Shringaraprakasha 6.p1.18

6.p1.18

Just as curd is removed from a curd-jar and milk is deposited, but water remains together with the sand, etc., in a sand-jar—so he says: For those who say that complex formation is the expression of another's meaning, does complex formation abandon its own meaning (jahatsvārthā), or does it not abandon its own meaning (ajahatsvārthā)? What follows from this? If it abandons its own meaning, when it is said, "Bring the king's man (rājapuruṣa)," the bringing of a mere man would follow; and in "Bring the descendant of Upagu (aupagava)," [the bringing of] a mere descendant [would follow]. Now, if it does not abandon its own meaning: when both maintain their distinct individual meanings, a dual ending would follow by the rule "the dual occurs when there are two." Thus, because faults are observed in both [views], neither is comprehended. On this point, the view of some is: Subordinate words enter into another meaning through the abandonment of the meaning they had taken up; for it is impossible for a word that is not subordinate to another, whose previous meaning is being adhered to, to express another meaning. Therefore, while expressing another meaning, it must abandon the semantic entity it had taken up. So he says: Which complex formation is proper? [The answer is:] It is the one that abandons its own meaning. But is it proper that there should be a complex formation that abandons its own meaning? Indeed, it is proper. For so it is seen: in the world, this man, engaging in another's work, abandons his own work. For example, a carpenter engaging in the king's work abandons his own work. And likewise, the word "king" occurring in the sense of "man," and "Upagu" occurring in the sense of "descendant," would abandon their own meanings. // 6.9 // Objection: Just as a carpenter engaged in the king's work—such as collecting and delivering treasure—abandons his own activity such as cutting and squaring wood, because it is impossible to perform the king's work without abandoning his own activity; likewise, if the subordinate word, engaged in another meaning such as conveying another sense, were to abandon the meaning previously taken up—such as being a qualifier—because it is impossible to express another's meaning without abandoning its own meaning, then in the cited examples the bringing of a mere man and a mere descendant would follow. This is not a fault.