New Dimensions in Jaina Logic

Author(s): Mahaprajna Acharya, Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Today and Tommorrow Printers and Publishers

Page 67

Doctrine of Nuyus 59
philosophy, logic and science. This is indeed the reason why the verbal viewpoint which is mainly concerned with the philosophy of word, meaning and propositions, occupies an important position in the doctrine of nayas. In grammar the difference of tense, caseendings etc. do not entail the difference of the referent, but this is not accepted to be so by the verbal standpoint, which claims that the difference in the tense and case-endings of a word necessarily implies difference in the nature of the referent.
Novelty of Object due to the Difference of (1) Tense, (2) Gender and (3) Number
For instance, the propositions, there was a city named Jaipur', 'there is such a city', and 'there will be such a city'--have different and distinct references, because the city of Jaipur is a variable place without any constant character of its own. Here the difference of meaning is due to the difference of tense represented by the verb. Similarly the difference of gender entails novelty of the thing referred to. For instance in the expressions, 'baby boy and baby girl', the component 'baby' has different connotations on account of the change of gender effected by the second component. Similarly, the terms 'god' and 'goddess' have intrinsically different connotations according to the verbal viewpoint. The expression 'mean' which is a singular noun stands for a condition or quality, whereas the plural form 'means' stands for money.
The implication of this naya is that the meaning of a word necessarily varies with the variation of the tense, gender and number, because no additional part of a word is meaningless. Any additional element in a word is bound to introduce a novel of meaning.
The Etymological Viewpoint (samabhirudhanaya)
This viewpoint of etymology is much subtler than the verba! viewpoint. The synonymous words, according to this viewpoint, have different meanings, and they do not stand for an identical referent. For linguistic exactness we use specific words to connote specific modes. The practice of bracketing synonyms followed in the vocabularies is a defective method according to this viewpoint. Each word has a shade of its own which makes it irreplaceable by any other word, however close its connotation may be. A morphological difference in a word presupposes a corresponding difference in the meaning intended by the speaker. No two words can be used to denote the selfsame referent. Such use would involve confusion and contradiction. The power of expression should vary from word