Dear Rene,

My responses are below.

rsalm wrote:

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

My apologies. I am human and made a mistake. I also didn't know that
you are French or 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]
>
>

Dr Pind did say:

"Bh compounds are generally noun compounds having a noun as their final

member with the addition of the idea of possessing."


However, it is true that he said this after my above comment. So, I
mistakenly attributed something to him before he said it. Maybe I was
reading into his words too much. I am certainly not psychic.

--------

>
>
>
>Rene: I have read your latest post, Alan, and your reasoning is getting
>farther and farther away from the issue, and stranger...
>
>

An opinion, and one that I obviously can't share since I wrote it. I
was attempting to find some common ground actually. I guess that I failed.

>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).
>
>

I can't do any of the above, because as I stated in my last message, I
don't see how this compound is a Bahubbiihi. It obviously does end in
an adjective, and I don't argue with that. I did state that I would be
happy to hear how this is a bahubbiihi when based on what I know, it
shouldn't be. In other words, I am open to explaination of what makes
this a bahubbiihi rather than simply a kammadhaaraya which would carry
over into correcting any false ideas I have concerning bahubbiihis.

>-- 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.
>
>

Well, it is true. This is why I asked the questions about the examples
of Warder in my last message; so I could understand what I don't yet
understand. If you are asking me to accept your position even though I
don't understand/agree with it, then that doesn't seem reasonable. I
have been trying to keep this conversation friendly, so I hope that we
can see eye to eye on at least civility.

I don't have any more to say until I hear from others because I have
expressed fully my understanding of this issue, and it is obviously
insufficient for dealing with some of the issues that you brought up in
your last post. I did note this fact too, and am noting it again.

With metta,

Alan

>
>