Talk:Dvandva

Proposed merge

I think I probably oppose the merger into Sanskrit compounds, although I'm not sure and also point out the possibility of merging into Compound (linguistics). The concept seems to apply beyond just sanskrit, even if the term is most commonly used for sanskrit. The assertion that it isn't in English dictionaries has a few counterexamples: Encarta and infoplease, giving English examples like bittersweet and push-pull. Kingdon (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose with the same arguments. Removed merge template. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this article while doing research for my exams and I found the term is used quite frequently for English compounds as well...I think it would be nice to include this fact in the article. I found it in Bubenik,Vit (2003). An Indroduction to the Study of Morphology on page 176. Just as an example... Bromatom (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Compounds connected by 'or'?

Does dvandva refer to words that can be connected by the word 'or' (instead of 'and'), often describing a range? Is there another term for these? For example, in Chinese, there's 多少 (duō shǎo, 'many few') meaning quantity, which is often used in phrases such as 'How much (does this cost)?' Also, in many Asian languages, combining 'two three' (Chinese, Japanese: 二三, Thai: สองสาม) together can mean 'two or three', or simply 'a few'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikky Horse (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that, in linguistics generally, the important thing is that the elements be of equal syntactic status and be semantically on a par. The result should be a coordinated/coordinative compound. What joins the elements could be anything that functions as a coordinating/coordinative conjunction. See wikt:Category:English coordinating compounds for an aggressively inclusive, but not necessarily exhaustive, list. I would argue that traditionally named legal cases (Jarndyce and Jarndyce, Brown vs. Board of Education), some ways of naming athletic contests (Liston vs Clay, Liston-Clay), Alsace-Lorraine, and secretary-treasurer are all dvandvas. If we allow the term to include words other than noun: and/or, plus/minus, hot-humid, many more compounds fall into the category. DCDuring (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2019

I would argue that a dvandva is all about formation of a word.

• Phrases like "Brown vs. Board of Education" do not count as a word.
• In English, terms that comprise two words of equal syntactic status should be generally be joined with an en-dash (–), not a hyphen (-) — which includes "Liston–Clay" and "secretary–treasurer" — and I would also argue that:
  • these can be so freely created that it is pointless to classify them as dvandvas (e.g. "The restaurant offered a frog–apple appetiser");
  • besides which they may not behave like true dvandvas (e.g. "Please notify all the secretary–treasurers!" would be interpreted as meaning that only people who are simultaneously secretary and treasurer should be notified, rather than the expected meaning for a true dvandva of all secretaries and all treasurers [effectively an inclusive or]); and finally
  • there is doubt about whether they should be classified as a single word.

"Alsace-Lorraine" is an exception, which we might say is 'fossilised' as a single word. Company names are also often hyphenated (e.g. McGraw-Hill) where the ordinary rules of grammar would have indicated an en-dash should have been used.

I suggest also considering something like Brangelina (Brad Pitt + Angelina Jolie) or Canikon (Canon + Nikon) as dvandvas in English — "CanNikon" less so.

—DIV (1.129.104.171 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC))

"Brangelina" etc. are more usually called "portmanteaus" (see article, also Name blending)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Inflection of first constituent

The German article says that the first constituent is in its stem (compounding) form (except for kinship terms like mātā-pitarau), and examples like ācārya-śiṣyau seem to support this. Sihler (Language History) claims that the first constituent is in the dual as well. Which is correct? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In all the examples currently on the page, other than the mātā-pitarau exception you mentioned, the first constituent is in its stem form and not in the dual form. Was Sihler talking of Sanskrit when he claimed that? (If so, he is wrong.) Shreevatsa (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

@Anypodetos and Shreevatsa: Whitney claims that in the earliest forms of Vedic, the first element was in the dual N.A.V, and gives examples. (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sanskrit_Grammar_(Whitney)/Chapter_XVIII#480, Paragraph 1255b. So the answer seems to depend on which Sanskrit! --RichardW57m (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Dvandva as a concept in Hinduism

I'd like to point out that the term dvandva is used elsewhere in wikipedia in a sense not discussed in this article. From the article Saguna Brahman:

> Rājarshi (2001: p. 45) conveys his estimation of the historical synthesis of the School of Yoga (one of the six Āstika schools of Hinduism) which he holds introduces the principle of "Isvara" as Saguna Brahman, to reconcile the extreme views of Vedanta's "advandva" and Sankya's "dvandva"

This article mostly deals with the term as it appears in linguistics, particularly Sanskrit linguistics and morphology. 71.163.107.151 (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If the philosophical/theological dvandva is a term commonly used in English (rather than a quoted foreign-language term), then it would have to have a separate article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)