365bet娱乐

厂辫丑辞峁璦 is classified into a number of varieties. They are 惫补谤峁嘺蝉辫丑辞峁璦, 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and 惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦. Meaningfulness is the fundamental aspect in all these cases. In 惫补谤峁嘺蝉辫丑辞峁璦, letter is the unit which bears meaning. If the word is the unit which carries meaning, it is called 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦. In 惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦, sentence is the meaning-bearing aspect. 叠丑补峁�峁�辞箩颈 顿墨办峁�i迟补 in his 艢补产诲补办补耻蝉迟耻产丑补^[1] and N膩ge艣a Bha峁�峁璦 in his 笔补谤补尘补濒补驳丑耻尘补帽箩奴峁Ｄ�^[2] describe eight different varieties of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦.

These are:

1. 惫补谤峁嘺-蝉辫丑辞峁璦,
2. pada-蝉辫丑辞峁璦,
3. 惫腻办测补-蝉辫丑辞峁璦,
4. 惫补谤峁嘺箩腻迟颈-蝉辫丑辞峁璦,
5. pada箩腻迟颈-蝉辫丑辞峁璦,
6. 惫腻办测补箩腻迟颈-蝉辫丑辞峁璦,
7. akha峁囜笉apada-蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and
8. akha峁囜笉a惫腻办测补-蝉辫丑辞峁璦.

It should be borne in mind, that of all these eight-fold divisions it is akha峁囜笉a惫腻办测补-蝉辫丑辞峁璦 which alone represents 蝉辫丑辞峁璦, the other seven being creations of an ingenious brain for the purpose of enabling the student to comprehend the nature of the first. It is also maintained by the grammarians that the seven divisions of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦, mentioned above, enable the beginners to know the nature of the akha峁囜笉a惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦.

1) Var峁嘺蝉辫丑辞峁璦

Var峁嘺蝉辫丑辞峁璦 does not mean that each and every letter is regarded as 蝉辫丑辞峁璦, but the letter or letters constituting either a stem or a suffix are regarded as such. The term 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is derived from the root 蝉辫丑耻峁� and it is defined in two ways. In the first place, 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is defined as an entity which is manifested by letters. Secondly, it is an entity from which sense emanates.^[3] According to the second definition, we may say that when stems and suffixes are found to be expressive of sense, they should be regarded as denotative of sense or 蝉辫丑辞峁璦.

According to the later grammarians, 惫补谤峁嘺蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is justified on the grounds that a meaning is understood from roots and suffixes having one letter only. 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈 himself has stated that from one point of view the individual letters may be considered to have meaning; since roots, suffixes and particles of a single letter are meaningful.^[4]

In this connection, there arises a problem that may be expressed in the following way. So far as the question of the stem is concerned, there is hardly any difficulty in calling it 蝉辫丑辞峁璦. But, there is a difference of opinion in the matter of the suffix as it means either the 蝉迟丑腻苍颈苍 or the 腻诲别艣补. The grammarians maintain that in words such as pacati, 谤腻尘补岣� etc., the 腻诲别艣补s, viz. ti and 岣� (visarga) are expressive of sense and not the 蝉迟丑腻苍颈苍s, viz. la and su. Tip, tas, jhi etc., are all 腻诲别艣补s in the place of la. And it is contended by them that the su having been changed into 岣� (visarga) as in the case of 谤腻尘补+ su = 谤腻尘补岣�, it is the 腻诲别艣补 which is to be regarded as denotative of the meaning.

On the other hand, the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉, maintain that it is the 蝉迟丑腻苍颈苍 and not the 腻诲别艣补 that is endowed with the power of denotation. They criticise the view of the grammarians by pointing out that it is certainly more reasonable and economical to hold that the 蝉迟丑腻苍颈苍 is really expressive of sense on the ground that there is no limit to the number of 腻诲别艣补s while the 蝉迟丑腻苍颈苍 is more or less of a fixed character.^[5]

The grammarians refute the argument of the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉. According to 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈, a word is one which is endowed with the power of denotation. It is, therefore, argued that a man who has even little knowledge of la, understands the meaning of such expressions as pacati, gacchati and the like. Hence, what is actually used in language should be regarded as denoter (惫腻肠补办补) and not what is necessary only for grammatical operations. The 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉, however, assert that it is through mistake that the 腻诲别艣补 is regarded as the 惫腻肠补办补. But, the grammarians enquire about the cause or causes of this error. As to the charge that 腻诲别艣补 being numerous, it is not desirable to maintain that they are denotative of sense, it is replied that the 蝉迟丑腻苍颈苍s too, are none the less numerous. Therefore, the grammarians do not see any justification as to why the 腻诲别艣补 should not be regarded as the denoter. Then, again, there is hardly any truth in the statement that the 蝉迟丑腻苍颈苍 is fixed while the 腻诲别艣补 varies. The serious objection to the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补 theory is that it involves unnecessary cumbrousness (gaurava). Thus the grammarian鈥檚 view that it is not the 蝉迟丑腻苍颈苍, but the substitute (腻诲别艣补) that carries the meaning has been established. They rightly point out the fact that the 蝉迟丑腻苍颈苍 is an artificial entity contended by the grammarians to explain the formation of the various words in a simple way, and that they have no reality of their own, since they could be different in different systems of grammar.^[6] The people who speak the language are concerned only with the 腻诲别艣补, and the meaning is understood from that. Hence the meaning has to be ascribed to the word as a whole, and therefore, the 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 has to be assumed.

2) Pada蝉辫丑辞峁璦

The conception of 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is that there are innumerable indivisible words, each denoting a particular meaning. When a word is denotative of sense, it is 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦.^[7] It is argued by the supporters of 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 that one does not actually remember the sense as each letter is perceived. On the contrary, one understands the sense of the word as a whole. For example, the word 驳丑补峁璦 (jar) entirely expresses the required sense and it is never a fact that each one of the four letters (gh, a, 峁�, a) constituting the said word is denotative of a fraction of the entire sense. When letters in some sequence are said to constitute a word, it is reasonable to accept that the same is endowed with the power of expressing the import.

According to the grammarians, word (pada) is one which ends in a nominal declension (sup) or a verbal inflexion (迟颈峁�).^[8] In our discussion of 惫补谤峁嘺蝉辫丑辞峁璦, we have pointed out that both the stem and the suffix are denotative of sense. But, if we carefully examine the above statement, certain difficulties are sure to crop up. In such forms like 驳丑补峁璭苍补 (the instrumental singular of 驳丑补峁璦), it is very difficult to say which portion of the term is the stem and which again is the suffix. An ordinary man who is acquainted with the meaning of the term very accurately, will not be in a position to distinguish the stem from the suffix, in this particular case. Even a man who has made an extensive study of Sanskrit grammar, will find some difficulty in ascertaining whether the na or the ina is the suffix in the form 驳丑补峁璭苍补, unless he accurately remembers the views of 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈 on this point. The 惭补丑腻产丑腻峁�y补 on 笔腻峁噄苍颈蝉奴迟谤补, VII. I. 12 rejects the portion 颈苍腻迟 from the 蝉奴迟谤补 and strongly asserts that the na and at are the respective 腻诲别艣补s in places of 迟腻 (instrumental singular) and 峁卆蝉 (ablative singular). After a careful review of the position of the school of 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈, we are sure that it is the na in 驳丑补峁璭苍补 that should be looked upon as the 腻诲别艣补 in the place of ta. In this regard, the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 point out to their advantage that to a man well up in the Science of Grammar, there will be hardly any difficulty in recognising the stem and the suffix; and hence, there is no justification for positing 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦. The grammarians, however, assert that the aforesaid distinction between the stem and the suffix cannot be recognised in those cases where the 腻诲别艣补 replaces both the stem and the suffix. In this way, the grammarians carry out their point that the meaning has to be ascribed to the word as a whole and thus 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is established.

3) V膩kya蝉辫丑辞峁璦

V膩kya蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is based on the conception of the sentence made up of smaller meaning-bearing units viz. the words, the roots and the suffixes. There are numerous indivisible sentences each of which is possessed of the power of denotation.

According to the grammarians, a sentence is one in which it possesses at least one-word ending with a sup termination and another with a 迟颈峁�. In the case of 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦, it has been argued that as the distinction between the stem and the suffix cannot be understood in some places, it is desirable that besides 惫补谤峁嘺蝉辫丑辞峁璦, we required to admit 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 too. The exponents of 惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 point out that it is difficult to distinguish between one term (pada) and another in certain cases of assimilation (sandhi).^[9] For instance, 碍辞峁囜笉补产丑补峁�峁�补 points out that in the case of hare鈥�va, the two terms that have combined are not clearly discernible on the ground that the e which is the substitute for the e, the final letter of hare and a, the first letter of ava, may be, in the opinion of the grammarians, looked upon as the last letter of hare or the first letter of ava.^[10] Hence, 碍辞峁囜笉补产丑补峁�峁�补 asserts that we should do well to recognize another type of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦.^[11]

But, there is yet stronger justification for admitting 惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦. It cannot be denied that for purposes of communication of ideas, the sentence serves our purpose well. The child who is yet ignorant of the technicalities and principles of grammar understands the meaning of a sentence when between two persons, in its presence, it observes one to perform a certain act, after he has been told by another person to do
the same. For instance, the child knows the meaning of the sentence 鈥楤ring a cow鈥� (驳腻尘 腻苍补测补), when it sees that the man to whom it is said, goes away and brings the animal. But, as it can hardly be said that the child knows the individual imports of the constituent words of the sentence, it is to be admitted that the sentence as a whole is endowed with the power of expressing sense; and as such, 惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is established. 碍辞峁囜笉补产丑补峁�峁�补 explicitly states that as words are capable of expressing meaning, so, sentences are possessed of the power of denotation. And, he establishes his point by maintaining that it is from such expressions as 驳丑补峁璦m 腻苍补测补 (bring the jar) that we understand some meaning but not from 驳丑补峁璦岣� karmatvam 腻苍补测补na峁� k峁泃ir i峁ａ弓as膩dhanam, on the ground that in the latter case we have no sentence. In this regard, 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 asserts that for purposes of expressing sense, expectancy (腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ�) is necessary and here the grammarians would like to suggest that this 腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ�-艣补办迟颈 is nothing different from the 惫腻办测补-艣补办迟颈 as maintained by them.

4-6) J膩ti蝉辫丑辞峁璦

We have already acquainted with the nature of 惫补谤峁嘺蝉辫丑辞峁璦, 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and 惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and now we propose to discuss the other three varieties: 惫补谤峁嘺箩腻迟颈蝉辫丑辞峁璦, pada箩腻迟颈蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and 惫腻办测补箩腻迟颈蝉辫丑辞峁璦. According to Bopadeva, the denoter (惫腻肠补办补) like the denoted (惫腻肠测补) should be of the nature of the universal (箩腻迟颈). The 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 have discussed the question of the import of words and they maintain that the individual (vyakti) cannot be regarded as the import for the reason that there is no limit to the number of individuals and that they vary widely amongst themselves. It is, therefore, that they have sought to find out one common attribute (蝉腻诲丑腻谤补峁嘺诲丑补谤尘补), technically called the universal (箩腻迟颈) which is present in each one of the individuals within the universal; and this universal is denoted by a word.

The exponents of 箩腻迟颈蝉辫丑辞峁璦 argue that when the import that is denoted is the universal, it is reasonable to admit that what expresses sense is also of the nature of the universal. Hence, it is not that the individual word hari uttered by a certain person is expressive of sense but the universal which finds its expression through the different use of the said word, is significant.^[12] And, this is the conception of pada箩腻迟颈-蝉辫丑辞峁璦. Similarly, we have 惫补谤峁嘺箩腻迟颈蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and 惫腻办测补箩腻迟颈蝉辫丑辞峁璦. That means, the universal which finds its expression through the different use of 惫补谤峁嘺, then it is 惫补谤峁嘺箩腻迟颈蝉辫丑辞峁璦. When the universal is expressed through the different use of sentence, it is 惫腻办测补箩腻迟颈蝉辫丑辞峁璦.

7) Akha峁囜笉a蝉辫丑辞峁璦

After discussing the nature of 箩腻迟颈蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and its three fold divisions, we are going to explain the nature of another two varieties of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦, i.e. akha峁囜笉a辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and akha峁囜笉a惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦. The conception of akha峁囜笉a蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is that neither the sentence nor the word admits of any divisions. It has been definitely stated that letters have no metaphysical existence. 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 says that in actual speech situations, there are no letters in the word, and no word in the sentence.^[13] On more occasions than one it is said that the division of word into stems and suffixes has been resorted to for practical purposes alone.^[14]

The exponents of akha峁囜笉a辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 contend that it is the indivisible word that is expressive of sense. But, it should be noted that the sentence being the unit of thought and expression should be endowed with the power of denotation. The exponents of akha峁囜笉a惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 believe that it is the indivisible sentence which is expressive of sense. And, according to them, therefore, words, stems, suffixes and letters are absolutely fictitious.^[15]

We have explained the eight-fold division of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 as it has been treated in later standard works of Sanskrit grammarians; but, we should like to point out that we do not appreciate their conception of 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and 惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 as also of akha峁囜笉apada-蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and akha峁囜笉a惫腻办测补-蝉辫丑辞峁璦. The difference between 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and akha峁囜笉a辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and that between 惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and akha峁囜笉a惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 has been stated by K峁涐梗峁嘺 Bha峁�峁璦 in his 厂辫丑辞峁璦candrik膩. He says that the difference between 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 and akha峁囜笉a辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦 lies in the fact that in the case of 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦, there is a reference to the stem and the suffix which, however, have been so intermingled that it is difficult, if not totally impossible, to differentiate the one from the other and word is, therefore, conceived as being endowed with the power of denotation. In the case of akha峁囜笉a辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦, however, there is absolutely no reference to the stem and the suffix, rather, they are regarded as being fictitious and word as an indivisible unit expresses sense. Similarly, in the case of 惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦, it is the sentences which are said to be expressive of sense; but, these sentences are not understood in their indivisible character; they comprise words and the constituent words are not clearly distinguishable. But, when we say that the indivisible sentence is denotative of sense, we think of akha峁囜笉a惫腻办测补-蝉辫丑辞峁璦.^[16]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

艢补产诲补办补耻蝉迟耻产丑补 , p. 7

[2]:

tatra 惫补谤峁嘺pada惫腻办测补bhedena 蝉辫丑辞峁璦s 迟谤颈诲丑腻 / tatra鈥檖i 箩腻迟颈vyaktibhedena puna峁� 峁�o岣峢腻/ kha峁囜笉apadaspho峁璷鈥� kha峁囜笉a惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦艣 ce鈥檛i sa峁卥alanay膩鈥欋梗峁璦u 蝉辫丑辞峁璦岣� / 笔补谤补尘补濒补驳丑耻尘补帽箩耻峁Ｄ� , p. 1

[3]:

ata eva 蝉辫丑耻峁瓂ate vyajyate 惫补谤峁嘺is spho峁璷 惫补谤峁嚹乥hivya峁単yas 蝉辫丑耻峁璦ti 蝉辫丑耻峁�墨bhavatya-asm膩d artha iti spho峁璷鈥檙thapraty膩yaka iti 蝉辫丑辞峁璦艣abd膩rtham 耻产丑补测补迟丑腻 nir膩ha / 厂补谤惫补诲补谤艣补苍补-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 , p. 112

[4]:

惭补丑腻产丑腻峁�y补 , I, 220

[5]:

厂补谤惫补诲补谤艣补苍补-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 , p. 60

[6]:

痴补颈测腻办补谤补峁嘺产丑奴峁�a峁嘺-蝉腻谤补 , pp. 574-575

[7]:

补迟丑腻鈥� 诲别艣腻 v膩cak膩艣cet 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦stata岣� puna岣� / Ibid., p. 64

[8]:

笔腻峁噄苍颈蝉奴迟谤补 , I.4.14

[9]:

Ibid., VI. I. 85

[10]:

丑补谤别鈥檝别鈥檛测腻诲颈 诲峁涐梗峁璿腻 ca 惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦峁� vini艣cinu / 痴补颈测腻办补谤补峁嘺产丑奴峁�a峁嘺-蝉腻谤补 , 66

[11]:

vastutastu padai岣� pad膩rthabodhavad v膩kyena v膩ky膩rthabodha iti pad膩rtha艣补办迟颈岣� pade峁�viva v膩ky膩rtha艣补办迟颈r v膩kye鈥檅hyupeye鈥檛i 辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦-惫腻办测补蝉辫丑辞峁璦u vyavasthitau / Op. cit. pp. 427-428

[12]:

艣akyatva iva 艣aktatve j膩ter l膩ghavam i峁�ya迟腻m /
aup膩dhiko v膩 bhedo鈥檚tu 惫补谤峁嚹乶膩峁� 迟腻ramandravat // 痴补颈测腻办补谤补峁嘺产丑奴峁�a峁嘺-蝉腻谤补 ,71

[13]:

pade na 惫补谤峁嚹� vidyante var峁噀峁�vavayav膩 na ca /
v膩ky膩t pad膩n膩m 补迟测补苍迟补峁� praviveko na ka艣cana // 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补 , I, 73

[14]:

up膩y膩艣 艣ik峁�m膩峁嚹乶膩峁� b膩l膩n膩m upal膩lan膩岣� /
asatye vartmani 蝉迟丑颈迟惫腻 tatas 蝉补迟测补峁� sam墨hate // Ibid, II. 240

[15]:

kecid 膩hur anavayavameva 惫腻办测补m an膩dyavidyopadar艣i迟腻l墨ka惫补谤峁嘺padavibh膩gamasya nimittam / Tattvabindu , p.3

[16]:

tad ev膩鈥� sm膩bhis sakha峁囜笉a辫补诲补蝉辫丑辞峁璦tvena vyavahriyate /
kha峁囜笉a艣aktyanusandh膩na p奴rvakako艣膩din膩 samud膩ya艣补办迟颈grah膩t /
yasya tu vy膩kara峁嘺j帽膩na艣奴nyasya kevalavyavah膩re峁嘺 samud膩ya艣补办迟颈grahas tasya sa ev膩鈥檏ha峁囜笉a蝉辫丑辞峁璦岣� / 厂辫丑辞峁璦candrik膩 , p. 6