Shringaraprakasha 8.p1.14

8.p1.14

asya padasya jātirartho'sya dravyasya guṇo'sya kriyeti āvāpodvāpābhyāṃ tadavadhāraṇamiti cet naivam, tatrāpi kadambakarūpārthapratīteranapāyāt || 8.8. kiñca pratiyogināmanantatayānvayasyānantyāttadanvayānantyenānvitābhidhāyinyāḥ sambandhagrahaṇamaśakyamiti duravagamaḥ padārthayoḥ sambandhagrahaḥ, tadanapekṣatve prathamaśrutādapi tadarthapratipattiḥ prāpnoti | gāmānayeti vākyādaśvabandhananiyogaḥ pratīyeta, vṛddhavyavahārepu ca vākyādapi bhavantī vyutpattiḥ padaparyantaiva bhavati | itarathāhi prativākyaṃ vyatpattirapekṣyeta sā cānantyāddurupapādeti śābdavyavahārocchedaḥ syāt | dṛśyate cābhinavakaviślokāt vākyārthapratītiḥ ; sā ca padapadārthayoreva vyutpattāvupapadyate , na vākyārthayoritināstyanvitābhidhānām || 8.9. apicānvayasyānvitaviśeṣaṇatvāttadabhidhānamantareṇānvito'bhidhātuṃ na śakyata ityanvayābhidhānamaṅgīkaraṇīyam | na ca tadekayā śaktyā śakyate'bhidhātumiti śaktyantarakalpanāprasaṅgaḥ || 8.10. apica gāmānayetyatra yadā gośabdenānayatvarthaviśiṣṭaḥ svārtho'bhidhīyate tadā gavārthasyāprādhānyam, yadāca ānayatinā gavārthaviśiṣṭaḥ svārthaḥ tadā tadarthasyetyetasminvākye pradhānadvayopanipātādvākyabhedāpattiḥ || 8.11. api ca prakṛtipratyayayoranyonyānvitasvārthābhidhānalabdhapadabhāvayoḥ padārthāntarānvitārthavācakatvamiti dvirabhidhānaṃ syāt || 8.12. kiñca padenānvitaḥ svārtho'bhidhīyamānaḥ kimabhihitena padārthāntaraṇānvito'bhidhīyate utānabhihitena | abhihitena cedekasmādena padāttadarthoparañjakadvitīyapadārthāvagateḥ padāntaroñcāraṇavaiyarthyam |

If it is claimed: “The determination of this word’s meaning is [ascertained] through insertion and extraction—[namely, that] the meaning of this word is a universal, of that word a substance, of that word a quality, and of that word an action,” that is not so; for even in that case, the apprehension of the meaning in a composite form does not disappear. // 8.8. Furthermore, because correlates are infinite and syntactic connection is infinite, and because connection is thus infinite, grasping the relation in the case of denotation of the connected is impossible; hence, grasping the relation between two word-meanings is difficult to comprehend. If that [relation] were disregarded, the apprehension of that meaning would result even from [a word] heard for the very first time. From the sentence, “Bring the cow,” a command to tie up a horse might be apprehended. Moreover, in the linguistic usage of elders, communicative competence arising even from a sentence terminates only at the word. Otherwise, communicative competence would be required for every sentence, and because sentences are infinite, that would be difficult to establish, which would lead to the destruction of all verbal usage. And sentence-meaning is indeed seen to be apprehended from the verse of a new poet; and that is possible only when there is communicative competence regarding words and word-meanings, not regarding sentence-meanings. Therefore, there is no denotation of the connected. // 8.9. Moreover, since syntactic connection is a qualification of what is connected, what is connected cannot be denoted without the denotation of that [connection]; hence the denotation of syntactic connection must be accepted. And that cannot be denoted by a single capacity; thus there is the unwanted consequence of postulating an additional capacity. // 8.10. Moreover, in “Bring the cow,” when its own meaning qualified by the meaning of bringing is denoted by the word “cow,” then the meaning of “cow” lacks prominence; and when its own meaning qualified by the meaning of the cow is [denoted] by “bring,” then [there is no prominence] of that meaning; thus, because two primaries would be admitted in this single sentence, the calamity of sentence-split would occur. // 8.11. Furthermore, since base and affix attain the state of a single word through denotation of their own mutually connected meanings, they would [then have to] denote a meaning connected with another word-meaning, so there would be a double denotation. // 8.12. Furthermore, when its own meaning connected [with another] is denoted by a word, is it denoted as connected with another word-meaning that has been denoted, or with one that has not been denoted? If with one that has been denoted, then since the second word-meaning that qualifies that meaning is apprehended from the single word alone, the utterance of the second word is pointless.