> > 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
> > dvaara.m) as it should be? It seems like dvaaro acts like an
> > 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.