3.3. Sentence According to the School of Vyākaraṇa

In the science of grammar, the early preceptors Pāṇini, Kātyāyana and Patañjali, also known as Trimuni, pointed out some aspects of sentence in their works. Pāṇini has not given a vivid definition of sentence in his monumental work Aṣṭādhyāyī. But there are two occasions, where Pāṇini hinted his views on sentence.

He refers to the term 'vākya' in the aphorism:

"vākyasya ṭeḥ pluta udāttaḥ"
  —(Aṣṭādhyāyī 8.2.82).

The whole idea of Pāṇini about sentence can be traced in the aphorism:

"samarthaḥ padavidhiḥ"
  —(Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.1.1).

Usually, Mīmāṃsākas are considered to be the first to promulgate the necessity of ākāṅkṣā among the meanings of the words in a sentence in order to bring about the unity of idea.

But the necessity for interdependence of words to give a unified meaning was recognised even earlier by Pāṇini, who conceived the concept of ākāṅkṣā by the word 'samartha':

"samarthaḥ padavidhiḥ,
  —(Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.1.1).

This term has been variously interpreted by the commentators of Pāṇini.

Patañjali states that according to some, the word sāmarthya denotes vyapekṣā or mutual connection pertaining to the meaning:

"parasparavyapekṣāṃ sāmarthyameke",
  —(Mahābhāṣya, 1991, p.365).

This interpretation is similar to the concept of ākāṅkṣā given by the Mimāṃsakas.

Kātyāyana explains the term sāmarthya as ekārthībhāva or unification of meaning:

"pṛthagarthānām ekārthībhavaḥ sāmarthyam,
  —(under Pāṇini, 2.1.1).

This implies the capability of words to make compounds in which, different words with different meanings are infused together to signify a unified meaning. This explanation of the term sāmarthya seems analogous to the condition of arthaikatva formulated by Jaimini, if it is interpreted as unity of meaning (Raja, 1963, p.155). Here Pāṇini intends to say that the words are capable of forming either a sentence or a compound. When words possess ekārthībhāvasāmarthya or the capability of giving a unified sense, they could make compound words, losing their individual meanings and acquire a special signification. Similarly when the words possess vyapekṣārūpasāmarthya, they could make sentences, in which they retain their own meanings, but are mutually related.

Commentators like Kaiyaṭa are of this opinion; he says:

" iha vyapekṣāyām samāso na bhavati, ekārthībhāve vākyaṃ neti"
  —(Under Pāṇini, 2.1.1).

Haradatta, in his work Padamañjarī, states that both ekārthībhāva and vyapekṣā are necessary in a compound word, because in the absence of mutual connection of meanings, words are not allowed to form a compound (Under Pāṇini, 2.1.1). We can infer from these discussions that Pāṇini has summarised all his ideas about sentence in the word samartha.

In Sanskrit Grammar, it was Kātyāyana, who did the first attempt to define a sentence. Patañjali remarks that:

"idam adyāpūrvam kriyate vākyasaṃjñā samānavākyādhikāraśca"
  —(Mahābhāṣya, under Pāṇini 2.1.1).

Some scholars hold that because of this reason, Kātyāyana was also known as Vākyakāra (Dr. Dhanurdhara Jha, 2002, p.5).

Kātyāyana defines sentence in two perspectives as "ekatiṅvākyam" and "ākhyātaṃ sāvyayakārakaviśeṣaṇaṃ vākyam" (Under Pāṇini, 2.1.1). The former definition states that sentence is that which has one finite verb. But this definition is somewhat absurd in nature. There are obviously sentences having more than one finite verb like ' paśya mṛgo dhāvati' (behold, the animal runs). Later grammarians accept this as a single sentence as it gives a unified sense.

Thus Kaiyaṭa interprets this definition in a different perspective as:

"ekaḥ, samānaḥ tiṅ yasmin tat ekatiṅ"
  —(Under Pāṇini 2.1.1).

Thus, from the formal surface level approach, such a sentence may be considered as a complex one made up of two simple sentences. But at the deep structure level, it has a semantic unity and thus it is considered as a single sentence. Thus Kātyāyana proposes the latter definition. According to this, there is only one verb in a sentence, the meaning of which is the primary substantive (viśeṣya) and the other words (including verbs) are adjectives (viśeṣaṇa) of the main verb. Thus in the above sentence, though there are two verbs, the meaning of the one (paśya) is the primary substantive and the meaning of the other (dhāvati) is only its attribute (viśeṣaṇa).