2023-03-29 18:11:02 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
292
GLOSSARY
the figure (that is, the idea it expresses), since, as has been noted,
śleşa can be associated with almost any other figure-not merely
in the sense of adjunction of two figures, but as an essential element.
in the expression of that other figure's idea. That is why most later
writers resort to what amounts to a formal, or grammatical, classi-
fication of subtypes.
The earliest writer, Bhāmaha, who treats ślişta as a variety of
metaphor (rupaka), gives two independent classifications; the identity
of the subject and the object can be expressed in any of three aspects:
adjectival qualification (guna), mode of activity (kriyā), or essence
(nāma). (These correspond to the grammatical triad adjective,
verb, and noun, but Bhāmaha's intention is not to equate them with
the formal categories, at least in the sense that he treats primarily
the aspects of the thing thereby expressed.) Secondly, Bhamaha
notes that ślişta can be associated with three other alamkāras:
sahôkti, hetu, and upamā. Oddly, he gives only three examples for
these six types, each exemplifying one term of each triad (although
the triads have no relation to one another).
Dandin also gives two classifications, and one of them recognizes
the formal aspect of śleșa, for the phoneme span which expresses
the double-entendre may consist of the same words for both senses
(abhinnapada), or of different words (bhinnapada). (Compare
"another footing now", using the same words, with "moonshine's
bright", using different words.) This distinction is essentially the
same as the more popular later version artha-sabda, but the elabora-
tion which this has received has somewhat clouded the issue (for
example, see varṇaśleşa, where it is not at all clear that vibhau
would be taken as an example of bhinnapada śleşa by Dandin, despite
its being considered sabdaśleşa by Rudrața). We might say, in
modern parlance, that the "morpho-phonemics" of the two spans
are either the same or different. As an aside, it should be noted that
most writers (beginning with Udbhata) specifically exempt intona-
tion as a consideration in determining this difference. It is inevitable
that many compounds will be differently accented as they are taken
in different senses, but unless the analysis also reveals a morphemic
difference in the line (doṣā-kara, vs. doșâkara), these compounds
are not considered different.
Dandin's other classification is also formal, but is extrinsic to
the double-entendre strictly speaking: it assumes a standard form
for the pun, which is on qualifications of two (given) nouns. These
GLOSSARY
the figure (that is, the idea it expresses), since, as has been noted,
śleşa can be associated with almost any other figure-not merely
in the sense of adjunction of two figures, but as an essential element.
in the expression of that other figure's idea. That is why most later
writers resort to what amounts to a formal, or grammatical, classi-
fication of subtypes.
The earliest writer, Bhāmaha, who treats ślişta as a variety of
metaphor (rupaka), gives two independent classifications; the identity
of the subject and the object can be expressed in any of three aspects:
adjectival qualification (guna), mode of activity (kriyā), or essence
(nāma). (These correspond to the grammatical triad adjective,
verb, and noun, but Bhāmaha's intention is not to equate them with
the formal categories, at least in the sense that he treats primarily
the aspects of the thing thereby expressed.) Secondly, Bhamaha
notes that ślişta can be associated with three other alamkāras:
sahôkti, hetu, and upamā. Oddly, he gives only three examples for
these six types, each exemplifying one term of each triad (although
the triads have no relation to one another).
Dandin also gives two classifications, and one of them recognizes
the formal aspect of śleșa, for the phoneme span which expresses
the double-entendre may consist of the same words for both senses
(abhinnapada), or of different words (bhinnapada). (Compare
"another footing now", using the same words, with "moonshine's
bright", using different words.) This distinction is essentially the
same as the more popular later version artha-sabda, but the elabora-
tion which this has received has somewhat clouded the issue (for
example, see varṇaśleşa, where it is not at all clear that vibhau
would be taken as an example of bhinnapada śleşa by Dandin, despite
its being considered sabdaśleşa by Rudrața). We might say, in
modern parlance, that the "morpho-phonemics" of the two spans
are either the same or different. As an aside, it should be noted that
most writers (beginning with Udbhata) specifically exempt intona-
tion as a consideration in determining this difference. It is inevitable
that many compounds will be differently accented as they are taken
in different senses, but unless the analysis also reveals a morphemic
difference in the line (doṣā-kara, vs. doșâkara), these compounds
are not considered different.
Dandin's other classification is also formal, but is extrinsic to
the double-entendre strictly speaking: it assumes a standard form
for the pun, which is on qualifications of two (given) nouns. These