Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Pali] Compound question

Expand Messages
  • Alan McClure
    Hello Rett, So, just to clarify, I will give some example based on what I think that I understand: referent: Blessed One compounds: insightful mind tall man
    Message 1 of 31 , Sep 3, 2005
      Hello Rett,

      So, just to clarify, I will give some example based on what I think that I

      Blessed One

      insightful mind
      tall man
      heart of loving kindness
      person of wise action

      In these cases the first two compounds are constructed as kammadhaaraya and
      the second two constructed as tappurisa. However, when used in reference to
      "the Blessed One:"

      Blessed One insightful mind
      Blessed One tall man
      Blessed One heart of loving kindness
      Blessed One person of wise action

      We see that "insightful mind" is a bahubbiihi because the "Blessed One" is
      not an "insightful mind" but "has" one.
      though "tall man" is indeed a kammadhaaraya because he "is" one.

      Similarly, "heart of loving kindness" is a bahubbiihi, but "person of wise
      action" is a tappurisa.

      Am I on the right track here? It seems to me then that the deciding factor
      is whether the compound can be applied to the referent with "is" or rather
      it is implied that this is a quality of the person and in this case would
      have to take " have" for example.

      Hopefully what I've written above is correct. Your explanation helped
      greatly, and I thank you very much for your help.



      > Hi Alan,
      > Here's an attempt to answer your question about classifying compounds. If
      > anything isn't clear I don't mind expanding on it and as always I'm always
      > thankful if anyone points out my errors.
      > A very concise and clear source is the section on composition in Jan
      > Gonda's _A Concise Elementary Grammar of the Sanskrit Language_'. Even if
      > you've only studied Pali, it should be comprehensible (bahuvriihi =
      > bahubbiihi, tatpuru.sa = tappurisa etc)
      >>From what I currently understand, a tappurisa acts as a noun and a
      >>bahubbiihi as an adjective.
      > This isn't the key distinction to make. A tappurisa can function as both a
      > noun or an adjective, depending on whether the final member is a noun or
      > an adjective. "Mud-smeared" is an adjectival tappurisa "smeared _by_ mud".
      > It's the oblique case relation (in this case instrumental) between the
      > elements that makes it a tappurisa as opposed to a kammadhaaraya.
      > A bahubbiihi always ends with a noun, but the referent of the compound is
      > some other thing than that noun. If I say to someone 'hey big-nose!', I
      > actually mean 'hey person with a big nose'. If I say 'hey baby-face' I
      > mean 'hey person with the face of a baby'. The person is the referent, not
      > the nose or face, hence bahubbiihis are said to have exocentric reference.
      > Despite being formally nouns, they refer to and qualify something else.
      > This is why we could say that they act as adjectives. These examples are
      > borrowed with thanks from Mats L.
      > Hence a compound that internally is a tappurisa (baby-face) could function
      > as a bahubbihi in the context of its sentence. The same goes for a
      > kammadhaaraya (big-nose). It makes perfect sense, for example, to speak of
      > a bahubbiihi with the internal structure of a tappurisa or a
      > kammadhaaraya.
      > Yes it is, but as mentioned above, a tappurisa can be an adjective.
      > Precisely because the final member, pa.tipanno, functions adjectivally it
      > is not a bahubbiihi.
      > Another way to look at it is that you could use pa.tipanno as a standalone
      > adjective describing the monk. bhikkhu pa.tipanno. You can't do this with
      > bahubbiihis. Take the bahubbihi 'kuu.tadanta' 'crooked-tooth' as an
      > example.
      > Braahma.no kuu.tadanto. "The brahmin _has_ a crooked tooth" or "the
      > crooked toothed brahmin". This works.
      > Braahma.no danto. *"the brahmin has a tooth". Doesn't work. Instead it
      > just collapses into a nominal sentence "the brahmin _is_ a tooth". A noun
      > can only have exocentric reference as part of a compound.
      >>Thus, my gloss of the compound must be wrong.
      > Your gloss is correct as far as I can see, but you were thrown off by not
      > knowing that Tappurisas can be adjectives.
      > best regards,
      > /Rett
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Yong Peng, thank you, that is very clear. Nina.
      Message 31 of 31 , Sep 10, 2005
        Dear Yong Peng,
        thank you, that is very clear.
        op 10-09-2005 11:03 schreef Ong Yong Peng op yongpeng.ong@...:
        > according to Warder's, the Pali grammarians did not include
        > adjectives are part of speech. Rather, adjectives are treated as
        > nouns that can be declined in any gender. In other words, in Pali,
        > adjectives are simply nouns without a fixed gender.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.