Makaranda Madhukar Anand Mahendale Festshrift

Author(s): M A Dhaky, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre

Page 130

Meaning of the Accusative in Desiderative
119
the cooking as the qualificand from ‘pākam cikīrṣati' etc.
Saundadas Theory
However, the problem with such a theory of Gangeśa is that it directly contradicts the grammatical convention that the desiderative suffix is applied after the root expressing the accomplishment of the) object wished for; and hence the root-meaning, i. e. the action functions as the object of desire. Further, it contradicts the grammatical convention that the käraka - casemeanings are to be related to the root-meanings such as the actions; and therefore, the objecthood expressed by the accusative pākam' etc. needs to be related to the root-meaning such as the action of doing in ‘pākam cikīrsati' etc. Also, suppose such a grammatical convention is not adhered to, then the problem would be that the incorrect accusative usages such as 'He desires to stay the home' (grham tisthāsati) instead of the correct locative usage 'He desires to stay at home' (gļhe tisthāsati) could be contingent. This is possible on the ground that the desire to stay (as opposed to the staying),can have the home as its object; and hence the objecthood of the home expressed by the accusative (grham) can be related to the desire through describing.
Thus Saundada (Nyāyakośa) proposes that the accusative in pākam cikīrsati' etc. must be admitted to express the objecthood of the form of objectness of cooking (vişayatva); and the same can be related to the rootmeaning such as the action of doing; and thus the convention that kārakacase-meanings are to be related to the root-meaning such as the action, gets adhered to. Also, he proposes that the root-meaning such as the action of doing can be held to function as the object of the form of being the object of desire and the same can be related to the desire through the objecthood and the state of having the same agent as that of the desire. Thus one cognizes in such cases that one has the desire that describes the objecthood of the action which in turn describes the objecthood of the cooking.
Now, the advantage of this proposal is that the incorrect accusative usage 'grham tisthāsati' can be avoided. Since the staying cannot be said to describe the objecthood of the home—it can only describe the locushood of the home—the same objecthood cannot be related to the staying; and thus the accusative usage expressing the objecthood of the home becomes avoided.