Thank you all for your informative posts on compounds which have been very helpful to me, especially your last one, Alan. Rome wasn't built in a day, and I've learned a lot about compounds over this weekend and certainly have much more to learn.
If I understand correctly, this is how we are analyzing 'avijjuupanisaa sa'nkhaaraa.' I go step-by-step here because I'm pretty new to this, and also for the benefit of group members who may be learning about compounds for the first time. Of course, I ask for correction if any of this is wrong:
1. avijjaa and upanisaa are nouns, both feminine. The ending of the first word has been elided, as is normal in compounds, and it must be determined from the context if 'upanisaa' is either (a) nom. sg. fem; (b) nom. pl. fem.; or (c) nom. pl. masc. agreeing with sa'nkhaaraa (in a bahubbiihi).
2. The compound is a kammadhaaraya (Kd). A Kd requires that both components be in the same case and that one qualify the other. Both conditions are met here. The cpd. is nominative, and 'avijjaa' modifies 'upanisaa': to the question "What kind of cause?" the answer is, "The cause of ignorance." Though the Kd is sometimes referred to as an "adjectival compound" (Budh/2.40), it can be made up of two nouns, as we have here. Perniola (164) gives four kinds of such Kd. This kind would be a nominal Kd of "apposition."
3. In this case, the compound has been turned into an adjective and modifies 'sa'nkhaaraa.' This is what makes it a bahubbiihi (Bh). In a Bh, something essential for the meaning is found outside the compound itself. As Warder puts it (137), "The Bh class of compounds consists of those whose meanings are subordinate to the meanings of words other than the members of the compounds themselves." In this case, the relation between ignorance and cause is united only in the term 'sa'nkhaaraa.' It is sa'nkhaaraa which have ignorance as cause.
This furnishes the translation of the clause: "Thus, indeed, monks, [it is] sa'nkhaaraa [which have] ignorance as cause." Rett and Ole have both given us a shorter and smoother version: "Thus, indeed, monks, sa'nkhaaraa have ignorance as cause." The ending of upanisaa is (c) above, agreeing with sa'nkhaaraa (m. pl.)
---------
This makes sense and I accept it. The rest of this post is a discussion, somewhat academic and a bit involved.
One thing that I find interesting is that (at least on the face of it) Bh's are clauses, not complete statements. To give some examples (Pern/169): paapiccho bhikkhu = 'a monk who has evil desires'; tarunavacchaa gaavi = 'a cow that has a young calf'; antimasariiro puriso = 'a man that carries the last body.' These trnaslations (as given by Perniola) are not complete statements (sentences) but clauses. But this doesn't seem to bother him. He goes one step further and converts a clause into a complete statement (sentence) when the context demands. I notice this in his example that we discussed on an earlier thread (don't worry-I won't get into this one again): Perniola considers 'manopubba'ngamaa dhammaa manosetthaa' also as a Kd à Bd. He translates it literally: "factors that have the mind as the first and as the best." Again, this is not a complete thought, only a clause. But then Perniola immediately interprets it: "i.e., mind is the first and the best of all factors." This is a complete statement.
So, apparently, the translator of Bh's has two choices as determined by context. One is to treat the complex as a clause, e.g.: paapiccho bhikkhu adhaama.m deseti, "The monk who has evil desires preaches untruth." The other alternative is to treat it as a complete statement: bhikkhave, paapiccho bhikkhu vadaami, "monks, the monk has evil desires, I say." I wonder if this is correct.
----------
Perniola (169) writes that a tappurisa compound (Tp) can also be turned into a bahubbiihi. (In a Tp, the independent components of the compound are not in the same case.) He gives a couple of examples: (i) Gotamo samaggaaraamo (samagga, 'mutual accord') = 'Gotama whose delight is in mutual accord' (instr. Tp); (ii) a.t.thika-sa'nkhaalika.m sariira.m (a.t.thi, 'bone') = 'the body with its chain of bones' (gen. Tp). We notice here, as before, that these are not literally complete statements. From the discussion above, I presume that these compounds also can also be interpreted as complete statements, e.g.: Bhikkhave, Gotamo samaggaaraamo, "Monks, Gotama delights in mutual accord"; a.t.thika-sa'nkhaalika.m sariira.m, "The body is a chain of bones." I wonder also if this is correct.
-----------
We know that certain compounds can be interepreted in various ways. As I understand 'a.ngulimaala,' for example, this compound can function (a) as a dvanda: ("fingers + garland"); (b) as a Kd ("fingers-garland," answering the question "what kind of garland"); or (c) as a Bh (as the name of a particular person during the time of the Buddha). Context and terminations usually tell us which is meant. I suppose that if both Kd and Tp compounds can be interpreted as Bh and as complete statements, then some interesting grammatical intersections exist. But I haven't studied this enough to know.
---------
Just for fun, here are a few compounds from Ong Peng's post today for those who wish to quiz themselves (and who have read this far). My answers (one or more of which could be wrong) are below my name.
1) mahaapa~n~naa (f) great wisdom.
2) dhutavaada (m) one who inculcates ascetic practices
3) dibbacakkhuka (n) endowed with divine eyes
4) uccaakulika: uccaa kulika (adj) belong to a noble family
5) ma~njussara (adj) sweet voiced
6) siihanaadika (m) one who utters a lion's roar
7) dhammakathika (m) expounder of the teachings
8) mantaa.niputta (m) son of Mantani
Rene
1. Kh 2. Tp 3. Kh 4. Kh 5. Kh 6. Bh 7. Tp 8. Tp
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]