2.1.3 The Process of Sabdabodha The term sabdabodha means the knowledge generated from a Sabda (a proposition or a sen- tence), hence sabdabodha means ‘sentential cognition’ or ‘linguistic understanding’. The focus of the sentential analysis is to offer the qualifier-qualificand (visesaka- viSesya) structure of the sentence, The following are three main views on the qualifier-qualificand relation in a sentence that are found in Sanskrit literature:*6 * ‘prathamantartha-mukhya-visesyaka-Sabdabodha'’ (the sententical cognition having the nominal-ending functioning as the chief qualificand) of the Naiyayikas, + ‘dhatvartha-mukhya-vigesyaka-Sabdabodha’ the sentential cognition in which the action [the meaning of the verbal-base] functions as the chief qualificand) of the Vaiyakaranas, + ‘bhavand-mukhya-visesyaka-Sabdabodha’ (the sentential cognition in which injunction [meaning of the verbal-ending] functions as the chief qualificand) of the Mimamsakas, ‘A few scholars explain the sentential cognition with slight variations. According to Jayanta the phala (fruit/ result), that is the meaning of the verbal root is the primary substantive, while Visistadvaitin philosophers believe that the verbal suffix denoting the agent is the main substan- tive? It is Visvandtha (circa 13" C), who has presented the process of verbal cognition at the beginning of the ‘Sabdakhanda’ section of his ‘Nydyasiddhantamuktavali’ (81) in the following verse: “padajnanam tu karanam dvaram tatra padarthadhih | Sabdabodhah phalam tatra Saktidhih sahakarin’ | Meaning: ‘For the verbal cognition to occur, the knowledge of the words (padajndnam) is, the instrumental cause (karanam), the remembrance of word-meanings [via their significative SSBronkhorst (2005, p. 78) states that, perhaps. itis Bharwibari's VP that presents the first ‘clear’ and “explicit” account that the operation expressed by the verb as the main qualificand of the sentence, Also see Cardona (1975, 260), and Dash (1998, p. 327) “Preface of Tatacharya (2005, p. i)power] (padarthadhih) is a gateway (dvaram), and the knowledge of the relation of the words and their meanings (Saktidhih) is the auxiliary cause or operation (sahakarini)’ Jayanta opines that each of the above factors or the totality of the factors (‘sdmagri 38 are the most efficient (sddhakatama) causal factors (karana), and not mere the pada-jfdna. The relation of the words and word-meanings is also known as vrtti. Tt can be of two types: Sakti (the primary relation) and laksand (the secondary relation, or ‘metaphoric transfer’ or ‘indicative power’). When the primary meaning of the word does not function in the sentence, the secondary meaning is extracted by the comprehender. ‘This relation between a word and its meaning is considered as nitya (eternal or permanent) by Mimamsakas and grammarians, while sanketa (conventional) by the Naiyayikas. Once the comprehender passes through these three stages having the knowledge of word-meanings, the sentential-cognition incurs, if it is accompanied by some auxiliary factors that assist the process of cognition. 2.1.4 Auxiliary Factors for Verbal Understanding ‘The Mimarasa school proposes the concepts or the syntactico-semantic requirements of a sen- tence such as mutual expectancy (Gkdriksd), semantic or logical consistency or compatibility (yogyatd), and contiguity or proximity (asatt). The term ‘akariksa’ can be defined as the desire or the expectancy on the part of the lis- tener to know other words in the sentence without which the sentence meaning is incomplete”? ‘Mimamsa accepts both syntactic and psychological expectancy. The feature ‘yogyata’ or seman- tic fitness or semantic compatibility is another factor for a sentence to be valid. Grammarians do not accept this factor necessary for a verbal cognition, For them, syntactic coherence is all that is important for a sentence. Kumdrila Bhatta, states that even though the semantically incon- Dash (1999, p. 336) °padasya padantara-vyatireka-prayuktamaya-nanubhavakatvam akanksa |" (‘Tarkasangrahah'). See (Raja, 1968, p. 157, 158, 163). “According tothe grammarians, the semantically illogical words, such as Sasavisaina (‘hare’s horn’), do convey the meaning (Bhattacharya, 1987, p. 306). Nageta holds that the knowledge of incongruity leads one to com- prehend the invalidity of verbal cognition (Tatacharya, 2005, p. Ivi). Joshi and Roodbergen (2008) suggest two distinctions of yogyatd: ‘artha-yogyat (‘meaning-compatiblity’) and ‘‘abda-yogyata’ (‘compatibility of (gram: ‘matical] word for and argue that the latter belongs to the domain of grammar. 53sistent sentences such as ‘vandhyd-putra’ (‘son of a barren woman’) can convey the meaning, the semantic coherence only affects its truth-value and nothing else.4! Semantic compatibility is taken, generally, when the meaning of a sentence is not contradicted by the experience. E.g., in sentence ‘vahnind sifcati’ (‘wets with the fire’) the cognition is contradicted by the usual experience, hence it is said to be lacking semantic consistency. ‘The third feature ‘dsarti’ or ‘sannidhi’ refers to the proximity of the words, that is, uninterrupted utterance, or unbroken apprehension of the words, or Spatio-temporal contiguity in the sentence." Naiydyikas add tatparya (‘the intention of the speaker’) as a fourth auxiliary factor. They hold that it can be inferred based on the context. According to the Mimamsakas, tatparya refers to the purport of the sentence concerning which the sentence is uttered and it is known by the whole and not by the parts, on the contrary to the view held by Anandavardhana who believes that the intention can be known by the part such as letter, words or marks, etc. Nagesa holds that the cognition of import is not the cause of verbal cognition. Rangkuti and Hasnain (2018, p. 8) call the earlier sentence-definitions as ‘simplistic’ and claim that it is the Mimdrasd tradition that went further in defining the notion of a sentence evolving these three additional criterion to establish the ‘sentencehood’ 2.1.5 On ‘Nominal Sentences’ This section presents a short note of the discussions on the nominal sentences that primarily stands as a background for addressing the resultant objective of the research. Various texts in Sanskrit literature offer the verb-centric definition of a sentence. It is also evident that Sanskrit is rich in the nominal sentences (NS, henceforth) which are profoundly found right from the +r (1886, p. 13) that ‘Sanskrit, in comparison with western languages, does not avail itself much of finite Vedic texts to the classical literature and also in modern writings. IC is stated by Spe verbs", aja (1993, p. 159) “Mahadeva in his commentary ‘Dinakari' on the ‘Muktavali’, and the grammarian Nagesa state that the cog- nition of word-meaning, and not just words, should be without any interval. Vyasairthah in his “Tarkatdndava’ adds that any interruption either inthe utterance of words or in the writing prevents verbal cognition (Tatacharya, 2005).