Buddha ‘possesses’ (as it were) the dhamma that is spoken, i.e., "the Buddha [who] has spoken the doctrine." Please correct this if it is wrong.

I know a great deal more today than one week ago. My thank go to those who have participated in this discussion, and not least to Ong Peng for hosting this group which continues to be excellent .

Rene


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]