Dear Renee,

I think that there is some confusion in the conversations that have
already occurred on this topic. Neither Rett, Dr. Pind, or myself has
ever said that the final member does not agree with the external
referent as does an adjective. In fact, that is one of the clear ways
one can tell it is a Bahubbiihi as opposed to a kammadhaaraya or a
tappurisa. What we said is that the final member, regardless of its
agreement with the external referent, must be a noun, or perhaps a
better term is "substantive." The substantive can be a noun or an
adjective which has a substantial function rather than simply qualifying
something, and Rett has given some examples of this in previous
messages. In any case, however, the final member agrees with the
external referent as would an adjective in gender, case, number. This
does not make it an adjective in the formal sense. English example:

Hey, big-nose Pete.

"Nose" is a substantive in a compound "big-nose" with external referent
"Pete." For it to be an adjective in a formal sense the sentence would
read: "Pete is big-nose."
This isn't right. It should be: "Pete has a big-nose." This correct
formulation shows that indeed the whole compound and the final member
are substantives.
It doesn't matter that the final member agrees with the referent as
would an adjective, it doesn't make it an adjective, but simply shows
its relationship so that the sentence may be understood. Otherwise we
would have no way of knowing that the two should be related as one
possessing the other.

Anyway, in his grammar, Whitney makes the comment a number of times that
the final member must be a noun. Two examples are:

1292: "compound having a noun as its final member very often wins
secondarily the value of an adjective"
1293: "Possessives are noun-compounds...which take on an adjective meaning."

The point is that the final member must have substance. It must be
something that can be grasped or be had. One must be able to possess
it. One cannot possess something that is not a substantive. Sure, the
compound, as Whitney says, "secondarily" has a kind of adjectival
function, but function does not remove the substantial meaning of the
final member. I think that perhaps this shows that we are all arguing
this issue from two different angles. We re saying that the final
member must be substantial, and you are looking at it from the angle of
its agreement which hints at its adjectival function. But we can't
forget that it is not an "adjective" in the normal sense and does not
function exactly as an adjective would. We can see that from the
example above. Adjectives do not normally have a possessive character
to them but are related via the verb "to be" or are set in apposition in
some Pali sentences. This is not the case with a Bahubbiihi which
agrees with an external referent "adjectivally," for the purpose of
showing possession, and for no other reason.

To recapitulate what I am rambling on about, the final member is a
substantive that agrees as would an adjective with the external
referent, this doesn't make it an adjective in the normal sense, it
simply is a grammatical peculiarity of Pali regarding a certain type of
compound so that the phrase can be properly understood. One can see it
as functioning adjectivally, but this is not completely correct, as it
is more correct to say that the compound is possessed by the external
noun. This is why Dr. Pind refers to a Bahubbiihi as a "possessive
compound."

Regarding Warder's examples of bahubbiihis, I wonder if he is correct.
None of the below seem to me to be Bahubbiihi compounds but rather
simple kammadhaaraya/tappurisa compounds related to the subject via the
verb "to be." Though, I have to admit, that I can't imagine Warder
would be so wrong about something like this, even if there are known to
be mistakes in his book. For this reason, I would like to hear the
feedback of the experts to either point out how these can be
bahubbiihis, or to clarify that, indeed, Warder is incorrect. Either
way, I will be happy to know and will accept that my understanding is
faulty if the below are indeed bahubbiihis.

duddasa dhamma: a doctrine hard to see (Warder/188)

sukata kamma: an action well done (Warder/188)

susannaddha bhaara: a load well tied up (Warder/188)

dhammaanudhammapa.tipanna bhikkhu: ‘a monk following the entire doctrine
(Warder/213)


Regarding Perniola's examples, they seem far more complicated to me, so I wouldn't dare to comment on them without spending a decent amount of time trying to understand them, and at present I don't have the time.

I look forward to seeing what discussion follows based on your post. Thank you for taking the time to look at Whitney's Grammar. I really am starting to feel as if we are not in total opposition on this subject but just standing in different places and perhaps using certain grammatical terminology in different ways. After all, debate of any type can be quite clumsy when the participants are using the same terminology in different ways. I have tried to be clear in my use of certain terms above, but I'm sure that it isn't crystal clear, so please excuse me for this.

Metta,

Alan





rsalm wrote:

>Dear group,
>
> I have read through Whitney’s chapter 18 of “A Sanskrit Grammar,” and
>it's becoming increasingly evident to me how untenable is the original
>thesis that “all bahubbiihi compounds must end in nouns.” Dr. Pind, Alan,
>and Rett have all recently taken a more moderate stance, either making way
>for exceptions (Ole), or accepting that the last member of a Bh is a noun or
>an adj. used as a noun” (Alan, Rett). However, now with the benefit of
>Whitney’s treatment, I am able to add a second line of argument. Up until
>now I have been reasoning from empirical data: the examples I came across in
>grammars simply did not all end with nouns. Whitney, however, shows that the
>last element in a Bh *can’t* function as a noun! If it is originally a noun,
>it must undergo changes in Sanskrit in order precisely to function as an
>adj. This is because the bahubbiihi cpd (“possessive” cpd for Whitney) MUST
>BE ADJECTIVAL-- after all, it qualifies the exoteric word. The rule to keep
>in mind is this: a compound takes its part of speech from the last element
>(Whitney paragraph 1247f, Warder 137). Therefore, because the compound in a
>Bh must function adjectivlly, then the last element must also be either an
>adjective or a noun functioning as an adj (not the reverse!). Whitney (W)
>spends many pages in his “A Sankrit Grammar” showing the changes that the
>noun must undergo (accent and ending), precisely so that they may be used
>adjectivally in a Bh. In fact, this is his main concern.
>
> I appreciate everyone’s willingness to change positions (as I’m also
>willing to change mine if the evidence presents). Believe me, I’m in no way
>putting myself up as anything but a beginniner in all this. I’ve got a lot
>to learn, and am now enjoying the process of doing so with you.
>
> Returning for a moment to the empirical argument, I accept Rett’s
>corrections to the list of adj-ending Bh’s, which I incorporate below. Two
>of the examples did not even have an exoteric element, so how they got on
>the list I don’t know. Also, I’ve removed any examples that are not
>certified by Warder or Perniola as Bh’s, and I provide page references. I’ve
>also removed certain examples (asama, mattaa) over which there are two
>possible interpretations. Finally, I’ve substituted new examples from the
>grammars to replace the ones removed. Here is a revised list of Bh’s ending
>with a non-noun:
>
>duddasa dhamma: a doctrine hard to see (Warder/188)
>
>sukata kamma: an action well done (Warder/188)
>
>susannaddha bhaara: a load well tied up (Warder/188)
>
>dhammaanudhammapa.tipanna bhikkhu: ‘a monk following the entire doctrine
>(Warder/213)
>
>manopubbangamaa dhammaa manosetthaa: ‘factors that have the mind as the
>first and as the best’ (Pern/170)
>
>anaasannavaraa etaa: ‘these are best when not near’ (Pern/170)
>
>yaanena itthiuuttena purisantarena: ‘on a cart drawn by two calves with a
>bull in between’ (Pern/172)
>
>aanando atta-dutiyo: Ananda with his self as second (Pern/170)
>
>dosantaro [manusso]: [a man] with hatred within (Pern/172)
>
>
>
>I don’t think anyone will venture to claim that all these past participles
>and adjectives are nouns or functioning “as” nouns!
>
>>From reading Whitney (W), it is clear that in Sanskrit an adjective can
>readily assume the posterior (final) position in bahuvriihi compounds, which
>W calls “possessive cpds.” This is evident from the description and examples
>he gives (see below).
>
>There are, however, a few idiosyncracies of W’s presentation. One is that
>he spends almost all of the chapter writing about noun-ending compounds. He
>devotes very little space to non-noun-enders. He does this for a good
>reason: W is most concerned with the various changes in accent and in ending
>that occur in Sanskrit when the noun compound is made adjectival, as is
>necessary to turn what he calls a determinative cpd (Kh, Tp) into a
>possessive (Bh). As I mentioned, a compound takes its part of speech from
>the posterior element. Adj-ending cpd’s already end in adj’s, so no accent
>change is required. Therefore, the great Sankritist devotes almost no time
>to this latter category.
>
> Nevertheless, W does give us the information necessary to form a clear and
>unambiguous conclusion about non-noun finals. I hunted here and there among
>the thirty pages for this information, which is parceled out among all the
>noun-final information. It is not of much interest to W, because he is
>concerned primarily with the changes necessary in noun-finals. However, the
>treatment of adj-finals is, of course, of primary interest to us in this
>discussion.
>
>Many on this list do not have a copy of Whitney nor access to one, so I’ll
>give a brief overview of how he sees cpds. His conception is not so
>dissimilar to what we know from Paali, but he uses a different terminology.
>W does not use the categories Kh and Tp (kammadhaaraya and tappurisa). He
>divides compounds into three types: (1) “copulative” (i.e. dvanda, which he
>considers connected by the conjunction ‘and’ or ‘or’); (2) “determinative
>compounds.” This class includes what Paali students know of as Kh and Tp.
>They are cpds “of which the former member is syntactically dependent on the
>latter, as its determining or qualifying adjunct” (1247d); and (3)
>“secondary adjective compounds,” whose largest category is “possessive
>compounds.” It is these possessive compounds that go by the term bahuvriihi
>(1293c).
>
>In his treatment of determinative cpds, W includes cpds that have both noun
>endings and non-noun endings. In paragaph 1247e he gives eight examples,
>five with noun and three with non-noun endings. I copy them here in the Skt,
>with W’s translations, and with my Paali category equivalents:
>
>
>
>NOUN-ending: (a) amitrasenaa, ‘army of enemies’ (gen. Tp); (b) paadodaka,
>‘water for the feet’ (dat Tp); (c) mahar.si, ‘great sage’ (Kh); (d)
>priyasakhi, ‘dear friend’ (Kh); (e) amitra, ‘enemy’ (Kh).
>
>NON-NOUN ending: (a) aayurdaa, ‘life-giving’ (acc Tp); (b) hastak.rta, ‘made
>with the hands’ (ins Tp); (c) suk.rta, ‘well done’ (Kh).
>
>
>
>Following his treatment of determinative cpds, W introduces the possessive
>cpds (Bh) with this important sentence (1293): “The possessives are
>noun-compounds of the preceding class, determinatives, of all its various
>subdivisions to which is given an adjective inflection and which take on an
>adjective meaning of a kind which is most conventiently and accurately
>defined by adding *having* or *possessing* to the meaning of the
>determinative.”
>
>The first part of the above sentence is the most important for our purposes.
>I now add emphasis, quotes, and explanation for clarity: “The possessives
>[i.e. Bh] are noun-compounds of the preceding class [that is, Kh and Tp],
>‘determinatives,’ *of all its various subdivisions*...” “All its various
>subdivisions,” means, of course, both noun and non-noun ending cpds, such as
>we find with Kh and Tp. We must always bear this rule carefully in mind.
>
>CONCLUSION: According to Whitney, bahubbiihis contain *all* the various
>kinds of Kh and Tp cpds-- his ‘determinative’ class, including both
>underlying noun-ending cpds *and* adj-ending cpds.
>
>This is the second argument that shows that in Sanskrit Bh compounds
>(“possessives”) can end in adjectives. The first argument (above) is that
>they MUST end in adjectives, or else in nouns now *functioning* as
>adjectives. This question must be considered settled, it seems to me.
>
>--------
>
>The remainder of this post has reference to certain sentences in W’s
>presentation which can admittedly mislead if one doesn’t keep the above
>‘Conclusion’ in mind, that is: Bh’s include both underlying noun-ending cpds
>*and* adj-ending cpds.
>
>For example, the important first sentence regarding W’s third class of cpds
>(which includes bahubbiihis) reads equivocally, even to an English-speaker,
>because of how it is worded. W writes (1247g):
>
>“Secondary adjective compounds, the value of which is not given by a simple
>resolution into their component parts, but which, though having as final
>member a noun, are themselves adjectives.” [This is not a complete sentence
>in the text.]
>
>Here, it indeed may appear that W is saying that “secondary adj. cpds” have
>“as final member a noun.” The crux lies in the words “though having.”
>‘Though’ is a subordinating conjunction in English, and it has three
>different meanings (I refer now to the New World Dict., College Ed., 1700
>pages): (1) “in spite of the fact that.” I.e.: “Secondary adj. cpds... in
>spite of the fact that they have as final member a noun, are themselves
>adjectives.” This is the erroneous reading and would mean that all 2ary adj
>cpds end with a noun. We know this is false, however, *because it is not
>consistent with the Conclusion above.*
>
> (2) The second meaning of “though” as ‘however’ also doesn’t work:
>“Secondary adj. cpds... which, however, have as final member a noun, are
>themselves adjectives.” This is also an erroneous reading, *because it is
>not consistent with the Conclusion above.*
>
> (3) The third meaning of “though” as ‘even if,’ ‘supposing that,’ does
>work: “Secondary adjective compounds, the value of which is not given by a
>simple resolution into their component parts, but which, even if having as
>final member a noun, are themselves adjectives.” This is the correct
>reading, *because it is consistent with the Conclusion above.*
>
>So this statement is not a proviso against adj-ending Bh’s, as it may at
>first seem.
>
>There are other places in the chapter which are also ambigious. The first
>sentence introducing 2ary adj. cpds in par. 1292, if read with an incorrect
>reference, also seems to demand that such a cpd must end in a noun (emphasis
>added):
>
>“Secondary adjective compounds. A compound *having a noun as its final
>member* very often wins secondarily the value of an adjective, being
>inflected in the three genders to agree with the noun which it qualifies,
>and used in all the constructions of an adjective.”
>
>This statement does not speak for all 2ary adj. cpds, as might appear at
>first. It only refers to those compounds that have “a noun as its final
>member.” This is only a portion of all possible cpds. It can be confusing
>largely because it comes immediately after the heading “Secondary adjective
>compounds.”
>
>Other examples in the same vein could be cited.
>
>-- Rene
>
>
>
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Paa.li-Parisaa - The Pali Collective
>[Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
>[Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
>[Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
>Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web only.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>