Thank you for your post, which I have found informative as usual. I looked over your "Compound Reference Sheet" and wish you to congratulate you on your energy and work.
There is a point on which I require some clarity. You write, “Bahubbiihi compounds are adjectival compounds whose posterior words are always nouns.” I wonder if this statement isn’t a little too categorical. In another place you similarly write that a Bh is a compound “which would function adjectivally but end with a noun.” Let’s consider ‘Buddhabhaasito.’ Alone it is a Tp (instr.) compound, “spoken by the Buddha.” The posterior part is a past participle (pp), ‘bhaasito.’ Perniola (110) writes that the pp “is an adjective and is formed with the suffix –ta/-na added to the root in its weak grade.” So here we apparently have a noun + adj.: ‘Buddhabhaasito.’ Can we not turn this into a Bh compound as follows: ‘Buddhabhaasitaa dhammaa’? = The dhammaa which have been spoken by the Buddha, or (as a complete statement), “The dhammaa have been spoken by the Buddha,” i.e., “The Buddha has spoken the dhammaa.”
Perhaps grammarians assert that the pp is functioning as a noun in these cases. I have no problem with this, but wonder why even bother with the rule in that case. Why not just say that Bh compounds can also end with an adj.? After all, they function as adjectives.
It seems we can do the same thing with other compounds: rukkhapatitaa [kumaraa]; buddhadeyyaa [dhammaa]; ara~n~navaasaa bhikkhuu {or: ara~n~navaasuu bhikkhuu?!}, etc. Are all of these bahubbiihis? Are they even correct Paali?
Going a little further, I am wondering if a compound with no literal noun can be construed as a noun for this purpose. E.g. sammaapa.tipanna: ‘rightly disposed, rightly seen (as in right view).’ Here we have an adv. (samma) and a pp. So, is it grammatically correct Paali to write: “sammaapa.tipannaa nibbana.m labhanti”? I.e., “The rightly-seeing [i.e. persons] attain nibbana.” Again, can the compound be made into a Bh? ‘Sammaapa.tipannaa ariyaa’ = (?) “The noble ones [are those] who have rightly seen.”
Paali appears to be a very flexible language. Warder (78) writes that “Compounds are very freely formed in Pali,” and on the same page that “the whole compound functions grammatically as a noun,” referring here to tappurisas. But in a bahubbiihi, we see that the compound (sometimes a Tp) functions as an adjective. In many (most?) languages adjective can function as nouns, depending on context. English: “The swift man wins the prize” (adj.), “The swift win the prize” (noun). I’m beginning to think that Paali is even more flexible.
By the way, at the end of my last post, for some unknown reason I typed “Kh” for kammadhaaraya instead of the abbreviation “Kd,” as I use elsewhere. Also, I would like to reconsider compound # 6) siihanaadika (m) ‘one who utters a lion's roar.’ I think this is a tricky one. The ‘naadika’ is a person, “one who thunders, utters a loud sound.” We can ask: “What kind of naadika is he?” The answer is, “like a lion.” So on reconsideration this appears to be a Kd. of comparison (Pern/164, Alan’s Kd category #4). If the “-ka” were lacking at the end, then this compound would indeed be a Bh, it seems to me. In the latter case, the person (pi.n.dolabhaaradvaajo) would be compared to the roar of a lion. More appropriately, his speech might be so compared, e.g., “Siihanaadi bhaasita.m pi.n.dolabhaaradvaajassa,” i.e., “The speech of P. is like the roar of a lion.” Please correct me if any of this is wrong.-- Rene
Rene: Please let me know how you find this "Compound Reference Sheet,"
if you have the time to look at it, and I'll do some updating on it
today to incorporate this latest discussion.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]