Dear Mahinda,

Thanks for your explanation. I always tend to forget about the
bahubbiihi samaasa, especially when the meanings are similar! So the
correct translation for sentence 7 would be:

7."Atha kho Amba.t.tho maa.navo yena so vihaaro sa.mvuta-dvaaro tena
appasaddo upasa'nkamitvaa ataramaano aalinda.m pavisitvaa ukkaasitvaa
aggala.m aako.tesi. Vivari Bhagavaa dvaara.m." Ibid. i, 89.
[Diighanikaayo, Siilakkhandhavaggapaa.li, 3. Amba.t.thasutta.m,
Amba.t.thamaa.navo]
then / Amba.t.tho / young man / where / the / dwelling / closed door /
there / with little noise / approached / unhurried / terrace / entered
/ having coughed / latch / knocked upon / opened / Buddha / door
Then the young man Ambattha approached with little noise the dwelling
whose door is closed, unhurried entered the terrace, coughed and
knockedon the latch. The Buddha opened the door.

Kind regards,

florent

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "mahipaliha" <mahipal6@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Florent,
>
> > > Sentence 7:
> > > I though dvaara was neuter. Why do we have "vihaaro
> > sa.mvutadvaaro" in
> > > the masculine and then dvaara.m in the neuter gender vivari
> > Bhagavaa
> > > dvaara.m) as it should be? It seems like dvaaro acts like an
> > adjective
> > > to vihaaro.
>
> It does indeed. As a bahubbiihi samaasa, it functions adjectivally and
> agrees with vihaaro in number, gender and case, regardless of its own
> formal gender, which as you say is neuter. There is no earthly reason
> why vihaara should be masculine and dvaara neuter, but that is how it
> is. Quirks of grammar and usage!
>
> >Why couldn't we have something like "vihaarassa
> > > sa.mvutadvaara.m"?
>
> It would be possible,and would mean "the closed door of the vihaara".
> The samaasa would be a kammadhaaraya with vihaara- as the principal
> word.There will be no question of agreement with vihaara.
> The 2 constructions mean (1) the vihaara whose door was closed (2) the
> closed door of the vihaara.
>
> Mahinda Palihawadana
>
> >
>