>Well, at least you recognize that the last element in a Bh can be an
>adjective. This is better than last week:

Hi Rene,

You continue to selectively quote my statement 'because they can't'.
For the record, the continuation of that post (17 October) goes like
this:

"Compounds ending in adjectives _like the examples you provide_ are not
exocentric. "(emphasis added)

It was with specific reference to your mistaken examples that I made
that admittedly overly sweeping statement. I was trying to point to
the difference between an adjectival tappurisa and a classic
bahubbiihi, a difference you did not grasp at that time.

Please examine the very first example you provided when you began
discussing this.

Rene wrote: Let's consider 'Buddhabhaasito.' Alone it is a Tp
(instr.) compound, "spoken by the Buddha." The posterior part is a
past participle (pp), 'bhaasito.' Perniola (110) writes that the pp
"is an adjective and is formed with the suffix -ta/-na added to the
root in its weak grade." So here we apparently have a noun + adj.:
'Buddhabhaasito.' Can we not turn this into a Bh compound as follows:
'Buddhabhaasitaa dhammaa'? = The dhammaa which have been spoken by
the Buddha, or (as a complete statement), "The dhammaa have been
spoken by the Buddha," i.e., "The Buddha has spoken the dhammaa."

What comment do you have today on this example (and the many others)?
Would you still consider it an example of a bahubbiihi? Or is your
understanding 'better than last week'?

I have since admitted bahubbiihis like hatthachinna and others, which
for various reasons can have adjectives as their last members. Thanks
for directing my attention to them.

best regards,

/Rett