Dear Rett,

>>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.
>
> The thing is, as I see it, even if the final member were some kind of
> adjective (or past participle), it would be an adjective in a very
> different way than the way in which the entire bahubbiihi is an
> adjective. It's the entire bahubbiihi gets an -a ending and acts as
> an adjective modifying some other item. This may seem petty, but I
> believe it's actually an important difference.

Indeed. I was not attempting a formal definition of Bbs. When I said that
the "noun functions as an adjective", I meant that a noun as the final
element of the compound takes adjectival inflections -- it is, of course,
the whole compound that is adjectival. So, we are in not in disagreement.
I think waht also needs to be stressed is that a Bb compound can only be
definitively identified as such by its context. If quoted in its stem form,
a functioning Bb compound will normally be a Tp or a Kd. The difference
becomes apparent when vigraha (P: viggaha ?) of the compound in context is
applied, as was already pointed out some while ago.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge