2023-03-29 18:11:03 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
294
GLOSSARY
as an artha śleșa does bring together two ideas in such a way that one
heightens the effect of the other (hyperbole). This point is made
clearer in the discussions which accompany the individual figures.
It should be emphasized that mere punning, that is, punning which
is not based on the meanings involved and which does not aim at an
end to which those meanings are relevant, is definitely unacceptable
here. In this sense, too, the concept of artha (śleșa) has acquired a
positive content; in Dandin, it was a residual category (a-bhinna-
pada): that pun which cannot be explained by grammatical exegesis.
The ways in which the two meanings can complement one another
are ten: (a) they can be qualified in the same way (aviśeșa), (b)
or not (virodha); (c) the second may constitute flattery of the first
(adhika); (d) the pun may suggest a further contrast of mood
(vakra); (e) one may be flattery, the other reproof-ironic praise
(vyāja); (f) the second meaning may be risqué (ukti); (g) the two
meanings may be similar but take contradictory qualifications
(asambhava); (h) the second meaning may augment the force of an
adjectival description (avayava), or (i) the force of the names
themselves (tattva); (j) and, lastly, if they cannot be qualified in
the same way (case b), the contradiction in qualification may be a
function of the meanings of the terms, rather than a question of
mere negation (virodhābhāsa).
Rudrata is not less inventive with regard to śabda śleşa. Given
that the two meanings must relate to a different morphemic analysis
of the common span, that difference can be specified in terms of
the kinds of morphemes (form classes) which are thus confused.
Rudrața gives eight examples, starting with the syllable (varṇa; this
alone is sub-morphemic), stem (pada), gender-indicating suffix
(linga), verb root (prakrti), nominal affix (pratyaya; excluding inflec-
tions), inflection (vibhakti; both nominal and verbal), and number-
indicating suffix (vacana).
It is clear that the subdivisions of artha are not incompatible with
those of sabda, but it would indeed be rare for an example to be
found showing both grammatical and contextual precocity to such a
degree. Nothing within the realm of human experience is beyond
the power of the Sanskrit language, but we feel that here, at least,
we are straining at the limits.
Mammaţa repeats Rudrața's classification of sabda śleşa, but he no-
tices only one "śleşa" in his chapter on arthâlamkāra. Many of the oth-
ers, however, have been treated as separate figures (e.g., virodhâbhāsa).
GLOSSARY
as an artha śleșa does bring together two ideas in such a way that one
heightens the effect of the other (hyperbole). This point is made
clearer in the discussions which accompany the individual figures.
It should be emphasized that mere punning, that is, punning which
is not based on the meanings involved and which does not aim at an
end to which those meanings are relevant, is definitely unacceptable
here. In this sense, too, the concept of artha (śleșa) has acquired a
positive content; in Dandin, it was a residual category (a-bhinna-
pada): that pun which cannot be explained by grammatical exegesis.
The ways in which the two meanings can complement one another
are ten: (a) they can be qualified in the same way (aviśeșa), (b)
or not (virodha); (c) the second may constitute flattery of the first
(adhika); (d) the pun may suggest a further contrast of mood
(vakra); (e) one may be flattery, the other reproof-ironic praise
(vyāja); (f) the second meaning may be risqué (ukti); (g) the two
meanings may be similar but take contradictory qualifications
(asambhava); (h) the second meaning may augment the force of an
adjectival description (avayava), or (i) the force of the names
themselves (tattva); (j) and, lastly, if they cannot be qualified in
the same way (case b), the contradiction in qualification may be a
function of the meanings of the terms, rather than a question of
mere negation (virodhābhāsa).
Rudrata is not less inventive with regard to śabda śleşa. Given
that the two meanings must relate to a different morphemic analysis
of the common span, that difference can be specified in terms of
the kinds of morphemes (form classes) which are thus confused.
Rudrața gives eight examples, starting with the syllable (varṇa; this
alone is sub-morphemic), stem (pada), gender-indicating suffix
(linga), verb root (prakrti), nominal affix (pratyaya; excluding inflec-
tions), inflection (vibhakti; both nominal and verbal), and number-
indicating suffix (vacana).
It is clear that the subdivisions of artha are not incompatible with
those of sabda, but it would indeed be rare for an example to be
found showing both grammatical and contextual precocity to such a
degree. Nothing within the realm of human experience is beyond
the power of the Sanskrit language, but we feel that here, at least,
we are straining at the limits.
Mammaţa repeats Rudrața's classification of sabda śleşa, but he no-
tices only one "śleşa" in his chapter on arthâlamkāra. Many of the oth-
ers, however, have been treated as separate figures (e.g., virodhâbhāsa).