Hi Alan and group,

>
>
>Do you happen to know if this type of 'syntactical compound,' with an
>absolutive as the first member, has a particular designation in the
>"Saddaniiti," or is it subsumed under another more common type of
>compound such as the "kammadhaaraya" in that work?
>

My best guess is that it would be considered a tappurisa of a sort called 'nicca' (unanalysable). However it's obviously not a 'classic tappurisa' (suddhatappurisa) where the first member stand in an oblique case relation to the latter member when analysed.

As far as I can see, Aggava.msa (author of Saddaniiti) doesn't really take a clear stand on this point. In Paa.nini, tatpuru.sa has the more general sense 'determinative compound' in addition to the more restricted sense of a compound where the first element stands in an oblique case relation to the second when resolved (the latter being the one we are most familiar with). In this system, pa.ticcasamuppaada can belong to a class of irregular determinative (tatpuru.sa) cpds called mayuuravy.amsaka-s. Some examples of the latter (ashtadhyayi II.1.72) are pitvaasthiraka and nipatyarohi.nii. (having drunk, steady? I.e. able to hold his drink? Or strong after drinking?) and (having fallen, stood up? Standing up after falling down?).

So far, however, I haven't seen this more general sense of tappurisa explicitly stated in Aggava.msa. He goes straight to defining tappurisa as a compund with an oblique (from accusative onwards, lit. amaadayo, having the (ending -am and so forth) relation between the words.

My assumption (from Kahrs) is that Aggava.msa has borrowed material from mainstream Sanskrit grammar without always maintaining its structural integrity or systematic function in its context. Aggava.msa was more of a compiler than a systematizer or synthesizer.

The main place where Aggava.msa mentions the cpd pa.ticcasamuppada (and the similar upaadaayaruupa.m/upaadaaruupa.m) is in sutta 683 of the suttamaalaa, where he states that compounds beginning with an absolutive are "niccasamaasa". This is a type of compound (samaasa) which is always (nicca.m) a compound. The point is that you can't resolve the compound into its component parts. (at least not using only the words in the compound). (in Sanskrit: nityasamaasa)

As Ole pointed out, the analysis of pa.ticcasamuppaada would require another word , for example "hetu.m paticca samuppada". Aggava.msa illustrates the same idea in this way: a~n~nama~n~na.m pa.ticca sahite dhamme uppaadetii ti pa.ticcasamuppaado. "Mutually depending on connected things it arises" = dependent origination.

Another sort of compound which is considered 'nicca' is what is called an upapadasamaasa "prefix (upapada) compound". In Pa.nini this is specifically a compound where a word is prefixed to a verbal root, and the root becomes an action noun through addition of a suffix, but where that action noun could not exist apart from the prefix. Ex: kumbhakaaro: jar maker, potter.

This upapadasamaasa, which is nicca, is included in the discussion of tappurisas, not surprisingly since the is an accusative relation between 'making' and the thing made (the kumbha).

Since this latter 'niccasamaasa' is taken as an example of a tappurisa, I would be inclined to take cpds whose first member is an absolutive also as such, though again, in the wider sense of tappurisa. However I haven't found clear support in Saddaniiti for doing so.

It's possible that Aggava.msa discusses this somewhere and I just haven't found it yet.

I would appreciate it very much if anyone can point out mistakes. This is just a preliminary look at the question.

best regards,

/Rett