%0 Journal Article %1 Aussant:07 %A Aussant, Emilie %D 2007 %J Journal of Indian Philosophy %K 2007 vyakarana %N 2 %P 133--147 %T A case of Vyakaranic oxymoron: the notion of Anvarthasamnja %U http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10781-007-9011-y %V 35 %X The anvartha-samjna compound associates two contradictory terms: anvartha, which means "used in conformity with his etymological/first meaning", and samjna which implies the idea of a convention; it therefore appears to be quite intriguing. The question is: is it relevant to focus on this contradiction or is it only a false problem? The aim of this paper is to answer the above question and this implies to grasp somewhat better the use of this notion by the Paninian grammarians. To do so, the author has studied the main texts of the Paninian tradition, having in mind the following questions: did the Paninian grammarians deal with this notion and, if so, in what terms? Did they perceive the contradiction raised by the association of the terms anvartha and samjna? The study will show that this contradiction is only a false problem: according to the Paninian grammarians quoted above, even when a samjna is provided with an etymological/first meaning and its bearer (or one of its properties) is partly described by this meaning, this samjna belongs, above all, to the domain of convention.

@article{Aussant:07, abstract = {The anvartha-samjna compound associates two contradictory terms: anvartha, which means "[used] in conformity with his [etymological/first] meaning", and samjna which implies the idea of a convention; it therefore appears to be quite intriguing. The question is: is it relevant to focus on this contradiction or is it only a false problem? The aim of this paper is to answer the above question and this implies to grasp somewhat better the use of this notion by the Paninian grammarians. To do so, the author has studied the main texts of the Paninian tradition, having in mind the following questions: did the Paninian grammarians deal with this notion and, if so, in what terms? Did they perceive the contradiction raised by the association of the terms anvartha and samjna? The study will show that this contradiction is only a false problem: according to the Paninian grammarians quoted above, even when a samjna is provided with an etymological/first meaning and its bearer (or one of its properties) is partly described by this meaning, this samjna belongs, above all, to the domain of convention.}, added-at = {2008-01-16T15:41:16.000+0100}, author = {Aussant, Emilie}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2b42c31d37a03df53a1ff1845ed6cde80/seandalai}, interhash = {1d5c1eedb50598b62f7c4dcfdaf9c2c6}, intrahash = {b42c31d37a03df53a1ff1845ed6cde80}, journal = {Journal of Indian Philosophy}, keywords = {2007 vyakarana}, number = 2, pages = {133--147}, timestamp = {2008-01-16T15:41:17.000+0100}, title = {A case of Vyakaranic oxymoron: the notion of Anvarthasamnja}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10781-007-9011-y}, volume = 35, year = 2007 }