Dear Stephen, Alan and friends,

thanks again.

I agree with what you say about Bahubbiihi, that context is
important. And a better way is describe a Bahubbiihi compound is "if
the words are translated literally, they are out of context!". Under
such a situation, the compound (which may otherwise be resolved
literally as a Tappurisa or Kammadhaaraya) is a Bahubbiihi.

However, I have a question about your point on compound resolution.
Is it a rule? Are there any exceptions? How about this:

lokahitabuddhadhammo = Buddha's doctrine beneficial to the world

here it is ((A+B)+(C+D)), i.e. lokahito + buddhadhammo

Also, how do we resolve cakkhusamphassajaa

I take it as cakkhusamphassaa + jaa, i.e. ((A+B)+C).

Please advise. Thank you.


metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Hodge wrote:

I am not sure if Rett has made this clear, but it helps to remember
that bahubbiihis are not primary compounds (= a method of
compounding), since in isolation they are identical to kammadhaarayas
or tappurisas (mainly the former), but become bahubbiihis according
to the context -- when they are used as adjectives. Context is
everything ! It is also useful to note that bahubbiihis are more
likely to be derived from kammadhaarayas than tappurisas.

The other important thing to note is that one resolves compounds from
the last member, working forward one item at a time: A + B + C + D
should be read as C + D, then B + (C + D) and then A + (B + C + D).
That is, at each stage, a compound can only consist of two members.