The answer is different in different schools. In Theravada Abhidhamma, dhammas are atomic, not made from anything, and don't have more than one quality. According to Theravada Abhidhamma, all the variations we see in the world is due to the combinations of dhammas.
In Theravada Abhidhamma, there are 82 types of dhammas. That's it, you can find the list on the internet. Everything must fall under one of these.
In Theravada Abhidhamma things like "human body" are not dhammas but are labels we give to many-many dhammas arising and ceasing together.
So, for Theravada, the answer is "no, the dhammas are what we have on the official list of 82 types of dhammas and each of them exists by itself, not made from other dhammas"
Now, the answer is different in other schools of Buddhism. Soon after Buddha's parinirvana there was a school called Prajnaptivada that explained that every dhamma is basically just a concept in the observer's mind which separated a particular quality or thing from the rest and gave it a label. This is what makes dhammas unreliable (dukkha) because they are mere opinions of the observer, basically.
This idea of Prajnaptivada was later developed into the Yagacara's teaching of Vijnaptivada (every thing is just an idea) and Madhyamaka's concept of emptiness (things don't have solid existence from their own side). Both of these are different ways to explain the same basic idea.
In terms of their composition, Mahayana Adhidharma says that dharmas are always made from other dharmas. It's not a static state, instead all dharmas are constantly slowly changing like clouds, because the dharmas they are made from are also constantly changing and so on. This is why we have anicca.
But, what's very important to understand, if you closely look at any single dharma you cannot find anything stable and solid, you will only find more dharmas (not only smaller physical parts, but also external influences). This why we say dharmas are samskaras/sankharas - bundles of causes and conditions. Each of these causes and conditions is also a bundle of causes and conditions, and so forth ad infinitum. This is what we call anatta in the broad sense - dhammas don't have core.
Also, this means that if you look at a dharma up close you will see that both it's boundaries and everything inside is constantly shifting over time. So an idea of an entity is a kind of simplification of the real situation. The boundaries and the identities are abstractions assigned by us the observers, based on a rough snapshot taken from a certain perspective.
When we attach to our concepts and opinions about dharmas, we get blind to the actual situation in the real world. This is what the suffering comes from. This is why we say all dharmas are dukkha.
Now you can understand that Emptiness is just a short name for the full explanation of how things exist in the real world vs how the mind of the observer sees it, and this is where anicca, anatta, dukkha come from.
Whatever language you started from, to make that meaningful in English would take long chapters if not whole books.
I truly believe that in an English forum, such as here, you might better ask 'How should Dhamma be translated'?
– Robbie Goodwin Oct 12 '23 at 19:14