1448 Verse 2234

Original

नचादृष्टार्थसम्बन्धः शब्दो भवति वाचकः ।
तथाचेत्स्यादपूर्वोऽपि सर्वः स्वार्थं प्रबोधयेत् ॥ २२३४ ॥

nacādṛṣṭārthasambandhaḥ śabdo bhavati vācakaḥ |
tathācetsyādapūrvo’pi sarvaḥ svārthaṃ prabodhayet || 2234 ||

“As a matter of fact, a word, whose relation shit to its denotation has not been apprehended, can never be expressive. If it were so expressive, then, each and every new word could express its meaning.”—[Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 242-243].—(2234)

Kamalaśīla

The Mīmāṃsaka again proceeds to show that the Proposition that ‘the Word-Sound is not-eternal’ is annulled by the fact that the denotative or expressive potency of the Word cannot be explained otherwise (than by the Presumption of the eternality of the Word):—[see verse 2234 above]

The Presumption that is here put forward is itself based upon another Presumption: For instance, the expressive Potency of the Word is proved by the Presumption that Verbal Cognition cannot be explained except on that basis;—and this Potency cannot be explained except on the basis of the eternality of the Word; hence this Presumption is based upon the previous Presumption.

This same idea is expounded in detail in the Text—where it is shown that the Word by itself cannot be expressive if its relationship with its denotation has not been apprehended.

‘If it were so expressive, etc. etc.’;—if the word, whose relationship to the denotation has not been already apprehended, were expressive of its meaning,—then even a new word,—never heard before,—could express its meaning; for instance, words like ‘Cow’, etc. in the case of the inhabitants of the Nārikela-dvīpa (the Coconut-Isle) (who are not cognisant of such words).—(2234)