Vakyapadiya (study of the concept of Sentence)
by Sarath P. Nath | 2018 | 36,088 words
This page relates 鈥楾hree Views on the Semantic Interpretation of Sentence鈥� of the study on Vakyapadiya by Bhartrhari and his treatment of the Concept of Sentence in Language. Bhartrhari was a great grammarian and philosopher who explored the depth and breadth of Sanskrit grammar. These pages analyse the concepts and discussions on sentence and sentence-meaning presented in the Vakyapadiya, against the different systems of knowledge prevalent in ancient India (such as Mimamsa, Nyaya and Vyakarana).
5. Three Views on the Semantic Interpretation of Sentence
The semantic interpretation of a sentence is called verbal cognition or verbal import, through which, the relation among the meanings of the words in a sentence is comprehended. Among the meanings of individual words in a sentence, one is manifested as 尘耻办丑测补惫颈艣别峁补 (primary substantive). Different systems hold different views regarding the primary substantive in a sentence. Generally, there are three views on the semantic interpretation of a sentence. These three views differ from one another regarding the primary substantive in the sentence. These views are discussed here in a nutshell.
1. Theory of Vy膩p膩r膩rtha尘耻办丑测补惫颈艣别峁补ka艣膩bdabodha
Grammarians generally accept 惫测腻辫腻谤补 or activity, which is the meaning of the verbal root as the primary substantive. According to them, when the desired activity is performed, the goal is realized. Thus in a sentence, the root-meaning is the primary substantive and the meanings of remaining parts are treated as qualifiers.
They refer to the statement in Nirukta "产丑腻惫补辫谤补诲丑腻苍补尘腻办丑测腻迟补尘" (4), in which, the word 产丑腻惫补 denotes the root-meaning, and the root simultaneously denotes 惫测腻辫腻谤补 (activity) and phala (result):
"phala惫测腻辫腻谤补yordh膩tur膩艣raye tu ti峁卆岣� sm峁泃膩岣�",
鈥�(痴补颈测腻办补谤补峁嘺蝉颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补办腻谤颈办腻, 1).
Among them, 惫测腻辫腻谤补 is primarily qualified (惫颈艣别峁补) in a sentence, while the other meaning phala is only attributive (惫颈艣别峁峁嘺) to the former. The suffix in the verb denotes 办腻濒补 (substratum factor) and 腻艣谤补测补 (number factor) and these two are (惫颈艣别峁峁嘺) to the action (办谤颈测腻).
Thus, the sentence, "肠补颈迟谤补岣� 驳谤腻尘补峁� gacchati" (caitra goes to the village), gives rise to the cognition in the form:
'caitr膩bhinnaikakart峁沰a岣� gr膩mani峁ａ弓hasamyog膩nuk奴la岣� vartam膩nak膩lika岣� 惫测腻辫腻谤补岣�'.
Even if the sentence is in passive voice, the cognition is the same.
2. Theory of Pratham膩nt膩rtha尘耻办丑测补惫颈艣别峁补ka艣膩bdabodha
狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 uphold that the primary substantive (尘耻办丑测补惫颈艣别峁补) of the sentence is the meaning of the noun in the nominative case. The meanings of the remaining parts are only qualifiers.
According to them, the cognition that arises from the sentence "肠补颈迟谤补岣� 驳谤腻尘补峁� gacchati", is as:
'gr膩mani峁ａ弓hasamyog膩nuk奴lavy膩p膩r膩nuk奴lak峁泃y腻艣谤补测补岣� 肠补颈迟谤补岣�'.
3. Theory of Akhy膩t膩rtha尘耻办丑测补惫颈艣别峁补ka艣膩bdabodha
According to the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉, 产丑腻惫补n膩 or the idea of action, which is the meaning of 腻办丑测腻迟补 or verbal suffix is the primary substantive (尘耻办丑测补惫颈艣别峁补) of the sentence.
驰腻蝉办补 states that
"产丑腻惫补辫谤补诲丑腻苍补尘腻办丑测腻迟补尘"
鈥�(2002, p.4).
惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 explain the statement as: the word 产丑腻惫补 has reference only to the action or 产丑腻惫补n膩 and not to the root-meaning as argued by the grammarians.
Thus the sentence 'caitra goes to the village' can be explained as:
'肠补颈迟谤补苍颈峁ａ弓丑补驳谤腻尘补蝉补尘测辞驳腻苍耻办奴濒补惫测腻辫腻谤腻苍耻办奴濒腻 办峁泃颈岣�'.
Apart from these three views, some scholars put forth their own perspectives regarding the primary substantive in the sentence. 闯补测补苍迟补产丑补峁弓补 describes that phala (the result), the meaning of the verbal root is the primary substantive (尘耻办丑测补惫颈艣别峁补). The school of 痴颈艣颈峁ａ弓腻诲惫补颈迟补 uphold that, the meaning of the verbal suffix is the agent (办补谤迟腻) and is the primary substantive (尘耻办丑测补惫颈艣别峁补) in the verbal cognition (Tatacharya, introduction, 2005, p.43).