________________
EXAMINATION OF THE IMPORT OF WORDS.
601
if the man who is ignorant of the context in which the word 'cognisable? has been uttered, hears only the word 'cognisable, there does appear in him some sort of a cognition of a nebulous character.-If then the word * cognisable by itself (apart from a sentence) had no denotation, then how is there the said cognition that is expressed by it?"
dnswer
TEXTS (1176-1178).
THAT WORDS LIKE KNOWABLE OOGNISABLE SERVE AS THE MEANS
OF PRODUCING COGNITIONS (IDEAS) HAVING BEEN PERCEIVED ONLY WHEN THEY APPEAR IN A SENTENCE, IF, AT SOME OTHER TIME, THEY ARE FOUND TO BE USED ALONE BY THEMSELVES, THE IDEA THAT IS PRODUCED BY THEM, N REGARD TO THINGS THAT ARE NEBULOUS, IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE CASE OF THEIR USE IN A SENTENCE.-IN FACT, IN THE CASE OF WORDS LIKE 'JAR' ALSO, IT IS THE SAME; SO THAT THE WORDS
KNOWABLE AND THE LIKE ARE JUST LIKE THE WORDS "JAR' AND THE REST,-(1176-1178)
COMMENTARY.
What the whole of this means is as follows:--As a matter of fact, there is no Cognition following from the hearing of the word ('cognisable') by itself ; what happens in such cases is that the man has previously heard the word used in a sentence as conveying a definite meaning, -50 that when he subsequently hears it pronounced alone by itself, he lias his mind influenced by the similarity of the word in the two cases, and he comes to presume that he has understood its meaning. That this is so is shown by the fact that under this latter presumption, the nebulous and wavering idea that the listener has is of those same things which he cognised on previous occasions, when the word was used in sentences. This is exactly the same as in the case of the ordinary words like "Jar: -For instance, the question having been put-Shall I bring water in a Jar or in the Hands ?—The answer is 'In the Jar'; if the man who hears this last word alone is ignorant of the context in which it has been uttered,--the idea that he has is in accordance with the meaning of the word 'Jar' that he had understood in those previous sentences that he had heard with that word in them.
Thus then it follows that words like cognisable are just as denotative of particular things as other denotative words. This is what is pointed out in the Tect by the words- So that, etc. etc.'-(1176-1178)
It has been argued (under Text 980, by Kremärila) that-"Rather than assume the Thing excluded', it is far better to assume the thing itself".
This is answered in the following
