8,245
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + Line 33:
Line 51: − + + + + +
→Conditions for Sentence Formation: added content and references
* It is also a composition of meaningful phonemes.
* It is also a composition of meaningful phonemes.
* It is the basic source of expression of ideas and emotions; of attainment of pleasure, feelings, tastes and amusements.
* It is the basic source of expression of ideas and emotions; of attainment of pleasure, feelings, tastes and amusements.
* It involves mental (an metaphysical element) aspect rather than physical effort.
* It involves mental (a metaphysical element) aspect rather than physical effort.
== Conditions for Sentence Formation ==
== Conditions for Sentence Formation ==
The most important contribution of ancient linguists to the theories of language is the concept of Akanksha. First brought forth by the Mimamsa school (Purva) this concept explains how the sense of a sentence is effected from the analytical and associationist standpoint, thereby achieving syntactic unity among the various isolated words that comprise a sentence. This concept explains the cementing factors which unite the different words, with their individual meanings, when they form a single sentence.
=== आकाङ्क्षा ॥ Mutual Expectancy ===
Akanksha is derived from the dhatu काङ्क (kank) used in the meaning of desire. Akanksha or mutual expectancy (or verbal expectancy) consists in a word not being able to convey a complete sense in the absence of another word; literally it is the desire on the part of the listeners to know the other words or their meaning to complete the sense. The scope of akanksha, however, depends on the intention of the speaker because there is no end to the curiosities aroused in the minds of the listeners extending the desire to seek answers.
For this reason a collection of words like 'गौरश्वः पुरुषो हस्तीति । cow, horse, man and elephant' does not convey a complete sense and is thus not a sentence as there is no connection between them owing to the lack of mutual expectancy among them and the absence of connecting verbs such as come, walking etc. To convey the meaning of noun in a sentence, a verb is always required.<ref name=":02">Raja, Kunjunni K. (1977 Reprint) ''Indian Theories of Meaning.'' Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre.</ref><ref name=":32">Iyer, S. R. (1979) ''Tarkabhasa of Kesava Misra, Edited with Translation, Notes, and an Introduction in English.'' Varanasi: Chaukhambha Orientalia (Pages 121-122)</ref>
The akanksha or expectancy that holds between words in a sentence is a grammatical one. It is required for syntactic completeness of the sentence. The two schools of Mimamsa give two different sets of akanksha according to the difference in the interpretation of the psychological factors involved in an injunction. This concept forms the basis of psychological akanksha which is clearly distinct from a grammatical view. Mimamsa extends this concept of psychological expectancy to the definition of a '''Mahavakya''' (compound sentence) on the basis of mutual expectancy between sentences or clauses that comprise it. Thus in the formation of a Vakya, akanksha defines the interdependence of words in a sentence, while in the formation of a Mahavakya, akanksha defines the interdependence of sentences or clauses that makes up a prakarana or a topic.<ref name=":02" />
=== योग्यता ॥ Compatibility ===
Yogyata or compatibility (or congruity) is the next important consideration to be fulfilled to impart meaning to a sentence. Yogyata is defined as the logical compatibilities of consistency of words in a sentence for mutual association. It calls for the judgment of the sentence's sense; a determination of whether a statement has a sense or is non-sense. It involves the consistency between the meaning of the word and the actual experience.<ref name=":02" />
For example, 'अग्निना सिञ्चति । spray with fire' is not a meaningful sentence as the two words are lacking in consistency since fire being the instrument for the act of spraying is not compatible with the idea of wetting. In the sentence 'पयसा सिञ्चति । spray with water' there is yogyata, or consistency of meaning, since wetting is generally done with a liquid like water, the sentence is consistent with the act of spraying.<ref name=":02" /><ref name=":32" />
=== सन्निधि आसत्तिर्वा ॥ Proximity ===
Sannidhi or Asatti is generally explained as the condition that the words in a sentence should be contiguous in time. Words uttered at long intervals of time cannot produce the knowledge of any interrelation among them, even if there be akanksa and yogyata. Thus contiguity ir proximity is the uninterrupted utterance or unbroken apprehension of words when they are in juxtaposition. In case of words separated by the intervention of irrelevant words also the connection of the meaning cannot be understood. For example, if the words गाम् and आनय are uttered one by one with an interval of an hour between them and not together, then the two will not become a sentence.<ref name=":02" />
==वाक्यलक्षणम् ॥ Vakya Lakshana==
==वाक्यलक्षणम् ॥ Vakya Lakshana==
In the history of Bharatiya Darshanas, the study of language has never been the monopoly of vaiyakaranas even though Vyakarana has been the foundation of use and refinement of language. Almost all schools of thought have developed their own siddhantas of language to defend their own metaphysics and attack others. Various darshanas have given their perspectives of what the nature of a sentence is.
In the history of Bharatiya Darshanas, the study of language has never been the monopoly of vaiyakaranas even though Vyakarana has been the foundation of use and refinement of language. Almost all schools of thought have developed their own siddhantas of language to defend their own metaphysics and defend their siddhantas. Various darshanas have given their perspectives of what the nature of a sentence is.
The simple definition of a sentence as a collection of words is found as early as in the Brhaddevata (2.117) पदसङ्घातजं वाक्यम्।; but it is in the Mimamsa-sutras of Jaimini that we first come across the lakshana of a sentence: A group of words serving a single purpose forms a sentence, if on analysis the separate words are found to have akanksha or mutual expectancy (Mima. Sutr. 2.1.46). This principle was enunciated by Mimamsakas in dealing with the prose passages of the Yajurveda, where it was sometimes found difficult to ascertain how far a certain sentence extended. This concept of akanksha thus effects syntactical unity or arthaikatva of one complete Yajus -mantra.
===Samkhya Darshana===
===Samkhya Darshana===
Like the Naiyāyikas, generally, Mīmāmsakas accept that the group of articulate alphabetic phonemes is a word and the group of words is a sentence. But they maintain that the articulate phonemes are eternal, while the Naiyāyikas treat them as non-eternal. Accordingly there is a subtle difference in the mode of interpretation of the varnas attaining the form of words and sentences.
Like the Naiyāyikas, generally, Mīmāmsakas accept that the group of articulate alphabetic phonemes is a word and the group of words is a sentence. But they maintain that the articulate phonemes are eternal, while the Naiyāyikas treat them as non-eternal. Accordingly there is a subtle difference in the mode of interpretation of the varnas attaining the form of words and sentences.
Sabara in his commentary on Jaimini Sutra says and affirms the view that such a group of words are each one dependent upon the other word for its meaning. Each word having syntactic expectancy with the other word constitutes an important aspect of a sentence.<blockquote>अर्थैकत्वादेकं वाक्यं साकाङ्क्षं चेद्धिभागे स्यात्।।46।। (Jaim. Sutr. 2.1.46)<ref name=":2">Shabara Bhashya ([https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4% Adhyaya 2 Pada 1])</ref></blockquote><blockquote>अतुल्यत्वात्तु वाक्योयोर्गुणं तस्य प्रतीयेत।।26।। (Jaim. Sutr. 2.2.26)<ref name=":3">Shabara Bhashya ([https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4% Adhyaya 2 Pada 2])</ref></blockquote>Again in his commentary on the above sutras Shabara mentions<blockquote>अर्थैकत्वादेकं वाक्यमिति। एतस्माच्चेत् कारणादेकवाक्यता भवति तस्मादेकार्थः पदसमूहो वाक्यम्। (Bhas. Jaim. Sutr. 2.1.46) <ref name=":2" /></blockquote><blockquote>यावन्ति पदान्येकं प्रयोजनमभिनिवर्त्तयन्ति, तावन्त्येकं वाक्यम्। (Bhas. Jaim. Sutr. 2.2.26)<ref name=":3" /></blockquote>Summary: Shabara states that the words which will serve a unitary purpose constitute one sentence. He states that the group of words conveying a single meaning is the sentence. From this it is clear that according to Sabara a sentence is a group of words.<ref name=":0">Dr. N. S. Ramanuja Tatacharya. (2005) ''[https://archive.org/details/ShabdaBodhamimansaAnInquiryIntoIndianTheoriesOfVerbalCognitionN.S.RamanujaTatacharya/page/n39 Shabdabodhamimamsa. An Inquiry into Indian Theories of Verbal Cognition. Volume 1: The Sentence and its Significance.]'' New Delhi : Rastriya Sanskrit Samsthan</ref>
Sabara in his commentary on Jaimini Sutra says and affirms the view that such a group of words are each one dependent upon the other word for its meaning. Each word having mutual expectancy or Akanksha (which is not used as a technical word in the Jaimini Sutra 2.1.46), with the other word constitutes an important aspect of a sentence.<blockquote>अर्थैकत्वादेकं वाक्यं साकाङ्क्षं चेद्धिभागे स्यात्।।46।। (Jaim. Sutr. 2.1.46)<ref name=":2">Shabara Bhashya ([https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4% Adhyaya 2 Pada 1])</ref></blockquote><blockquote>अतुल्यत्वात्तु वाक्योयोर्गुणं तस्य प्रतीयेत।।26।। (Jaim. Sutr. 2.2.26)<ref name=":3">Shabara Bhashya ([https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4% Adhyaya 2 Pada 2])</ref></blockquote>Again in his commentary on the above sutras Shabara mentions<blockquote>अर्थैकत्वादेकं वाक्यमिति। एतस्माच्चेत् कारणादेकवाक्यता भवति तस्मादेकार्थः पदसमूहो वाक्यम्। (Bhas. Jaim. Sutr. 2.1.46) <ref name=":2" /></blockquote><blockquote>यावन्ति पदान्येकं प्रयोजनमभिनिवर्त्तयन्ति, तावन्त्येकं वाक्यम्। (Bhas. Jaim. Sutr. 2.2.26)<ref name=":3" /></blockquote>Summary: Shabara states that the words which will serve a unitary purpose constitute one sentence. He states that the group of words conveying a single meaning is the sentence. From this it is clear that according to Sabara a sentence is a group of words.<ref name=":0">Dr. N. S. Ramanuja Tatacharya. (2005) ''[https://archive.org/details/ShabdaBodhamimansaAnInquiryIntoIndianTheoriesOfVerbalCognitionN.S.RamanujaTatacharya/page/n39 Shabdabodhamimamsa. An Inquiry into Indian Theories of Verbal Cognition. Volume 1: The Sentence and its Significance.]'' New Delhi : Rastriya Sanskrit Samsthan</ref>
Kumārila too subscribes to the above view. Sālikānātha in his Prakaranapañcikā declares that according to Prabhakara a sentence is the group of words. And the sentence-meaning is the collection of word-meanings. The Mīmāmsakas do not admit a word as distinct from letters (varna-s or articulate letter-sounds) and also a sentence as distinct from words. Extensive arguments are supplicated by Shabara explaining the manner in which the letters attain the state of a word and a sentence.
Kumārila too subscribes to the above view. Sālikānātha in his Prakaranapañcikā declares that according to Prabhakara a sentence is the group of words. And the sentence-meaning is the collection of word-meanings. The Mīmāmsakas do not admit a word as distinct from letters (varna-s or articulate letter-sounds) and also a sentence as distinct from words. Extensive arguments are supplicated by Shabara explaining the manner in which the letters attain the state of a word and a sentence.
=== Tarka Lakshana ===
Annambhatta describes Vakya as वाक्यं पदसमूहः। sentence is a collection of words. This is further clarified by Keshava Mishra who aptly summarizes the lakshana of a sentence. <blockquote>वाक्यं तु आकाङ्क्षा-योग्यता-सन्निधिमतां पदानां समूहः। (Tark. Bhas. 59)</blockquote>Vakya (sentence) is a collection of words which have the three characteristics (at the same time); namely Akanksha, Yogyata and Sannidhi.<ref name=":32" />
===Vedanta Darshana===
===Vedanta Darshana===
====Advaitavedanta====
====Advaitavedanta====