Hi Stephen,

>
>
>> Rene: Why not just say that Bh compounds can also end with an adj.?
>> Rett: Because they can't.
>
>I have a problem with the reply attributed to Rett -- though I am not sure
>if this is ipsissima verba, but that statement is clearly wrong. Bbs are
>merely an exocentric use of Tps and Kdhs -- that is, Bbs are not actually a
>new, seperate compound class, but chiefly derived from Tps and Kdhs (NB:
>mainly from Kdhs in Skt, probably the same in Pali). Therefore, IF Kds in
>particular can end in an adjective (as they indeed do), then so can Bbs !
>Why is this all proving so difficult to understand ?
>
>As far as I can see, Rene is correct.

I'm not maintaining that position now, and I am now convinced that
there are many more bahubbiihis than the classic type (mahaaseno).
That response came up at a time when Rene was posting numerous
examples that were supposed to be bahubbiihis but actually weren't,
not by a longshot. MAny of these ended in adjectives, and from the
(minimal) context provided they seemed to be directly coordinated
with the things they were describing. He didn't seem to have a handle
on the 'classical' bahubbiihi yet.

Let me give a very concrete example, among many. I'm very interested
in seeing whether this passes muster.

rukkhapatitaa kumaaraa

Reading this as: boys fallen from a tree. Not a bahubbiihi because
you can break it up into: rukkhato patitaa kumaaraa. It's a
straightforward adjectival tappurisa.

This example was given as 'proof' that bahubbiihis can end in past
participles. This is the sort of example that led me to mistakenly
say you can't 'put adjectives at the end of bahubbiihis' and it was
this sort of final adjective use that I was referring to.

Now, as you say, non-bahubbiihis can be put into a context where they
would be a bahubbiihi. Here you'd need to postulate some unspecified
objects that have fallen from trees that the boys possess. Apples?
Then it would mean: The boys have tree-fallen (apples). This seems
strained, but I suppose it would be possible.

No context was given, but on the surface of it, I thought
"rukkhapatitaa kumaaraa" didn't appear to be be a bahubbiihi and
thought Rene didn't see the difference between the two ways a final
adjective can work: the straightforward way, and the way they
function in bahubbiihis. Does this make any sense? Or am I completely
missing the function of rukkhapatita?

best regards,

/Rett

>Best wishes,
>Stephen Hodge
>
>
>
>
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>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
>
>
>
>