Stephen Hodge wrote:
1. Bbhs are NOT a type of compound per se, in the sense that tappurisas
and kammadhaarayas are. It is a secondary application of other compounds.
2. Bbhs are typically an adjectical use of Tps and Kds, exocentrically
referring to something outside of them, though that something need not be
expressed but instead implied.
3. The last member of the compound that is being used in a Bbh fashion
may already be an adjective, BUT if it is a noun, then that noun functions
as an adjective.
All pretty simple, n'est pas ?
Rene: Oui! This is absolutely correct. And it is empirically verifiable.
Note in point (2) that there is a category of Bh that does not have a stated
exoteric reference. In this case, the exoteric reference is implied or
understood and the Bh stands alone. E.g., angulimaala = the (understood)
person represented by the name “fingers-garland.”
However, it’s not all so simple. Unfortunately, we have non-grammatical
issues entering into the mix, namely, why there is intransigence in changing
a very misleading position that does not accord with the facts. This
discussion has gone on for two weeks now, and after all this, Alan is still
opposed to the above position, and his Compound Ref Sheet is still teaching
what is sure to confuse the heck out of any Paali student. The way it
presently stands, I hope no one reads his Sheet! I personally think it
should be taken off the web, or at minimum, the offending sentence(s)
regarding Bh deleted. I also urge that Ong Peng NOT include any links from
this list to the CR Sheet.
I don't have a vendetta against Alan, even though it may seem so. I am
merely trying to make sure that what is taught conforms to what is correct.
As a lover of the dhamma, I consider this my duty, even though I'm not
particularly advanced in Paali studies myself.
We’re not just talking about grammar here. We’re no longer talking only
about what’s right or wrong on a point of usage. We’re talking about
somebody who, by his own admission, says that his "understanding of this
issue... is obviously insufficient," and yet somebody who published a
Compound Reference Sheet. I ask: what business did Alan ever have publishing
this sheet? He’s a “newbie,” he says. Maybe a little more time and seasoning
is appropriate before he starts publishing material for other people…
The real problem, though, is something else. It’s intransigence.
Bullheadedness. ‘Thambha.’ (1) He has endured two weeks of stiff opposition
to his ideas. (2) He has been shown bahubbiihi compounds that do NOT end in
nouns. (3) He has been educated (as I have also) that Bh compounds CANNOT
function as nouns. (4) He has admitted that he does not understand these
compounds. So where do we stand today? Alan is STILL INSISTING on teaching
that all bahubbiihis must “end in a noun” or “must function as a noun”!
This is the real problem. Why this unusual obstinacy on Alan’s part exists,
I do not know. But I consider it irresponsible and a disservice to the
dhamma. His reading of Whitney may be different from mine, but the actual
evidence renders that of no consequence at all. The compounds themselves
show us that they can end in non-nouns, and the grammars show us that they
never function as nouns. So, as long as Alan insists on including erroneous
information in his CR Sheet, I don't think it should not be endorsed by
anybody. I am now starting also to wonder about Alan’s translations. If he’s
such a newbie, how can he already be translating reams of suttas with hardly
any error or question?