365bet娱乐

It is observed here that Indian philosophies have given 艣补产诲补 a prime position in their metaphysic and epistemology. Technically speaking, philosophies like 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 and 狈测腻测补 as well as the School of 痴测腻办补谤补峁嘺 have contributed much to the analysis of the concept of 艣补产诲补. They have analysed words, sentences and their meaning in a scientific way. In addition to this, they have also discussed various philosophical as well as linguistic problems regarding words, sentences and their meaning.

Since these schools of thought accept 艣补产诲补 in the form of sentence as one among the 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉, they have tried to define sentence in their own perspectives. Ancient texts of Indian philosophy have discussed about the concepts of V膩k, 艣补产诲补 etc, but none of them specifically define a sentence. A reference can be seen in 叠峁沨补诲诲别惫补迟腻 that a sentence is the 蝉补峁単丑腻迟补 or collection of words (" pada蝉补峁単丑腻迟补jam v膩kyam", 2.117). Amarasi峁僪a gives two definitions of sentence; as a group of verbs and nouns and as a verb, which is connected with 办腻谤补办补蝉 (" 蝉耻辫迟颈峁卆苍迟补肠补测辞 惫腻办测补峁� 办谤颈测腻 v膩 k膩rak膩nvit膩", 1.6.2). Later, many scholars in different branches of knowledge have tried to define sentence in manifold ways according to their perspectives. This chapter tries to converge various views on the concept of sentence and sentence-meaning in Indian systems of knowledge.

惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 is the oldest system among the Indian Schools of thought, that tries to define a sentence. As stated, an early simple definition is seen in 叠峁沨补诲诲别惫补迟腻, one of the ancient works in 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 (2.117). It is in the 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻s奴tras of Jaimini that we first come across the real definition of a sentence. He states that " arthaikatv膩d eka峁� 惫腻办测补峁� 蝉腻办腻峁卥峁�a峁� cedvibh膩ge sy膩t" (2.1.46), which can be explained as, a group of words serving a single purpose forms a sentence, if on analysis, the separate words are found to have 腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ� or mutual expectancy. Kunjunni Raja opines that 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 enunciate this principle so as to deal with the passages of Yajurveda (1963, p.152). 艢补产补谤补 also explains this aphorism as referring to the Vedic mantras only, and the term ' arthaikatva' is interpreted in the sense of 'serving a single purpose' (" y膩vanti pad膩ni eka峁� prayojanam abhinirvartayanti t膩vanti pad膩ni eka峁� v膩kyam", under Jaimini, 2.2.26).

Though Jaimini coined this definition for explaining the Vedic sentences, it is capable of much more extended application.

叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 reiterates this as one of the well-known definitions of sentence.

s腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ乿ayavam bhede par膩n膩k膩峁卥峁�a艣补产诲补kam
karmapradh膩nam gu峁嘺vadek膩rtham v膩kyami峁�yate.
  鈥�(痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补, 2.4)

碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 also sets forth the same view that sentence is a group of words. He says: "it must be concluded that those words on hearing which we are clearly cognizant of a single idea, must be regarded as one sentence, either ordinary or of the mantra and 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺" (Tantrav膩rtika, 1984, p.586). He explains the word ' arthaikatva' in the aphorism in the sense of 'single idea'. Among his followers, P膩rthas膩rathimi艣ra favours the view of 艢补产补谤补 and explains the word ' artha' in the sense of 'purpose' (Ganganatha Jha, 1942, p.190). 厂辞尘别艣惫补谤补产丑补峁�峁�补 in his 狈测腻测补sudh膩 commentary, takes the term in the sense of 'meaning' to admit a wider scope of the definition (1984, p.681). 艢膩likan膩tha refers to 笔谤补产丑腻办补谤补's view in his 笔谤补办补谤补峁嘺辫补帽肠颈办腻. Here, it states that a sentence is a group of words (" pad膩nyeva v膩kyam. pad膩rth膩 eva 惫腻办测腻谤迟丑补 iti gurumatasthiti岣�", 1961, p.377). Ganganatha Jha argues that according to 笔谤补产丑腻办补谤补, the word ' artha' in the definition of Jaimini stands for 'meaning' as well as 'purpose', for both are interrelated. He says that the words of a sentence must be related to the purpose, which is the most important factor in a sentence (1942, p.190). If we analyse these definitions, it may be noted that, like the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉, 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 also accept the group of words as a sentence. But they lay stress on the necessity of 腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ� or syntactic expectancy among the words, in order to bring about the unity of idea or of purpose. Kunjunni Raja refers to some of the definitions of sentence found in 艢谤补耻迟补蝉奴迟谤补蝉, and he states that those definitions are based on the 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 views (1963, p.154).

惭墨尘腻尘蝉补办补蝉 do not admit a sentence as distinct from words and words as distinct from letters. 艢补产补谤补 refers to 鲍辫补惫补谤峁�a, who says that the word ' gau' is constituted by the letters g, au and 惫颈蝉补谤箩苍墨测补. Thus, syllables are comprehended by the sense of hearing and not anything different from it (Quoted by Tatacharya Introduction, 2005, p.15). 艢补产补谤补 then explains how the letters attain the status of a word. The last syllable associated with the latent impressions born out of the cognitions of each preceding syllable which gives rise to the cognition of the word meaning. In the same way the last word associated with the latent impressions of each word gives rise to sentence meaning.

惭墨尘腻峁僺腻kas refute the 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 theory and the concept of indivisibility of the sentence, formulated by the grammarians. But they maintain that the articulate phonemes are eternal. Tatacharya summarises the view of 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻kas as, 艣补产诲补 is none other than the articulated syllables and they are eternal.

They are associated together to form words and sentences.

艣谤辞迟谤补驳谤腻丑测腻 惫补谤峁嚹� eva 艣补产诲补岣�. te峁Ｄ乵eva v膩cakatvam-arthapraty膩yakatvam. te ka峁囜弓hat膩lv膩dyabhigh膩tavya峁単y膩岣� 苍颈迟测腻 vibhava艣ca. ta eva 惫补谤峁嚹佱弗 samudit膩岣� padav膩kyavyapade艣abh膩jo'rthapraty膩yak膩 ity膩hu岣�.
  鈥�(Tatacharya, 2005, p.115).

Thus, the 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻kas admit the articulate phonemes are eternal, while the grammarians accept the eternity of sound in the form of sentence.