From: Alan McClure
Message: 9271
Date: 2005-10-23
>Dear Rene,
>
>Any possessive compound qualifying a noun in any given case form is formally
>an adjective, and it therefore inflects like any given adjective,
>irrespective of whether the compound terminates in a noun.
>
>Ole Pind
>
>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>Fra: Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af rsalm
>Sendt: 22. oktober 2005 16:12
>Til: Pali@yahoogroups.com
>Emne: [Pali] Bahubbiihi cpds
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>