- The difficulty with translation is that there are various uses. There are two main ones, which are of course related but still separate. They are internal nāmarūpa and external nāmarūpa, mentioned for example in Snp3.6. The most common throughout the suttas is internal nāmarūpa, which refers to certain aspects of the being with its name and form. This explains various translations that exist, like “mind and body”. The external nāmarūpa is much rarer but is found for example in SN12.19. It refers to external objects with their names and forms. Here “mind and body” does not work, of course.
Part of Bhikkhu Bodhi’s footnote to the latter:
We may have here [referring to bahiddhā nāmarūpaṁ, external name and form], rather, a rare example of the term namarūpa being employed to represent the entire field of experience available to consciousness, "external name” being the concepts used to designate the objects cognized. […] it seems that here the text intends the term dyad to denote one’s own conscious body and "external name-and-form.”
Occasionally it may not be clear exaclty which of the two is implied, internal (the being) or external (thing in the outside world). Sometimes both may be implied. This happens mainly in verses, I belief. Either way, that explains why translators often choose to translate it very literally. Because there is no way to catch both meanings with English terms. (Nor does “name and form”, really, so in my opinion it is not much of an improvement.)
See also our other discussion.
- As to your second point, no, it is definitely a dvanda (which means A-&-B for the uninitiated). See the definition of SN12.2 for example, which splits the two terms up.
And what are name and form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention. This is called name. The four primary elements, and form derived from the four primary elements. This is called form. Such is name and such is form. These are called name and form.
There are also verses, if I recall, that split them up something like nāma ca rūpa but sorry I don’t know the references, so you may have to search yourself if you’re still unconvinced after the last quote.