The Yugapad-Way Of Using Words: How a Linguistic Taboo Became a Crucial Literary Strategy

• Authors: Tiziana Pontillo
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

As Kātyāyana emphasizes while commenting on the ekaśeṣa-rules, words apply per object. Consequently, no word should be capable of conveying more than one object. By contrast not only does paronomasia, the so-called śleṣa, break the one-to-one relation between the śabda- and artha-levels of language; there are also grammatical rules which look like deviations from the naturally expected cause-effect relation between word forms and their meanings. The ekaśeṣa-rule represents one of these exceptions, since some parts of the artha are comprehensible, even without employing the word-form denoting them, such as mātṛ in the dual noun pitarau, meaning ‘mother and father’ rather than ‘the two fathers’. P atañjali already mentions an intriguing option in the use of śabdas, when he notes that a word form can merely convey its primary denotation, such as candra denoting the ‘moon’, or can express something that is ‘like something else’, such as candra conveying the sense of a ‘face like a moon’. These exceptions are reconsidered here within the framework of the “yugapad-expression”, which is how Bhartṛhari defines one of the two language options (the other one being kramaḥ ‘sequence’), an option realised when a single word simultaneously conveys more than one meaning, but an option whose use is discouraged. Technical (ritual and grammatical) speculations on simultaneity as an exception to the bi-unique relationship between a cause and its effect date back to the 2nd to 3rd centuries BC. Nonetheless, grammarians insist on excluding these extreme applications of meaning extension; only the late kāvyālaṃkāraśāstra- authors extol the virtues of the phenomenon. The paper focuses on the trajectory that might have been followed in the intervening changes.

Keywords

EN

biplanar morphology; meaning and form (the one-to-one principle); polysemy; paronomasia; Sanskrit technical literature

• Publisher: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk
• Journal: Lingua Posnaniensis
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 55
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 109-122

Dates

published

2013-12-01

online

2014-06-17

Contributors

author

Tiziana Pontillo

• University of Cagliari, Italy

References

• Abhyankar Kashinath Vasudev, Jośī G anesasastri A mbadasa (eds.). 1929-1934. Śrīmajjaiminipraṇite Mīmāṃsādarśane: Mīmāṃsakakaṇṭhīrava-Kumārilabhaṭṭapraṇita-Tantravārtikasahita-Śābarabhāṣyopetaḥ. (Ānandāśramasaṃskṛta-granthāvaliḥ, 97.) Repr. 1971-1980, P oona: A nandasrama.
• Banhatti N .D. 1982. “Kāvyālaṅkārasārasaṅgraha” of Udbhaṭa, with commentary by Indurāja. (Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series, vol. 79.) Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
• Boccali Giuliano, Pontillo T iziana. 2010. “The Background of the Samastavastuviṣayarūpaka and its Importance in E arly kāvya.” Pandanus 4(2), 109-138.
• Bronner Yigal. 2010. Extreme Poetry: The South Asian Movement of Simultaneous Narration. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Bronner Yigal. 2012. “A Question of P riority: Revisiting the Bhāmaha-Daṇḍin Debate. Journal of Indian Philosophy 40(1), 67-118.[Crossref][WoS]
• Bronkhorst Johannes. 1986. “tantra and prasaṅga.” Aligarh Journal of Oriental Studies 3(2), 77-80.
• Bronkhorst Johannes (crit. ed.). 1987. Mahābhāṣya-Dīpikā of Bhartṛhari. Fascicule IV, Ahnika I. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
• Candotti Maria Piera, Pontillo T iziana. 2010. “The A utonomous P rocess of Denotation: K ātyāyana and P atañjali on the L imits of A nalysis.” In: Caracchi et al. 2010: 41-61.
• Candotti Maria Piera, Pontillo T iziana. 2012. “The E arlier P āṇinian T radition on the Imperceptible Sign.” In: Pontillo & Candotti 2012: 99-153.
• Caracchi P ., Comba A .S., Consolaro A ., P elissero A . (eds.). 2010. Tīrthayātra. Essays in Honour of Stefano Piano. A lessandria: Dell’Orso.
• Cardona George (ed.). 2013. Proceedings of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference, Delhi 5-10 January 2012 (Vyākaraṇa Session). Delhi: D.K. Printworld.
• Deshpande Madhav M. 1985. Ellipsis and Syntactic Overlapping: Current Issues in Pāṇinian Syntactic Theory. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
• Deshpande Madhav M. 1989. “Ellipsis in Modern L inguistics and P āṇini.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute 70, 103-124.
• Freschi Elisa, Pontillo Tiziana. 2012. “When O ne T hing A pplies More T han O nce: T antra and P rasaṅga in Śrautasūtra, Mīmāṃsā and G rammar.” In: Pontillo & Candotti 2012: 33-98.
• Freschi Elisa, Pontillo Tiziana. 2013. Rule Extension Strategies in Ancient India: Ritual, Exegetical and Linguistic Considerations on the Tantra- and P rasaṅga-principles. Frankfurt am Main: P eter Lang.
• Ghosh Manomohan (ed.). 1967. The Nāṭyaśāstra Ascribed to Bharata-Muni. Calcutta: Manisha Granthalaya.
• Kashikar Chintaman Ganesh (crit. ed.). 2003a. The Baudhayāna Śrautasūtra. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the A rts/Motilal Banarsidass.
• Kashikar Chintaman Ganesh (crit. ed. and transl.). 2003b. Sūtras of Bhāradvāja. Vol. 2. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala.
• Kielhorn Franz (crit. ed.). 1880-1885. The Vyākaraṇa-Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali. 3 vols. Bombay: Government Central Press. Repr. Osnabrück 1970.
• Kulkarni Narayan Nathaji (ed.). 1927. Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti. P oona: O riental Book A gency.
• Naganatha Sastry P.V. (ed. and transl.). 1927. Kāvyālaṅkāra of Bhāmaha. Repr. 1970, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
• Pollock Sheldon. 2006. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. Berkeley-Los A ngeles: U niversity of California P ress.
• Pontillo Tiziana. 1999. Allomorfi e morfema ‘Zeromorfi’ in Pāṇini: Sostituzione di morfemi con zero fonico. University of Milan P hD dissertation in L inguistics and P hilology.
• Pontillo Tiziana. 2008. “The E dible P art of the Rice in the Mahabhāṣya Imagery: W hat are the H usks of Rules? What is a-tantram?” Pandanus 2, 79-96.
• Pontillo Tiziana. 2009. “Late Vedic Rūpakas based on N ature Imagery: Ritual Identifications as a Sort of alaṃkāra-pattern.” Pandanus 3(2), 9-24. (“Nature in Indian L iterature, A rt, Myth and Ritual”, Charles U niversity, 4-7 J une 2009, P rague, Czech Republic.) Pontillo T iziana. 2013. “‘Where the Sense is Intended A lthough the Corresponding Speech U nit is N ot E mployed’: T he E kaśeṣa Case.” In: Cardona 2013: 99-134.
• Pontillo Tiziana, Candotti Maria Piera (eds.). 2012. Signless Signification in Ancient India and Beyond. London: Anthem.
• Rau Wilhelm (crit. ed.). 1977. Vākyapadīya by Bhartṛhari. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
• Sarup Lakshman. 1927. The Nighaṇṭu and the Nirukta. Repr. 1984, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
• Shastri V.P.R.R. (ed.). 1970. Kāvyādarśa of Daṇḍin. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
• Thieken Hermann. 2006. “Aśoka’s Fourteenth Rock E dict and the Guṇa mādhurya of the Kāvya Poetical Tradition.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 156(1), 95-115.
• Thite Ganesh Umakant (ed. and transl.). 2006. Kātyāyana-Śrautasūtra: Text with English translation and notes. Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Co.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/linpo-2013-0017