Shringaraprakasha 6.p1.17

6.p1.17

That based on the posterior word-meaning is, for example: rājapuruṣaḥ, yūpadāru, kaṣṭaśritaḥ, śvalebhyaḥ, dvyahnajātaḥ, prāptajīvikaḥ. That based on the posterior word-meaning is of two kinds: coreferential and non-coreferential. Between the two, the coreferential is, for example: nīlotpalam, agnistokaḥ, puruṣottamaḥ, sarvaśvetaḥ, saptarṣayaḥ, khañjakuṇḍaḥ. The non-coreferential is, for example: dhavakhadirau, aśvabaḍabau, dadhipayasī, dhavakhadirapalāśāḥ, kākolūkam, gavāśvam. That based on another word-meaning is of two kinds: having that quality and not having that quality. Between the two, that having that quality is, for example: unmattagaṅgam, śastrīśyāmā, sahasrākṣaḥ, śūlapāṇiḥ, dvitrāḥ, ardhatṛtīyāḥ. That not having that quality is, for example: ūḍharathaḥ, citraguḥ, dakṣiṇapūrvā, uṣṭramukhaḥ, guḍapriyaḥ, priyaguḍaḥ. 6.8. Now, when those who explain an integrated grammatical form say, ‘An integrated grammatical form is the expression of another meaning,’ what indeed is its meaning? Is it the expression of another word’s meaning, or is it an expression for the sake of another meaning? Either way there is no fault. For when the view is adopted that a single word makes multiple meanings understood, then, in the condition of an integrated grammatical form, that subordinate word takes up as the expressible entity the selfsame meaning that was understood in the state of an analytical sentence as expressible by another word. This, because of the obstruction to the expressive capacity in the state of separated words, is called, in an integrated grammatical form, the expression of another meaning. When, on the other hand, the view is that a single word makes multiple meanings understood, then those subordinate words in the scope of an integrated grammatical form take up that very meaning which was previously understood, for the sake of another meaning. On this view, it is clearly an expression for the sake of another meaning. In that case, there are two alternatives: either the subordinate words take up another meaning having abandoned the well-known semantic relation, or, while the primary meaning remains, they express another meaning. For both are indeed seen elsewhere.