Hello Alan,

Please spell my name correctly. You read French, and I am a male.

> I think that there is some confusion in the conversations that have

already occurred on this topic.

Rene: Not only confusion, but also misinformation. Let’s review some of the
exchanges that have occurred:

------------

Alan: I just noticed that Rett and Dr. Pind have both responded to you
explaining why Bahubbiihi compounds must end with nouns, so I won't go any
further as I'm sure that their comments are clearer than anything that I
could write. [Dr. Pind never said anything of the sort—Rene]

----------

Rene: Why not just say that Bh compounds can also end with an adj.?
Rett: Because they can't.
----------

Rett: The solution is simply that adjectives very often function as nouns in
Skt/Pali.

--------


Rene: I have read your latest post, Alan, and your reasoning is getting
farther and farther away from the issue, and stranger... The example of
“big-nose Pete” is interesting, but I’m not concerned about proving that the
final element is an adjective “in a formal sense,” as you say. That never
occurred to me. What I’m demonstrating, which by now should be clear to
everyone including you, is that the last element in a Bh does not have to be
a noun, does not have to function as a noun, but *does* have to function as
an adjective. That's all I care about, and if you put that in your Compound
Ref Sheet, I would be happy.

Now, you say that the last element in a Bh has to “function as a noun”--
even if it’s not a noun (which, in my opinion, is backwards). OK… Let’s take
an example from the list of compounds in my last post: sukata kamma: 'an
action well done' (Warder/188). Show us please (1) how –kata either is a
noun or is functioning as a noun; (2) WHY it is functioning as a noun when
it should be functioning as an adjective; (3) HOW it can function “as a
noun” and yet the compound still be adjectival (remember: the compound
takes its function after that of the last element); and (4) why your
analysis is not in Warder, Perniola, and other grammar books (I exclude for
now your misreading of Whitney).

-- Rene

PS—I’d just like to remind you, Alan, of something you once wrote to the
list:

Alan: “If I am wrong, then I will accept it.”

Rene: I sincerely hope this is true, for your sake as well as ours.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan McClure" <alanmcclure3@...>
To: <Pali@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Pali] Bahubbiihi cpds


> Dear Renee,
>
> I think that there is some confusion in the conversations that have
> already occurred on this topic. Neither Rett, Dr. Pind, or myself has
> ever said that the final member does not agree with the external
> referent as does an adjective. In fact, that is one of the clear ways
> one can tell it is a Bahubbiihi as opposed to a kammadhaaraya or a
> tappurisa. What we said is that the final member, regardless of its
> agreement with the external referent, must be a noun, or perhaps a
> better term is "substantive." The substantive can be a noun or an
> adjective which has a substantial function rather than simply qualifying
> something, and Rett has given some examples of this in previous
> messages. In any case, however, the final member agrees with the
> external referent as would an adjective in gender, case, number. This
> does not make it an adjective in the formal sense. English example:
>
> Hey, big-nose Pete.
>
> "Nose" is a substantive in a compound "big-nose" with external referent
> "Pete." For it to be an adjective in a formal sense the sentence would
> read: "Pete is big-nose."
> This isn't right. It should be: "Pete has a big-nose." This correct
> formulation shows that indeed the whole compound and the final member
> are substantives.
> It doesn't matter that the final member agrees with the referent as
> would an adjective, it doesn't make it an adjective, but simply shows
> its relationship so that the sentence may be understood. Otherwise we
> would have no way of knowing that the two should be related as one
> possessing the other.
>
> Anyway, in his grammar, Whitney makes the comment a number of times that
> the final member must be a noun. Two examples are:
>
> 1292: "compound having a noun as its final member very often wins
> secondarily the value of an adjective"
> 1293: "Possessives are noun-compounds...which take on an adjective
> meaning."
>
> The point is that the final member must have substance. It must be
> something that can be grasped or be had. One must be able to possess
> it. One cannot possess something that is not a substantive. Sure, the
> compound, as Whitney says, "secondarily" has a kind of adjectival
> function, but function does not remove the substantial meaning of the
> final member. I think that perhaps this shows that we are all arguing
> this issue from two different angles. We re saying that the final
> member must be substantial, and you are looking at it from the angle of
> its agreement which hints at its adjectival function. But we can't
> forget that it is not an "adjective" in the normal sense and does not
> function exactly as an adjective would. We can see that from the
> example above. Adjectives do not normally have a possessive character
> to them but are related via the verb "to be" or are set in apposition in
> some Pali sentences. This is not the case with a Bahubbiihi which
> agrees with an external referent "adjectivally," for the purpose of
> showing possession, and for no other reason.
>
> To recapitulate what I am rambling on about, the final member is a
> substantive that agrees as would an adjective with the external
> referent, this doesn't make it an adjective in the normal sense, it
> simply is a grammatical peculiarity of Pali regarding a certain type of
> compound so that the phrase can be properly understood. One can see it
> as functioning adjectivally, but this is not completely correct, as it
> is more correct to say that the compound is possessed by the external
> noun. This is why Dr. Pind refers to a Bahubbiihi as a "possessive
> compound."
>
> Regarding Warder's examples of bahubbiihis, I wonder if he is correct.
> None of the below seem to me to be Bahubbiihi compounds but rather
> simple kammadhaaraya/tappurisa compounds related to the subject via the
> verb "to be." Though, I have to admit, that I can't imagine Warder
> would be so wrong about something like this, even if there are known to
> be mistakes in his book. For this reason, I would like to hear the
> feedback of the experts to either point out how these can be
> bahubbiihis, or to clarify that, indeed, Warder is incorrect. Either
> way, I will be happy to know and will accept that my understanding is
> faulty if the below are indeed bahubbiihis.
>
> duddasa dhamma: a doctrine hard to see (Warder/188)
>
> sukata kamma: an action well done (Warder/188)
>
> susannaddha bhaara: a load well tied up (Warder/188)
>
> dhammaanudhammapa.tipanna bhikkhu: ‘a monk following the entire doctrine
> (Warder/213)
>
>
> Regarding Perniola's examples, they seem far more complicated to me, so I
> wouldn't dare to comment on them without spending a decent amount of time
> trying to understand them, and at present I don't have the time.
>
> I look forward to seeing what discussion follows based on your post.
> Thank you for taking the time to look at Whitney's Grammar. I really am
> starting to feel as if we are not in total opposition on this subject but
> just standing in different places and perhaps using certain grammatical
> terminology in different ways. After all, debate of any type can be quite
> clumsy when the participants are using the same terminology in different
> ways. I have tried to be clear in my use of certain terms above, but I'm
> sure that it isn't crystal clear, so please excuse me for this.
>
> Metta,
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
> rsalm wrote:
>
>>Dear group,
>>
>> I have read through Whitney’s chapter 18 of “A Sanskrit Grammar,” and
>>it's becoming increasingly evident to me how untenable is the original
>>thesis that “all bahubbiihi compounds must end in nouns.” Dr. Pind, Alan,
>>and Rett have all recently taken a more moderate stance, either making way
>>for exceptions (Ole), or accepting that the last member of a Bh is a noun
>>or
>>an adj. used as a noun” (Alan, Rett). However, now with the benefit of
>>Whitney’s treatment, I am able to add a second line of argument. Up until
>>now I have been reasoning from empirical data: the examples I came across
>>in
>>grammars simply did not all end with nouns. Whitney, however, shows that
>>the
>>last element in a Bh *can’t* function as a noun! If it is originally a
>>noun,
>>it must undergo changes in Sanskrit in order precisely to function as an
>>adj. This is because the bahubbiihi cpd (“possessive” cpd for Whitney)
>>MUST
>>BE ADJECTIVAL-- after all, it qualifies the exoteric word. The rule to
>>keep
>>in mind is this: a compound takes its part of speech from the last element
>>(Whitney paragraph 1247f, Warder 137). Therefore, because the compound in
>>a
>>Bh must function adjectivlly, then the last element must also be either an
>>adjective or a noun functioning as an adj (not the reverse!). Whitney (W)
>>spends many pages in his “A Sankrit Grammar” showing the changes that the
>>noun must undergo (accent and ending), precisely so that they may be used
>>adjectivally in a Bh. In fact, this is his main concern.
>>
>> I appreciate everyone’s willingness to change positions (as I’m also
>>willing to change mine if the evidence presents). Believe me, I’m in no
>>way
>>putting myself up as anything but a beginniner in all this. I’ve got a lot
>>to learn, and am now enjoying the process of doing so with you.
>>
>> Returning for a moment to the empirical argument, I accept Rett’s
>>corrections to the list of adj-ending Bh’s, which I incorporate below. Two
>>of the examples did not even have an exoteric element, so how they got on
>>the list I don’t know. Also, I’ve removed any examples that are not
>>certified by Warder or Perniola as Bh’s, and I provide page references. I’ve
>>also removed certain examples (asama, mattaa) over which there are two
>>possible interpretations. Finally, I’ve substituted new examples from the
>>grammars to replace the ones removed. Here is a revised list of Bh’s
>>ending
>>with a non-noun:
>>
>>duddasa dhamma: a doctrine hard to see (Warder/188)
>>
>>sukata kamma: an action well done (Warder/188)
>>
>>susannaddha bhaara: a load well tied up (Warder/188)
>>
>>dhammaanudhammapa.tipanna bhikkhu: ‘a monk following the entire doctrine
>>(Warder/213)
>>
>>manopubbangamaa dhammaa manosetthaa: ‘factors that have the mind as the
>>first and as the best’ (Pern/170)
>>
>>anaasannavaraa etaa: ‘these are best when not near’ (Pern/170)
>>
>>yaanena itthiuuttena purisantarena: ‘on a cart drawn by two calves with a
>>bull in between’ (Pern/172)
>>
>>aanando atta-dutiyo: Ananda with his self as second (Pern/170)
>>
>>dosantaro [manusso]: [a man] with hatred within (Pern/172)
>>
>>
>>
>>I don’t think anyone will venture to claim that all these past participles
>>and adjectives are nouns or functioning “as” nouns!
>>
>>>From reading Whitney (W), it is clear that in Sanskrit an adjective can
>>readily assume the posterior (final) position in bahuvriihi compounds,
>>which
>>W calls “possessive cpds.” This is evident from the description and
>>examples
>>he gives (see below).
>>
>>There are, however, a few idiosyncracies of W’s presentation. One is that
>>he spends almost all of the chapter writing about noun-ending compounds.
>>He
>>devotes very little space to non-noun-enders. He does this for a good
>>reason: W is most concerned with the various changes in accent and in
>>ending
>>that occur in Sanskrit when the noun compound is made adjectival, as is
>>necessary to turn what he calls a determinative cpd (Kh, Tp) into a
>>possessive (Bh). As I mentioned, a compound takes its part of speech from
>>the posterior element. Adj-ending cpd’s already end in adj’s, so no accent
>>change is required. Therefore, the great Sankritist devotes almost no time
>>to this latter category.
>>
>> Nevertheless, W does give us the information necessary to form a clear
>> and
>>unambiguous conclusion about non-noun finals. I hunted here and there
>>among
>>the thirty pages for this information, which is parceled out among all the
>>noun-final information. It is not of much interest to W, because he is
>>concerned primarily with the changes necessary in noun-finals. However,
>>the
>>treatment of adj-finals is, of course, of primary interest to us in this
>>discussion.
>>
>>Many on this list do not have a copy of Whitney nor access to one, so I’ll
>>give a brief overview of how he sees cpds. His conception is not so
>>dissimilar to what we know from Paali, but he uses a different
>>terminology.
>>W does not use the categories Kh and Tp (kammadhaaraya and tappurisa). He
>>divides compounds into three types: (1) “copulative” (i.e. dvanda, which
>>he
>>considers connected by the conjunction ‘and’ or ‘or’); (2) “determinative
>>compounds.” This class includes what Paali students know of as Kh and Tp.
>>They are cpds “of which the former member is syntactically dependent on
>>the
>>latter, as its determining or qualifying adjunct” (1247d); and (3)
>>“secondary adjective compounds,” whose largest category is “possessive
>>compounds.” It is these possessive compounds that go by the term
>>bahuvriihi
>>(1293c).
>>
>>In his treatment of determinative cpds, W includes cpds that have both
>>noun
>>endings and non-noun endings. In paragaph 1247e he gives eight examples,
>>five with noun and three with non-noun endings. I copy them here in the
>>Skt,
>>with W’s translations, and with my Paali category equivalents:
>>
>>
>>
>>NOUN-ending: (a) amitrasenaa, ‘army of enemies’ (gen. Tp); (b) paadodaka,
>>‘water for the feet’ (dat Tp); (c) mahar.si, ‘great sage’ (Kh); (d)
>>priyasakhi, ‘dear friend’ (Kh); (e) amitra, ‘enemy’ (Kh).
>>
>>NON-NOUN ending: (a) aayurdaa, ‘life-giving’ (acc Tp); (b) hastak.rta,
>>‘made
>>with the hands’ (ins Tp); (c) suk.rta, ‘well done’ (Kh).
>>
>>
>>
>>Following his treatment of determinative cpds, W introduces the possessive
>>cpds (Bh) with this important sentence (1293): “The possessives are
>>noun-compounds of the preceding class, determinatives, of all its various
>>subdivisions to which is given an adjective inflection and which take on
>>an
>>adjective meaning of a kind which is most conventiently and accurately
>>defined by adding *having* or *possessing* to the meaning of the
>>determinative.”
>>
>>The first part of the above sentence is the most important for our
>>purposes.
>>I now add emphasis, quotes, and explanation for clarity: “The possessives
>>[i.e. Bh] are noun-compounds of the preceding class [that is, Kh and Tp],
>>‘determinatives,’ *of all its various subdivisions*...” “All its various
>>subdivisions,” means, of course, both noun and non-noun ending cpds, such
>>as
>>we find with Kh and Tp. We must always bear this rule carefully in mind.
>>
>>CONCLUSION: According to Whitney, bahubbiihis contain *all* the various
>>kinds of Kh and Tp cpds-- his ‘determinative’ class, including both
>>underlying noun-ending cpds *and* adj-ending cpds.
>>
>>This is the second argument that shows that in Sanskrit Bh compounds
>>(“possessives”) can end in adjectives. The first argument (above) is that
>>they MUST end in adjectives, or else in nouns now *functioning* as
>>adjectives. This question must be considered settled, it seems to me.
>>
>>--------
>>
>>The remainder of this post has reference to certain sentences in W’s
>>presentation which can admittedly mislead if one doesn’t keep the above
>>‘Conclusion’ in mind, that is: Bh’s include both underlying noun-ending
>>cpds
>>*and* adj-ending cpds.
>>
>>For example, the important first sentence regarding W’s third class of
>>cpds
>>(which includes bahubbiihis) reads equivocally, even to an
>>English-speaker,
>>because of how it is worded. W writes (1247g):
>>
>>“Secondary adjective compounds, the value of which is not given by a
>>simple
>>resolution into their component parts, but which, though having as final
>>member a noun, are themselves adjectives.” [This is not a complete
>>sentence
>>in the text.]
>>
>>Here, it indeed may appear that W is saying that “secondary adj. cpds”
>>have
>>“as final member a noun.” The crux lies in the words “though having.”
>>‘Though’ is a subordinating conjunction in English, and it has three
>>different meanings (I refer now to the New World Dict., College Ed., 1700
>>pages): (1) “in spite of the fact that.” I.e.: “Secondary adj. cpds... in
>>spite of the fact that they have as final member a noun, are themselves
>>adjectives.” This is the erroneous reading and would mean that all 2ary
>>adj
>>cpds end with a noun. We know this is false, however, *because it is not
>>consistent with the Conclusion above.*
>>
>> (2) The second meaning of “though” as ‘however’ also doesn’t work:
>>“Secondary adj. cpds... which, however, have as final member a noun, are
>>themselves adjectives.” This is also an erroneous reading, *because it is
>>not consistent with the Conclusion above.*
>>
>> (3) The third meaning of “though” as ‘even if,’ ‘supposing that,’ does
>>work: “Secondary adjective compounds, the value of which is not given by a
>>simple resolution into their component parts, but which, even if having as
>>final member a noun, are themselves adjectives.” This is the correct
>>reading, *because it is consistent with the Conclusion above.*
>>
>>So this statement is not a proviso against adj-ending Bh’s, as it may at
>>first seem.
>>
>>There are other places in the chapter which are also ambigious. The first
>>sentence introducing 2ary adj. cpds in par. 1292, if read with an
>>incorrect
>>reference, also seems to demand that such a cpd must end in a noun
>>(emphasis
>>added):
>>
>>“Secondary adjective compounds. A compound *having a noun as its final
>>member* very often wins secondarily the value of an adjective, being
>>inflected in the three genders to agree with the noun which it qualifies,
>>and used in all the constructions of an adjective.”
>>
>>This statement does not speak for all 2ary adj. cpds, as might appear at
>>first. It only refers to those compounds that have “a noun as its final
>>member.” This is only a portion of all possible cpds. It can be confusing
>>largely because it comes immediately after the heading “Secondary
>>adjective
>>compounds.”
>>
>>Other examples in the same vein could be cited.
>>
>>-- Rene
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>Paa.li-Parisaa - The Pali Collective
>>[Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
>>[Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
>>[Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
>>Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or
>>web only.
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Paa.li-Parisaa - The Pali Collective
> [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
> [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
> [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or
> web only.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>