Abstract
As K ātyāyana 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. T he 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. N onetheless, grammarians
insist on excluding these extreme applications of meaning extension; only the late kāvyālaṃkāraśāstra-
authors extol the virtues of the phenomenon. T he paper focuses on the trajectory that might have
been followed in the intervening changes.
References
Abhyankar Kashinath Vasudev, Jośī G anesasastri A mbadasa (eds.). 1929-1934. Śrīmajjaiminipraṇite Mīmāṃsādarśane: Mīmāṃsakakaṇṭhīrava-Kumārilabhaṭṭapraṇita-Tantravārtikasahita-Śābarabhāṣyopetaḥ. (Ānandāśramasaṃskṛta-granthāvaliḥ, 97.) Repr. 1971-1980, Poona: Anandasrama.
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 Tiziana. 2010. “The Background of the Samastavastuviṣayarūpaka and its Importance in Early 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 Priority: Revisiting the Bhāmaha-Daṇḍin Debate. Journal of Indian Philosophy 40(1), 67-118.
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 Autonomous Process of Denotation: K ātyāyana and Patañjali on the Limits of Analysis.” In: Caracchi et al. 2010: 41-61.
Candotti Maria Piera, Pontillo T iziana. 2012. “The Earlier P āṇinian Tradition on the Imperceptible Sign.” In: Pontillo & Candotti 2012: 99-153.
Caracchi P ., Comba A .S., Consolaro A ., Pelissero 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 Linguistics and Pāṇini.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute 70, 103-124.
Freschi Elisa, Pontillo Tiziana. 2012. “When O ne Thing Applies More Than Once: Tantra and Prasaṅga in Śrautasūtra, Mīmāṃsā and Grammar.” 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 Prasaṅga-principles. Frankfurt am Main: Peter 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 Arts/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. Poona: Oriental 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: University of California Press.
Pontillo Tiziana. 1999. Allomorfi e morfema ‘Zeromorfi’ in Pāṇini: Sostituzione di morfemi con zero fonico. University of Milan PhD dissertation in Linguistics and Philology.
Pontillo Tiziana. 2008. “The Edible Part of the Rice in the Mahabhāṣya Imagery: What are the Husks of Rules? What is a-tantram?” Pandanus 2, 79-96.
Pontillo Tiziana. 2009. “Late Vedic Rūpakas based on Nature Imagery: Ritual Identifications as a Sort of alaṃkāra-pattern.” Pandanus 3(2), 9-24. (“Nature in Indian L iterature, Art, Myth and Ritual”, Charles University, 4-7 June 2009, Prague, Czech Republic.) Pontillo Tiziana. 2013. “‘Where the Sense is Intended Although the Corresponding Speech Unit is Not Employed’: The Ekaśeṣa 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 Edict 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.
License
Copyright (c) 2013 Tiziana Pontillo
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.