1 Wrongly taken as “standard of comparison” (p. 107): this term is best reserved for the sādhāraṇadharma, or the quality in terms of which the likeness is thought to be appropriate, such as ‘brightness, gentleness’ – in the case of the ‘face-moon’.

2 Of course, “metaphor” is a far broader notion than rūpaka, which, in formal terms, does not extend beyond relations of similitude -- and this confusion partly accounts for the confusion here discussed.

3 … the “first member” being in this case a preposition-like prefix that, in effect, governs the final member.

4 Bahuvrīhi compounds are “secondary” also in the sense that they are formed from a “primary” compound, which is used differently, as an adjective. The primary must have been a noun. The fact that some bahuvrīhis are based on primary compounds that appear never to have been used at all, such as many with past participles as first member, e.g., kṛtājño ’smi, ‘I am he whose command has been accomplished’ (= ‘thank you’), does not alter the analysis: kṛtājñā, an ‘accomplished command’ (karmadhāraya) is not ipso facto impossible.