Book Title: Makaranda Madhukar Anand Mahendale Festshrift
Author(s): M A Dhaky, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre

Previous | Next

Page 132
________________ Meaning of the Accusative in Desiderative 121 Conclusion : While desideratives are a common features of all languages for expressing speaker's desire, non-periphrastic finite desideratives are the peculiarities of only Sanskrit. Now, since the primary condition for the desiderative usage is that the speaker must necessarily wish for the accomplishment of an object, the accusatives express the objects wished for in the desiderative usages as in 'pākam cikīrsati' etc. (excepting that nominative expresses recipient of disadvantages) (when the san is used in the sense of fear) as in 'svā mumūrsati' etc. Also, since the speaker wishes to accomplish an object by accomplishing an action first, the desiderative roots express the actions functioning as the objects of desire. Also, since the speaker wishes to accomplish the object by accomplishing the action by himself, the action and the desire have the same person (speaker) as the agent (samānakartyka). Grammarians, especially Nageśa and others perceived that when the root-meaning such as the action is the object of desire and has the same agent as that of the desire, the same becomes a qualifier qualifying the desire, the qualificand, through the objected (karmatva) and the state of having the same agent (samanakartrkatva). However, the real point of difference among the epistemologists is regarding the function and the relation of the accusative-meanings. Following the Mahābhāsya statement and general linguistic theory, Gangeśa has proposed that the accusative meanings such as the cooking are the objects and hence the qualificands of desire; whereas the root-meanings such as the action of doing are the means and hence the qualifiers of the desire. However, since such a theory contradicts the general grammatical convention that kāraka-meanings are related to the actions, and also since such a theory cannot avoid the incorrect accusative usages such as grham tisthāsati', Saundada and Gadādhara have proposed the theory that the accusatives must be admitted to be expressive of the objecthood relating to the rootmeanings (actions) and the same root-meanings are the objects and hence the qualificands of desire. Now, as regards the Mahābhāsya statement : Patañjali does not deny that accusative-meanings are the objects of the root

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284