2023-03-29 18:10:51 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
GLOSSARY
257
that idea which is only a figurative and intuitive qualification of
"mourning veil". Grammatically, the primary fact is now "veil",
and through this confusion of primacy and subordination on differ-
ent levels, the identification of the two terms is accomplished. In
the phrase "dear tiger-lily, fanged and striped" (Conrad Aiken),
the literal fact and the grammatically defined primary term coincide
in "lily". Here is no instance of identification, because the consist-
ency of the various levels reasserts a fortiori the literally acceptable
subordination of the first term: "lily like a tiger". For this reason,
the Indian aestheticians consider such compounds upamā (simile),
not metaphor. The degree of subordination is limited by the in-
tuitive possibilities of the terms involved. The compound "milk-
machine" is neither a rūpaka nor an upamă, for the subordination is
merely teleological and can have nothing to do with the representa-
tion of the terms themselves. Which is to say, in Pāņinean phrase-
ology, that tatpuruşa compounds can be figurative only when they
are karmadhāraya, where both members have the same case relation-
ship (samănâdhikaraṇatva). We have, however, one skew case in
English, as in Virginia Woolf's phrase "gauze of evening": there is
not much question that this is a metaphor in the Indian sense, as it
identifies the evening (subject) with gauze (object). It does not mean
"the gauze belonging to evening"; it is the equivalent of "evening-
gauze", but since English does not offer the same facility for com-
pounding as Sanskrit, poets employ this "of" of identification (see
Twain's example under samastavastuvişaya). A case relationship
implying subordination is used to indicate equivalence. We may
ordain for English a karmadhārayagarbhatatpuruşasamāsa. Such an
"of" of identification must be carefully distinguished from the other
"ofs": : a sine qua non is that the grammatically independent term
(gauze) is the representation of the term thereto subordinated (eve-
ning), as "moon mist mourning veils". In the example: "And there
the lion's ruddy eyes / Shall flow with tears of gold" (William Blake),
"tears of gold" does not satisfy this criterion; rather, "gold" is a
representation of "tears", and we have upama, not rūpaka.
samastavastuvişaya, 'referring to the entire thing': (1) a rūpaka in which
the subject of identification and its several parts or aspects are
identified in rigorously parallel fashion with the object and its
several parts; complex metaphor. (2) B 2.22 (23), U 1.12, R 8.41-
55, M 140. (3) jyotsnäbhasmacchuraṇadhavalā bibhratī tārakâsthiny
antardhanavyasanarasikā rātrikāpālikiyam । dvipăd dvīpam bhramati
257
that idea which is only a figurative and intuitive qualification of
"mourning veil". Grammatically, the primary fact is now "veil",
and through this confusion of primacy and subordination on differ-
ent levels, the identification of the two terms is accomplished. In
the phrase "dear tiger-lily, fanged and striped" (Conrad Aiken),
the literal fact and the grammatically defined primary term coincide
in "lily". Here is no instance of identification, because the consist-
ency of the various levels reasserts a fortiori the literally acceptable
subordination of the first term: "lily like a tiger". For this reason,
the Indian aestheticians consider such compounds upamā (simile),
not metaphor. The degree of subordination is limited by the in-
tuitive possibilities of the terms involved. The compound "milk-
machine" is neither a rūpaka nor an upamă, for the subordination is
merely teleological and can have nothing to do with the representa-
tion of the terms themselves. Which is to say, in Pāņinean phrase-
ology, that tatpuruşa compounds can be figurative only when they
are karmadhāraya, where both members have the same case relation-
ship (samănâdhikaraṇatva). We have, however, one skew case in
English, as in Virginia Woolf's phrase "gauze of evening": there is
not much question that this is a metaphor in the Indian sense, as it
identifies the evening (subject) with gauze (object). It does not mean
"the gauze belonging to evening"; it is the equivalent of "evening-
gauze", but since English does not offer the same facility for com-
pounding as Sanskrit, poets employ this "of" of identification (see
Twain's example under samastavastuvişaya). A case relationship
implying subordination is used to indicate equivalence. We may
ordain for English a karmadhārayagarbhatatpuruşasamāsa. Such an
"of" of identification must be carefully distinguished from the other
"ofs": : a sine qua non is that the grammatically independent term
(gauze) is the representation of the term thereto subordinated (eve-
ning), as "moon mist mourning veils". In the example: "And there
the lion's ruddy eyes / Shall flow with tears of gold" (William Blake),
"tears of gold" does not satisfy this criterion; rather, "gold" is a
representation of "tears", and we have upama, not rūpaka.
samastavastuvişaya, 'referring to the entire thing': (1) a rūpaka in which
the subject of identification and its several parts or aspects are
identified in rigorously parallel fashion with the object and its
several parts; complex metaphor. (2) B 2.22 (23), U 1.12, R 8.41-
55, M 140. (3) jyotsnäbhasmacchuraṇadhavalā bibhratī tārakâsthiny
antardhanavyasanarasikā rātrikāpālikiyam । dvipăd dvīpam bhramati