365bet娱乐

A word is defined as a group of letters arranged in a fixed order. This definition, however, has in view the existence or the constitution of a word. The essential nature of a word lies in its meaning." Logically a word is a sound that bears a certain meaning. The meaning of a word consists in its relation to the object which it signifies. A word may have different meanings according to the different ways in which it may be related to an object. According to the Naiyayikas, there are three kinds of meaning of a word, namely, abhidha, paribhasa and laksana." Let us here consider these different kinds of meaning of a word. By abhidha is meant the primary meaning of a word. It is also called Sakyartha, vacyartha and mukhyartha. The relation between a word and its meaning may be either sanketa or laksana. Sanketa is the direct relation between a word and its meaning, such that the knowledge of the word leads immediately to the knowledge of its relation to that meaning. Now sanketa or the direct relation between a word and its meaning may be either eternal or non-eternal. When eternal and unchanging, it is called Sakti or the inherent potency of a word. Thus the relation between the word jar and the object called jar is a direct and eternal relation called sakti. This sakti or potency of a word is due to the will of God which ordains that such and such a word should mean such and such an object. According to the Mimainsakas, the sakti of a word is its natural relation to the object which it significs. Just as fire possesses the power of burning, so words possess a natural potency to 1 Padari ca varnasamuhah, etc., Tarkabhasa, p. 14. 2 (f. 'padam ca varnasamuhah' (Tarkabhasa, p. 14), 'saktam padam' (Tarkasamgraha, p. 64). 3 Vide Sabdasakti-prakasika, Introduction (C. U. Edn.).

mean certain things independently of the will of any person. The Naiyayikas, however, contend that the relation between a word and its meaning is not a natural but conventional relation. When the relation is established by God it is called sakii, and when it is duc to the usage of mankind it is called paribhasa. Now the meaning called up by the sakti or inherent potency of a word is its abhidha or sakyartha, i.e. primary meaning. The word which possesses such a meaning is called a sakta or vacaka word.' When sanketa or the direct relation between a word and its meaning is non-eternal or changeable, it is called paribhasa. This is due to the will of the authorities in any science which prescribes that such and such a word should mean such and such an object. The meaning called up by the convention established by authorities is the paribhasila or technical meaning of a word. Words which bear such meanings are called paribhasika or technical words, c.g. the words 'article' in grammar, premise in logic, 'court' in law, 'category philosophy." , in By laksana is meant the secondary meaning of a word. It is the indirect or implied meaning in which we should understand a word when its direct or primary meaning does not consist with other words or the context. A word indirectly means an object when it is related to it because of its direct relation with something else with which the object is somehow associated. When we are told the house is on the Ganges,' we take the Ganges' not in its primary meaning of 'the current of water,' but in the secondary meaning of the bank of the Ganges.' Here the secondary meaning is suggested through its association with the primary meaning. There are three kinds of laksana or secondary meaning, namely, jahallaksana, ajahallaksana and jahadajahallaksana. In jahallak- sana, no part of the primary meaning is retained, c.g. 'the scaffolds cry out.' In ajahallaksana, the primary meaning of 1 Vide Tarkasamgraha and Tattvadipika, p. 64; Sabdasakti-prakasika, pp. 55 f. 2 Vide Sabdasakti-prukasika, pp. 54-55.

a word is also retained in the implied meaning, e.g. ' a blue jar' meaning a jar with the attribute of blucness. In jahadajahullaksana, a part of the primary meaning is retained, while another part is discarded, e.g. ' this is that man,' meaning the identity of the man leaving out the attributes of 'this' and that.' The Naiyayikas do not admit with the Vedantists that not only words but sentences also may have secondary meanings (laksana). * The alamkarikas or rhetoricians recognise another kind of meaning of words, namely, vyanjana. This stands for such meanings of words as are neither directly nor indirectly related to them, but only suggested by them. Thus the sentence, the house is on the Ganges,' may be taken to mean that the house is cool and sacred. This meaning is called vyanjana or the suggested meaning. The Naiyayikas do not recognise vyanjana as a different type of the meaning of words, but include it within sakti and laksana or the primary and secondary meanings. The vyangyartha or suggested meaning of a word is really inferred from its primary and secondary meanings and is not separate from them." There are How do we learn the meanings of words? different ways in which we may learn them. First, we learn the meanings of the radicals, verbal roots, suffixes, etc., from grammar. Secondly, we know the meanings of certain general names by means of upamana or comparison, as when we know the gavaya from its similarity to the cow. Thirdly, we learn the meanings of words from dictionaries. Then we may know the meaning of certain words from authority, as when a connoisseur tells us that such and such objects are denoted by a certain word. Or, we may know it by induction from the different uses of words by authoritative persons, as when we know the meaning of the word cow from the different uses made of it by our elders in relation to a particular kind of 鈥� Vide Sabdasakti-prukasika, pp. 59 f. Vide also Tattvadipika, p. 67. Vide Vedanta-paribhasa, Ch. IV; Sabdasakti-prakasika, pp. 61 f. * Vide Tattvadipika, p. 68; Sabdasakti-prakasika, pp. 64 f.

animal. Or, we may know the meaning of a word from its context, as when the chair' means the chairman' in a mecting. Or, we may know it from a given explanation, as when we understand a word from any of its synonyms. Finally, we may know the meaning of a word from its application in connection with a familiar word, as when we understand the meaning of the word pika from the sentence the pika is crying cuckoo on this tree. > 1 That there are so many different ways of knowing the meanings of words proves that the relation between words and their meanings is not a natural but a conventional relation. If there were a fixed natural relation between a word and its meaning as between fire and burning, then the word should have always coexisted with the object signified by it and we should have known their relation simply by perception. But a word does not coexist with the object denoted by it. The word fire does not coexist with the object 'fire' and produce any burning sensation in us when we utter the word. Nor do we perceive the relation between a word and its meaning in the same way that we perceive the relation between fire and burning. Further, the conventional character of the relation between words and their meanings is evidenced by the different meanings in which the same word is used by different people. The variation in the meanings of words cannot be explained on the hypothesis of a natural relation between words and their meanings. It appears also in the use of different words to mean the same thing, e.g. aqua, water, jala. The convention (samaya) that such and such words should mean such and such. objects is established by God where the relation between words and their meanings is a fixed and eternal relation called sakti or denotation. It is established by human beings living in a society where the relation between them is a changeable relation called paribhasa or laksana." 1 'Saktigraham vyakaranopamana,' etc., Siddhanta-muktavali, pp. 359-72. Cf. Sabdasaktiprakasika, 20. 2 Vide Nyaya-Bhasya, 2. 1. 54 & 55; Sabdasakti-prukasika, ibid.

ords are divided into four kinds according to the different ways in which their meaning is determined. A word is called yaugika or etymological when its meaning is solely determined by those of its component parts, c.g. the word data or giver meaning one who gives. It is called rudha or conventional when its meaning is determined by the whole independently of the part meanings, e.g. the word go meaning. not one who goes, but the cow. Some words are called yogarudha or etymologo-conventional when the meaning determined by the whole agrees with that determined by the parts, c.g. the word pankaja meaning a water-lily which grows in the mud. Lastly, certain words are called yaugika-rudha or ctymological-conventional when their meanings are determined either by the potency of the whole or by those of the parts, c.g. the word udbhid meaning a germ or the sprouting of a seed or a sacrifice. '