Dear Mahinda,

> There are three cpds. (1) a Tappurisa <pamaada+.thaana.m> Would be
> analysed as pamaadassa .thaan.m. (2) This 2 word cpd then becomes
> the 1st member of a larger cpd <juuta-ppamaada-.t.thaana.m> a

Shouldn't "the 1st member" read "the 2nd member"?

> Kammadhaaraya analysable as juutam'eva pamaada.t.thaana.m. (3) This
> 3 word cpd then becomes the 1st member of a still larger cpd <juuta-
> ppamaada-.t.thaanaanuyoga.m> a Tappurisa analysable as
> juutappamaada.t.thaane (or, less plausibly, -.thaanassa)
> anuyoga.m.

Although the a.t.thakathaa on DN 31 doesn't comment
on "juutappamaada.t.thaanaanuyoge", it does, however, comment
on "suraamerayamajjappamaada.t.thaanaanuyoge" as follows (in
part): "pamaada.t.thaananti pamaadakaara.na.m. . . anuyogoti tassa
suraa-merayamajjappamaada.t.thaanassa anu-anuyogo punappuna.m
kara.na.m." --- Sv III 944 (PTS). I think this is applicable to our
compound on gambling. "juutappamaada.t.thaa.na.m" occurs at D I 7 and
Sv I 65 comments on it as follows: "pamaado ettha ti.t.thatiiti
pamaada.t.thaana.m. juuta~nca ta.m pamaada.t.thaana~ncaati
juutappamaada.t.thaana.m." which makes it a kammadhaaraya compound.

These old commentaries are very helpful in analysing compounds.

Best wishes,
Jim