Dear Nina

I have promised to explain how to understand the concepts of compounds
using RG, quite a long ago. I have even uploaded my lecture notes to the
file area. However, I have failed to give my due explanations up to now.
I beg your pardon for it.

In fact, I have been very busy with my paper to be presented at the
conference of our institute. And I have missed posts on the Pali group.

Now my paper has been finished, and I am revising it to make it fit for
publication. But I have got some time to spare, which I have decided to
use for fulfilling my promise. I only hope it isn't too late.

If you have checked my notes, you would have found that different types
of compounds are given using math-like notations, and various relations
such as nominative relation, etc. These relations are in fact those of
RG; they have different names only because, in my scheme of teaching
Pali, compounds come before RG, making it not possible to use the terms
of RG.

Before analyzing a compound, we should try to get a clear view of:
a. the content of each member
b. the content of the whole compound and
c. the interrelationship of these entities.

I would try to explain it using an example. (As I have told you in a
previous post, we maintain there are no adjectives in Pali, so members
of compounds should be viewed as nouns or pronouns)

Ex. Chinnarukkho bhuumiya.m patati.

chinnarukkho ---> patati (ASV - Active Subject-Verb relation)
bhuumiya.m ---> patati (LOV - locus-verb relation)

The subject "chinnarukkho" is a compound, of which the members are
"chinna" and "rukkha". Now "chinna" is a past participle passive (root
"chid" + suffix "na"). If we take the passive sense of it, it may be
translated as "one which is/was/has been cut". On the other hand, the
other member "rukkha" means "tree".

If we assume that "chinna" and "rukkha" refer to the same entity (Yes,
we often have to use the trial-and-error method):

chinna ---> rukkha (Identity relation, i.e., IAD - Identical Adjective
relation)
chinnarukha (the whole) - "The tree which is cut", which actually refers
to the tree. So the whole compound can be identified with the latter
member in content.

If you check the notes again, you would find that it agrees with the
notation of Kammadharaya compound:

A(modifier) + A (substantive) ---> A (substantive)

So this is a kammadharaya compound, which takes on the content, gender
and number of rukkha, the latter member modified by the preceding one.

The whole sentence means, "The tree which has been cut down falls onto
the ground".

Now for another example:

Chinnarukkho puriso gaama.m gacchati.

chinnarukkho ---> puriso (IAD - Identical Adjective relation)
puriso ---> gacchati (ASV - Active Subject-Verb relation)
gaama.m ---> gacchati (IOV - Inactive Object-Verb relation)

Now the members "chinna" and "rukkha" can be viewed the same as above,
and their relationship is the same. However, the whole compound, being
an identical adjective of "puriso", refers to a man, not to a tree. Then
it should be of Bahubbiihi type.

A (modifier) + A (substanstive) ---> B

A (mod) ---> A (sub) (Identity relation, i.e., Identical Adjective relation)

In this case, chinna + rukkha ----> purisa
chinna ---> rukkha (Identity relation, i.e., Identical Adjective relation)

Now another relation to be considered is:

B ---> A (mod) OR A (Sub) (accusative relation, etc. --- to be
considered with RG)

In this case, it has two possiblities:

1. Since "chinna" is past participle, it can be used as a passive verb,
and "purisa" can be its subject. If "chinna" is a passive verb, its
subject should be inactive. Therefore:

purisa ---> chinna (instrumental relation, i.e., ISV - Inactive Subject
- Verb relation)

Then "chinnarukkha" should be translated as "The one by whom the tree
has been cut down" and the whole sentence would mean:

"The man by whom the tree has been cut down goes to the village"

2. Or purisa ---> rukkha (genitive relation, i.e., POS - possessor relation)
Then "chinnarukkha" should be translated as "The one whose tree has been
cut down" and the whole sentence would mean:

"The man whose tree has been cut down goes to the village"

Which interpretation is correct? The answer is that both are
grammatically valid, and only the context will decide on the correct
one. In fact, you would notice in the examples above that a single
compound is differently interpreted in different contexts. This is why I
have omitted Pali examples in my notes; I feel such instances might be
misleading. Pali compounds are part of syntax, they can't be interpreted
like their English counterparts, which are standalone words.


Now some late comments on the compound questions of Alan:

> Hello Nina,
>
> I have been thinking about this passage and wonder if I made a mistake with "cakkhusamphassa" by calling it kammadhaaraya. I think it should be a tappurisa and read "contact of the eye." Of course, I don't know if I am right.
>

Here "cakkhu" means the eye-sensitivity (cakkhupasaada), a type of
matter while "samphassa" is a synonym of contact (phassa), a mental
factor. The whole compound means contact that arises on the base of
eye-sensitivity.

If we agree on the interpretation above, this is a tappurisa compound,
for it tallies with the notation:

A + B ---> B (sense, gender, number; in this case, those of "samphassa")
A ---> B (In this case, locative relation, i.e., LOV - Locus-verb relation)

Of course, "samphassa" is not a verb. But I have mentioned in RG that
LOV relation is used also for non-verbal entities.

> cakkhu[n-u] eye
> aayatana.m [n-a/nom/sg] sense base
> Cakkhaayatana.m [?] the sense base of the eye
>

Here we shouldn't be misled by "of" in the English translation. "Cakkhu"
means the same as above while "aayatana" means sense-base, of which
there are twelve types including eye. So this is a Kammadharaya compound:

A(modifier) + A (substantive) ---> A (substantive)
A (modifier) ---> A (substantive) (Identity relation, i.e., Identical
Adjective relation)

In this case, "cakkhu" is a modifier of the substantive "aayatana" and
the whole compound should be literally translated, "the sense-base,
which is eye, i.e., the eye-base"

> cakkhu[n-u] eye
> vi~n~naa.na.m [n-a/nom/sg] consciousness
> cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m [?] the consciousness of the eye
>

This should be viewed as a Tappurisa compound, and the analysis is the
same as that of "cakkhusamphassa"

Any question is welcome if you are not still clear enough.

with metta

Ven. Pandita