2023-03-29 18:09:45 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
62
it secondary to the simile, while here it either functions independently
or in terms of relations not otherwise categorized.
INTRODUCTION
IV. FIGURES based on conjunction or collocation. Distinguished from
the former category in that nothing more than coincidental coexistence
is implied; no notion of necessity or convention relates the two things
or events. As such, presence is assumed; inference is lacking. The figures
are "descriptive", and it is only the quality of the whole description which
distinguishes them from mere sentences of non-poetry (see svabhāvokti
discussion).
(A) conjunction of things
appropriate conjunction
inappropriate conjunction
conjunction of usually separate things
separation of usually conjoint things
exchange of one thing for another
(B) conjunction of qualities
expansion of descriptive adjuncts
capture of the exact genus in an
individual; meticulous description
sama
vişama (I)
sahokti
vinokti
parivṛtti
samuccaya
svabhāvokti
V. PUNS. As an arthālamkāra, pun (śleşa) participates in the idea of all
the preceding categories (as a śabdalamkāra, see below VI). Pun in
general is the simultaneous apprehension of two or more meanings,
determined in a given phonemic sequence. (The latter qualification
distinguishes pun from the figures of suggestion, where one meaning
suggests another.) When the grammatical analysis of the sequence is
identical, or nearly so, for the two meanings apprehended, those meanings
are a fortiori "compared", and we understand the figure as an arthālamkā-
ra. The simultaneity of the apprehension lends an element of hyperbole,
at least in manner. Pun resembles the figures of suggestion and colloca-
tion in that one of the two meanings is generally prākaraṇika (ʻrelevant'),
the other aprākaranika. The relevant meaning is, however, often not the
obvious one. As we have stated above, the pun in many ways constitutes
the figure par excellence. The universe of figures can from one point
of view be seen as a meticulous analysis of the components of the pun.
As a separate figure, arthaśleșa has been most exhaustively treated by
Rudrata, who, as we have seen, devotes an entire chapter to it. Ślesa,
as Dandin was the first to observe, is also the figure which combines
it secondary to the simile, while here it either functions independently
or in terms of relations not otherwise categorized.
INTRODUCTION
IV. FIGURES based on conjunction or collocation. Distinguished from
the former category in that nothing more than coincidental coexistence
is implied; no notion of necessity or convention relates the two things
or events. As such, presence is assumed; inference is lacking. The figures
are "descriptive", and it is only the quality of the whole description which
distinguishes them from mere sentences of non-poetry (see svabhāvokti
discussion).
(A) conjunction of things
appropriate conjunction
inappropriate conjunction
conjunction of usually separate things
separation of usually conjoint things
exchange of one thing for another
(B) conjunction of qualities
expansion of descriptive adjuncts
capture of the exact genus in an
individual; meticulous description
sama
vişama (I)
sahokti
vinokti
parivṛtti
samuccaya
svabhāvokti
V. PUNS. As an arthālamkāra, pun (śleşa) participates in the idea of all
the preceding categories (as a śabdalamkāra, see below VI). Pun in
general is the simultaneous apprehension of two or more meanings,
determined in a given phonemic sequence. (The latter qualification
distinguishes pun from the figures of suggestion, where one meaning
suggests another.) When the grammatical analysis of the sequence is
identical, or nearly so, for the two meanings apprehended, those meanings
are a fortiori "compared", and we understand the figure as an arthālamkā-
ra. The simultaneity of the apprehension lends an element of hyperbole,
at least in manner. Pun resembles the figures of suggestion and colloca-
tion in that one of the two meanings is generally prākaraṇika (ʻrelevant'),
the other aprākaranika. The relevant meaning is, however, often not the
obvious one. As we have stated above, the pun in many ways constitutes
the figure par excellence. The universe of figures can from one point
of view be seen as a meticulous analysis of the components of the pun.
As a separate figure, arthaśleșa has been most exhaustively treated by
Rudrata, who, as we have seen, devotes an entire chapter to it. Ślesa,
as Dandin was the first to observe, is also the figure which combines