Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 48:1 (2024) ► pp.1–64

Early Vedic compounds

A typological reappraisal

ORCID logo | University of Pavia
Despite a longstanding tradition of studies in Sanskrit compounds, a description that enables comparisons in cross-linguistic perspective has not yet been worked out. The present article follows classificatory criteria introduced by Bisetto & Scalise (2005, 2009) and sketches a typology of compounds in the most archaic variety of Sanskrit, Early Vedic, as transmitted by the RigVeda. Analyzing compounds on the basis of the grammatical relations holding between their constituents provides a classification into coordinate, subordinate, and attributive compounds, with the endocentric/exocentric divide cutting across all classes. In order to identify the position of Early Vedic compounds on the syntax-morphology continuum, the article investigates the degree of cohesiveness at the level of morphology, prosody, syntax, and semantics. With this respect, the RigVeda offers a varied picture where relics of archaic, less cohesive forms occur side-to-side with more productive and word-like ones.
Keywords: compounds, Early Vedic, typology, coordinate, subordinate, attributive, cohesiveness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.General issues of compounding in Early Vedic
  • 3.Relation between constituents: A new classification of Early Vedic compounds
    • 3.1Bisetto & Scalise’s classification of compound types
    • 3.2Coordinate compounds
    • 3.3Subordinate compounds
      • 3.3.1Verbal-nexus subordinate compounds
      • 3.3.2Ground subordinate compounds
      • 3.3.3Prepositional compounds
    • 3.4ATAP compounds
      • 3.4.1Attributive compounds
      • 3.4.2Appositive compounds
    • 3.5Reduplicative compounds
    • 3.6Borderline cases
    • 3.7Interim summary
  • 4.Cohesiveness
    • 4.1Morphological cohesiveness
    • 4.2Prosodic cohesiveness
    • 4.3Do syntactic constraints apply to members of compounds?
    • 4.4Compositionality of meaning
    • 4.5Recursivity
    • 4.6Interim summary
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 7 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20069.bia
References (90)
References
Allen, Margaret Reece. 1978. Morphological investigations. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco & Isa Sarı. 2018. Towards a typology of coordinating compounds in Turkish. Folia Linguistica 52(2): 319–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco, Nicola Grandi & Bernhard Wälchli. 2010. Coordination in compounding. In Irene Vogel & Sergio Scalise (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, 177–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Is there a class of neoclassical compounds, and if so is it productive? Linguistics 36(3): 403–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Compounding. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard. König, Wulf Oesterre & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, 695–707. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2003. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
. 2009. Typology of compounds. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Stekauer, The Oxford handbook of compounding, 540–482. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2017. Compounds and compounding. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benedetti, Marina. 1988. I composti radicali latini: Esame storico e comparativo. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
Bisetto, Antonietta & Sergio Scalise. 2005. The classification of compounds. Lingue e linguaggio 4(2): 319–320.Google Scholar
. 2009. The classification of compounds. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Stekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 34–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2005. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky & Oskar E. Pfeiffer (eds.), Morphology and its demarcation. Selected papers from the 11th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2004, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1889. Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, Band 2.1: Wortbildungslehre (Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre). Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
. 1905/6. Zur Wortzusammensetzung in den Idg. Sprachen. Indogermanische Forschungen 18(1): 59–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burrows, Thomas. 1973. The Sanskrit language. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Casaretto, Antje, & Carolin Schneider. 2015. Vedic local particles at the syntax-semantics interface. In Chiara Gianollo, Agnes Jäger & Doris Penka (eds.), Language change at the syntax-semantics interface, 223–259. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clackson, James. 2002. Composition in Indo-European languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 100(2): 163–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1987. The morphology/syntax interface: Evidence from possessive adjectives in Slavonic. Language 631: 299–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ditrich, Tamara. 2016. Historical development and typology of dvandva compounds in the RigVeda . In Joel Brereton (ed.), The Vedas. Indian culture and history. Proceedings of the Third International Vedic Workshop (Austin, TX, 2007), 75–92. Firenze: Società Editrice Fiorentina.Google Scholar
. 2018. Stylistic analysis of coordinative nominal constructions for dual deities in the RigVeda. In Joel Brereton, & Theodore N. Proferes (eds.), Creating the Veda, living the Veda: Selected Papers from the 13th World Sanskrit Conference, 81–110. Helsinki: Finnish Academy of Science and Letters.Google Scholar
Dunkel, Gunkel. 1992. Two old problems in Greek: πτόλεμος and τερψίμβροτος. Glotta 701: 197–225.Google Scholar
Gotō, Toshifumi, Jared Klein & Velizar Sadovski. 2013. Old Indo-Aryan morphology and its Indo-Iranian background. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Goyal, Pawan, Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, Peter Scharf & Ralph Bunker. 2012. A distributed platform for Sanskrit processing. In Martin Kay & Christian Boitet, Proceedings of COLING 2012, 1011–1028. Mumbai, India: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Grassmann, Hermann. 1873. Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Available at [URL] (last access 9 October 2022).
Grestenberger, Laura. 2014. Zur Funktion des Nominalsuffixes *-i- im Vedischen und Urindogermanischen. In Norbert Oettinger & Thomas Steer (eds.), Das Nomen im Indogermanischen. Morphologie, Substantiv versus Adjektiv, Kollektivum. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
. 2017. On “i-substantivizations” in Vedic compounds. In Bjarne Simmelkjær, Sandgaard Hansen, Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Guus Kroonen, Jenny Helena Larsson, Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Thomas Olander, Tobias Mosbæk Søborg, Usque ad radices: Indo-European studies in honour of Birgit Anette Olsen, 193–206. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.Google Scholar
Guevara, Emiliano & Sergio Scalise. 2009. Searching for universals in compounding. In Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni, & Antonietta Bisetto (eds.), Universals of language today, 101–128. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Understanding morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Andrea Sims. 2010. Understanding morphology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Insler, Stanley. 1998. mitrā́vàrunā or mitrā́ várunā? In Lisi Oliver, Jay H. Jasanoff, Harold Craig Melchert (eds.), Mir Curad, Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins, 285–290. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobi, Hermann. 1897. Compositum und Nebensatz: Studien über die indogermanische Sprachentwicklung. Bonn: Cohen.Google Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie W. 1979. Remarks on the expression of agency with the passive in Vedic and Indo-European. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 93(2. H): 196–219.Google Scholar
2021. Online Commentary to RV II. Available at [URL] (last access 9 October 2022).
Jamison, Stephanie W., & Brereton, Joel P. 2014. The Rigveda: The earliest religious poetry of India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 2009. Diachronic perspectives. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 323–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kavka, Stanislav. 2009. Compounds and idiomatology. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 19–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. The lexical phonology of Vedic accent. Cambridge (MA): Department of Linguistics, MIT.Google Scholar
. 2010. Dvandvas, blocking, and the associative: The bumpy ride from phrase to word. Language 86(2): 302–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Jared S. 2003. Āmreḍitas and related constellations in the Rigveda . The Journal of the American Oriental Society 123(4). 773–803. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, Masato. 2004. Historical phonology of Old Indo-Aryan consonants (Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa Monograph Series 42). Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 2004a. Contrastive word stress in Vedic endo-and exocentric compounds. In Anita Steube (ed.), Information structure. Theoretical and empirical aspects, 163–194. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. Nominalkomposition im Altindischen und Altgriechischen. In Elke Nowak (ed.), Komplexe Wortstrukturen. Komposition, Inkorporation, Polysynthese, 107–214. Berlin: TU Berlin.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu, Johann Baptist Hofmann & Anton Szantyr. 1977. Lateinische Grammatik. Vol. 11. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. English word-formation processes. In Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds.), Handbook of word-formation. Vol. 1041, 375–428. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle, & Pavol Štekauer. 2009a. The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Pavol Štekauer. 2009b. Introduction: Status and definition of compounding. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 3–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, John. 2015. The syntax of Sanskrit compounds. Language, 91(3). 71–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Transitive nouns and adjectives: Evidence from Early Indo-Aryan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macdonell, Arthur A. 1910. Vedic grammar. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matasović, Ranko. 2011. Slavic possessive genitives and adjectives from historical point of view. In Motoki Nomachi (ed.), The grammar of possessivity in South Slavic languages: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives, 1–12. Hokkaido: Hokkaido University Press.Google Scholar
Molina Muñoz, Adriana. 2013. Sanskrit compounds and the architecture of the grammar. In Shu-Fen Chen & Benjamin Slade (eds.), Grammatica et verba – Glamor and verve: Studies in South Asian, historical, and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Hans Henrich Hock on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday, 181–200. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen Whitehead, Benedicte. 2012. Pickpocket compounds from Latin to Romance. Leiden: University of Leiden PhD dissertation.
van Nooten, Barend A. & Gary B. Holland. 1994. Rig Veda: A metrically restored text with an introduction and notes. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Oliphant, Samuel Grant. 1912. The Vedic dual: Part VI, the elliptic dual; part VII, the dual dvandva . Journal of the American Oriental Society 32(1). 33–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 2001. Copulative compounds. A closer look at the interface between morphology and syntax. In Geert E. Booij & Jaap Van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology, 279–320. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. 2014. Delineating Derivation and Compounding. In Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, 26–48. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2017. Synthetic compounds from a lexicalist perspective. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation 11:17-45.Google Scholar
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 2018. Formation des composés de rection verbale du type védique bharádvāja-, grec Φερέπτολις. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 113(1). 329–369.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1969. Anaphoric islands. Chicago Linguistic Society 51: 205–39.Google Scholar
Reinöhl, Uta & Antje Casaretto. 2018. When grammaticalization does NOT occur: Prosody-syntax mismatches in Indo-Aryan. Diachronica 35(2). 238–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renou, Louis. 1953. Observations Sur Les Composés Nominaux Du Rgveda. Language 29(3). 231–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1956. Études védiques et pāṇinéennes (Vol. 91). Paris: E. de Boccard.Google Scholar
Risch, Ernst. 1945. Griechische Komposita vom Typus μεσο-νύϰτιος und ὁμο-γάστϱιος. Museum Helveticum 2.1: 15-27 (= 1981, 112-124). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Margaret Clunies. 2011. A history of Old Norse poetry and poetics. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Sadovski, Velizar. 2000. Die exozentrischen Zusammensetzungen mit Vorderglied Präverb/Präposition im Rigveda: Entheos-Komposita und präpositionale Rektionskomposita. In Bernard Forssman, & Robert Plath (eds.), Indoiranisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 455–473. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.Google Scholar
. 2003. Dvandva, tatpuruṣa and bahuvrīhi: On the Vedic sources for the names of the compound types in Pānini’s grammar. Transactions of the Philological Society 100(3). 351–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scalise, Sergio, Antonietta Bisetto & Emiliano Guevara. 2005. Selection in compounding and derivation. Morphology and its demarcations 1331: 150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Irene & Sergio Scalise. 2010. Why Compounding?. In Irene Vogel & Sergio Scalise (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, 1–18. John Benjamins, 2010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scarlata, Salvatore. 1999. Die Wurzelkomposita im Rg-Veda. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Scarlata, Salvatore & Paul Widmer. 2015. Vedische exozentrische Komposita mit drei Relationen. Indo-Iranian Journal 58(1): 26–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schindler, Jochem. 1988. Zur Theorie der Doppelpossessiva. With an introduction and comments by Martin Peters. In Laura Grestenberger, Charles Reiss, Hannes A. Fellner & Gabriel Z. Pantillon (eds.), Ha! Linguistic studies in honor of Mark R. Hale, 332–338. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.Google Scholar
. 1987. Zur avestischen Kompositionslehre: aš.- ‘groβ’. In George Cardona & Norman H. Zide (eds.), Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald on the occasion of his 70th birthday, 393–401. Tübingen: Günter Narr.Google Scholar
. 1997. Zur internen Syntax der indogermanischen Nominalkomposita. In Crespo Emilio & José Luis García Ramón (eds.), Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy, 537–540. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.Google Scholar
Tan, Tamisha L. 2021. Syntax-Prosody Mismatches and the Duality of Vedic Devatā Dvandva . In Rachel Soo, Una Y. Chow & Sander Nederveen (eds.), 38th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 427–438. Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 2021.Google Scholar
Tichy, Eva. 2000. Indogermanistisches Grundwissen für Studierende sprachwissenschaftlicher Disziplinen. Hempen: Bremen.Google Scholar
Tribulato, Olga. 2013. Exocentric ATAP compounds: the view from Early Ancient Greek. Lingue e linguaggio 12(1).31–46.Google Scholar
Uhlich, Jürgen. 2002. Verbal governing compounds (synthetics) in early Irish and other Celtic languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 100(3): 403–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Schroeder, Leopold. 1874. Über die formelle Unterscheidung der Redetheile im Griechischen und Lateinischen: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Nominalcomposita. Leipzig: KF Köhler.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1969. Indogermanische Grammatik. III/1 Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Wüst, Walter. 1928. Stilgeschichte und Chronologie des Rgveda. Liepzig: Deutsche morgenländische Gesellschaft.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1905. Altindische Grammatik. Vol. II, 11: Einleitung zur Wortlehre. Nominalkomposition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Weber, Albrecht. 1852. The Vâjasaneyi-Sanhitâ in the Mâdhyandina- and the Kâṇva-Çâkhâ with the Commentary of Mahîdhara. Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1889. Sanskrit grammar. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wisniewski, Edward J. 1996. Construal and Similarity in Conceptual Combination. Journal of Memory and Language 351. 434–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzel, Michael. 1995. R̥gvedic history: Poets, chieftains and polities. In George Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of ancient South Asia, 307–352. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar