________________
OF SENTENCES
373
of the separate meanings of its words. Russell subscribes to this view when he observes that 'a sentence may consist of a single word, or of a wink ; but generally it consists of several words. In that case it has a meaning which is a function of the meanings of the separate words and their order.' 2
Another theory of the relation between the meaning of a sentence and those of its constituent words is known as anvitābhidhāna-vāda. According to it, the meaning of a sentence is not merely the aggregate of the separate meanings of its constituent words The sentence has a unitary meaning of its own which cannot be resolved into the complex meaning of its words Every sentence means an action (kriyārtha). It either commands or forbids us to do something Hence the kriyā or the verb is the central unit of a sentence. All the other words of a sentence develop or particularise the action which is the central meaning of it The constituent words possess meaning only as they are related to the action meant by the sentence. Thus in the sentence bring the cow,' the word cow meaps, not the cow as such, but as the object of the verb bring. Hence in a sentence there is first a construction (anvaya) of the words with one another and then an expression (abhidhāna) of the construed meaning of the whole sentence, i.e. there is an expression of the construed meaning (anvitābhidhāna). The theory of anvitābhidhāna is advocated by the Prābhākara Mīmāmsakas and the grammarians. There is, however, some difference of opinion between them with regard to the function of the words in the construed meaning of the sentence. According to the grammarians, the constituent words have no separate meanings of their own They convey only the integral
1 Vide TB., p. 14; NM, pp. 395-96 , Vivaranaprameyasamgraha, pp. 257 f. Vide algo VP., Ch. IV, SD., p. 163.
9 Vide Outline of Philosophy, p. 266.
