Shringaraprakasha 5.p2.15

5.p2.15

And their varied, manifold meaning, which is not understood of itself, is determined through conformity with context and the like as conveyed by connection with another word. Therefore, since there is no comprehension of meaning through their bare form alone, and because they depend on the use of other [words], these are merely illuminators (dyotaka), not denoters (vācaka). But some say that all this is inconclusive. To explain: even a denotative finite verb form (ākhyāta) indicates a meaning that has become a substance, and a finite verb form that is denotative is used as [in] 'you sit'; and morphological base and affix, though denotative, are never used in isolation. The constituent word that is a denoter in *juhoti* ('he sacrifices') stands arranged in a fixed order of precedence and sequence. What is also said—namely, from the rule regarding *rājapuruṣa*—that too is improper. For meanings are not taught in grammar; the author of the Nirukta considers them denotative, not illuminative. Hence, seeing such deviations, how is this tenable? It is replied: Because of denotativeness, when a finite verb is used, the genitive is also seen when the speaker intends a residual relation (śeṣa), as in 'he should not eat of the black beans' (*na māṣāṇām aśnīyāt*). But when *ca* and the like are used, the genitive never occurs. Nor is the non-substantial nature of its own nature a relation; the form is seen to be understood, [and] they convey only that bare meaning which has not become a substance. And meaning is denoted by a base and an affix even in isolation, as in *dadhi*, *madhu*, *iyān*, *adhunā*. But *ca* and the like never denote it in isolation. If it is objected that these words like *dadhi* are different linguistic units occurring in actual usage […] and neither the base nor the affix exist [alone]—how can it be asserted that even the base and the affix do not convey meaning in isolation? The variable usage of constituent words is also observed, as in *āhitāgniḥ* [and] *agnyāhitaḥ*. Nor is that the character of *na* and the like, or rather a compound is a distinct word; and [any other view would render] the mention of the option superfluous, since it is established by natural usage. Or if for constituent words there is a rule of usage by 'the subordinate member comes first' and so forth, and for base and affix by the rule 'and subsequent' (*paraś ca*), and for directional words and prefixes by 'they [come] before the verbal root' (*te prāg dhātoḥ*);