-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af rsalm
Sendt: 17. oktober 2005 20:54
Til: Pali@yahoogroups.com
Emne: [Pali] Compounds

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.”

I think there is some confusion here. Bh cpd.s are possessive cpd.s i.e.
they describe x as possessing y. Now buddhabhaasita does not, it simply
denotes x as spoken by the Buddha. There is no notion of possession involved
here.

Ole Pind

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.