Re: Compound question

Hello Rett,

So, just to clarify, I will give some example based on what I think that I
understand:

referent:
Blessed One

compounds:
insightful mind
tall man
heart of loving kindness
person of wise action

In these cases the first two compounds are constructed as kammadhaaraya and
the second two constructed as tappurisa. However, when used in reference to
"the Blessed One:"

Blessed One insightful mind
Blessed One tall man
Blessed One heart of loving kindness
Blessed One person of wise action

We see that "insightful mind" is a bahubbiihi because the "Blessed One" is
not an "insightful mind" but "has" one.
though "tall man" is indeed a kammadhaaraya because he "is" one.

Similarly, "heart of loving kindness" is a bahubbiihi, but "person of wise
action" is a tappurisa.

Am I on the right track here? It seems to me then that the deciding factor
is whether the compound can be applied to the referent with "is" or rather
it is implied that this is a quality of the person and in this case would
have to take " have" for example.

Hopefully what I've written above is correct. Your explanation helped
greatly, and I thank you very much for your help.

Metta,

Alan

> Hi Alan,
>
> Here's an attempt to answer your question about classifying compounds. If
> anything isn't clear I don't mind expanding on it and as always I'm always
> thankful if anyone points out my errors.
>
> A very concise and clear source is the section on composition in Jan
> Gonda's _A Concise Elementary Grammar of the Sanskrit Language_'. Even if
> you've only studied Pali, it should be comprehensible (bahuvriihi =
> bahubbiihi, tatpuru.sa = tappurisa etc)
>
>>
>>
>>From what I currently understand, a tappurisa acts as a noun and a
>>bahubbiihi as an adjective.
>
> This isn't the key distinction to make. A tappurisa can function as both a
> noun or an adjective, depending on whether the final member is a noun or
> an adjective. "Mud-smeared" is an adjectival tappurisa "smeared _by_ mud".
> It's the oblique case relation (in this case instrumental) between the
> elements that makes it a tappurisa as opposed to a kammadhaaraya.
>
> A bahubbiihi always ends with a noun, but the referent of the compound is
> some other thing than that noun. If I say to someone 'hey big-nose!', I
> actually mean 'hey person with a big nose'. If I say 'hey baby-face' I
> mean 'hey person with the face of a baby'. The person is the referent, not
> the nose or face, hence bahubbiihis are said to have exocentric reference.
> Despite being formally nouns, they refer to and qualify something else.
> This is why we could say that they act as adjectives. These examples are
> borrowed with thanks from Mats L.
>
> Hence a compound that internally is a tappurisa (baby-face) could function
> as a bahubbihi in the context of its sentence. The same goes for a
> kammadhaaraya (big-nose). It makes perfect sense, for example, to speak of
> a bahubbiihi with the internal structure of a tappurisa or a
> kammadhaaraya.
>
> Yes it is, but as mentioned above, a tappurisa can be an adjective.
> Precisely because the final member, pa.tipanno, functions adjectivally it
> is not a bahubbiihi.
>
> Another way to look at it is that you could use pa.tipanno as a standalone
> adjective describing the monk. bhikkhu pa.tipanno. You can't do this with
> bahubbiihis. Take the bahubbihi 'kuu.tadanta' 'crooked-tooth' as an
> example.
>
> Braahma.no kuu.tadanto. "The brahmin _has_ a crooked tooth" or "the
> crooked toothed brahmin". This works.
>
> Braahma.no danto. *"the brahmin has a tooth". Doesn't work. Instead it
> just collapses into a nominal sentence "the brahmin _is_ a tooth". A noun
> can only have exocentric reference as part of a compound.
>
>>Thus, my gloss of the compound must be wrong.
>
> Your gloss is correct as far as I can see, but you were thrown off by not
> knowing that Tappurisas can be adjectives.
>
> best regards,
>
> /Rett
>