Abstract
This paper aims to recover the ideas about semantics that are contained in Yāska’s Nirukta (c. 6–3 century BCE), the seminal work of the Indian tradition of nirvacana or etymology. It argues that, within the framework of his etymological project, Yāska developed consistent and sophisticated ideas relating to semantics—what I call his theory of meaning. It shows that this theory assumes the form of explicit and implicit reflections pertaining to the relation between three categories: denoting names (nāman/nāmadheya), denoted objects (sattva/artha), and name-giving action expressed by verbal roots (ākhyāta). A typology of Yāska’s etymologies for what they reveal about semantics will be proposed and investigated. In doing so, attention will be paid to how Yāska’s ideas resemble and anticipate ideas concerning the difference between polysemy and homonymity, metaphoric transfer, and synecdoche. It is hoped that attending to Yāska’s thus-far largely overlooked ideas will help us better appreciate the Nirukta’s role in the history of early Indian engagements with semantics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
NirD 1.1 (27,5–7/2,23–24): pradhānaṃ cêdam [i.e., niruktam] itarebhyo ’ṅgebhyaḥ sarvaśāstrebhyaś cârthaparijñānābhiniveśāt | artho hi pradhānam | tadguṇaḥ śabdaḥ. In citing Durga’s commentary on the Nirukta, I refer to page and line in the editions by Bhadkamkar (1985 [1919/1942]) and by Rajavade (1921, 1926).
The exceptions are Yāska’s well-known definitions of the semantics of nāman and ākhyāta in Nirukta 1.1 and that of the six basic modes of action (ṣaḍbhāvavikārāḥ) in Nirukta 1.2. Both episodes are often referred to in scholarship; see, for example, Strauß (1927, pp. 108–110), Scharfe (1977, pp. 119–121), Kunjunni Raja (1990, pp. 107–108), and Cardona (2019).
It should be noted that in the Nirukta the terms nāman and ākhyāta convey other meanings than ‘names’ and ‘verbal roots’. Notably, they occur in a fourfold classification of word-classes (Nirukta 1.1), in which nāman refers to what is sometimes translated as ‘nominal’ (e.g., Cardona 1994, p. 32; 2019, p. 2) or ‘nominal terms’, namely, what in Western grammatical terminology would be called nouns, both common and proper, adjectives, pronouns, and participles. In this same classification, strictly speaking, the term ākhyāta refers to finite verbal forms. On this classification, see, e.g., Cardona (2019, p. 3 note 7). Both terms also occur in the sentence [sarvāni] nāmāny ākhyātajāni ‘[all] nāmans are born (i.e., derived) from ākhyātas’ (Nirukta 1.12), a sentence that conveys a fundamental assumption underlying Yāska’s etymological project. On this sentence and on the meanings assigned to these two terms therein, see Visigalli (2023, pp. 170–172) with references. On ākhyāta, see also Chatterji (1948, pp. 66–69).
Eivind Kahrs (1983, 1984, 1998) has often emphasized that Yāska’s etymologies predominantly provide causal-semantic information. In other words, he takes the term nāman to primarily mean ‘name’ rather than ‘noun’, and the term ākhyāta to mean ‘verbal action’ rather than ‘verbal root’. Scharf (2012, 2014) has instead argued that Yāska’s etymologies also provide derivational-morphological information. In other words, in Scharf’s view, nāman also means ‘noun’ (or ‘nominal’) and ākhyāta also means ‘verbal root’. Scharf tantalizingly notes that different types of etymological explanations—and therefore varying emphases on the causal-semantic and derivational-morphological information they convey—may reflect different compositional strata of the Nirukta. With Scharf, I think that most etymologies convey both types of information. With Kahrs, I believe that the causal-semantic information is predominant.
Cf. Rajavade’s (1940, p. LIV–LV §CXLI) remark that the term itara is used in the Nirukta in the unusual sense of ‘well-known, familiar’.
Nirukta 2.17: ahir ayanāt | ety antarikṣe | ayam apîtaro ’hir etasmād eva.
Nirukta 6.19: gor ūdha uddhatataram bhavati | uponnaddham iti vā | snehānupradānasāmānyād rātrir apy ūdha ucyate. Note that ūdhaḥ is listed as a name for night in Nighaṇṭu I.7.20.
Bronkhorst (1981, 6 [2.6]) ‘On many occasions the Nirukta gives several etymologies of one single word in one single meaning’; Kahrs (2002, p. 174) ‘It is a well known fact that in Yāska’s Nirukta one frequently meets with multiple explanations of one and the same word with one and the same meaning’ [emphasis added].
Nirukta 3.9: annaṃ kasmāt | ānatam bhūtebhyaḥ | atter vā. This example has been chosen advisedly. Both Bronkhorst (1981, p. 7) and Mehendale (1986, p. 119) discuss the etymology of anna in the context of discussing multiple etymologies. Varma (1953, p. 4) refers to it as an example of how primitive Yāska’s etymologies can be.
Yāska’s derivational model is described in detail by Durga (NirD 1.1 [31,15–34,16/7,10–9,23]) while commenting on the etymology of the term nighaṇṭavaḥ (plural of nighaṇṭu), the first etymology recorded in the Nirukta. Durga’s commentary is discussed in Kahrs (2002). Durga somewhat unconvincingly overemphasizes the systematicity of Yāska’s derivational model. Nonetheless, he helpfully draws attention to the distinction between deep/surface levels that underlies Yāska’s etymologies.
Nirukta 2.5: kṣīraṃ kṣarateḥ | ghaser vêro nāmakaraṇaḥ | uśīram iti yathā.
The Uṇādisūtras derive both uśīra (IV.31 vaśaḥ kit) and kṣīra (IV.34 ghaseḥ kic ca) from the roots vaś (‘delight’) and ghas (‘consume’), respectively, plus the affix īraN (= īra). This affix is treated as marked with K (Kit), which indicates that it causes samprasāraṇa (vaś > uś) (by A 6.1.15 vacisvapiyajādīnāṁ kiti) and elision of the penultimate vowel (ghas > ghØs > kṣ) (upadhālopa by A 6.4.98 gamahanajanakhanaghasāṃ lopaḥ kṅity anaṅi); on Kit, see Abhyankar (1986 [1977], p. 123). I thank the reviewer for these references to Pāṇini’s Aṣṭhādhyāyī.
Nirukta 2.7: evam anyeṣām api sattvānāṃ saṃdehā vidyante | tāni cet samānakarmāṇi samānanirvacanāni | nānākarmāṇi cen nānānirvacanāni | yathārthaṃ nirvaktavyāni. ‘In this way there are doubts about other objects too. If those [names (nāmāni)] relate to the same action, they receive the same etymology. If they relate to different actions, they receive different etymologies. They should be explained etymologically according to the meaning.’ The phrase ‘other objects’ refers to what Yāska has just discussed: namely, the name go (Nirukta 2.5–2.7) [see “Type (2): One Name Denoting Many Objects has One Etymology” section] and the names pada/pāda (Nirukta 2.7) [see below “(2.2): The sāmānyāt Type of Etymology” section]. These names denote many objects, yet all the name’s applications can be explained in relation to one name-giving action, i.e., √gam ‘go’ and √pad ‘take a step’, respectively. Rajavade (1940, p. 329) tantalizingly suggests that saṃdehāḥ (as well as the other occurrences of saṃ√dih in Nirukta 2) does not mean ‘doubt’ but ‘combinations’, i.e., many objects are ‘combined’ under one name. Bronkhorst (1981, p. 4 note 3) suggests that tāni refers back to sattva ‘objects’ rather than to ‘names’. This interpretation may find support in Nirukta 1.14 where samānakarman refers to sattva (samānakarmaṇāṃ nāmadheyapratilambham ekeṣāṃ naîkeṣām [i.e., sattvānāṃ] ‘some [objects] obtain their names [on account of performing] the same actions, some do not’). It seems however clear that samānanirvacanāni must refer to ‘names’, since it would be nonsensical to speak of the etymology of an object. If we accept this interpretation, then the above passage would be translated as follows: ‘if those [objects (sattvāni)] relate to the same [name-giving] action, they [i.e., the names (nāmāni) denoting those objects] receive the same etymology etc.’.
Nirukta 2.7: tatra nirr̥tir niramaṇāt | r̥cchateḥ kr̥cchrāpattir itarā. Note the term itara ‘other’; as noted above, itara is also used to designate the name’s second application in types (2.1) and (2.2).
Scharfe refers in note to Varma (1953, p. 8). A similar criticism, with the same reference to Varma, is found in Kunjunni Raja (1977 [1963], p. 33). Elsewhere the latter writer (1990, p. 109) echoes the same criticism but offers a more balanced assessment, noting that although Yāska ‘does not mention secondary meaning (lakṣaṇā) explicitly’, nor does he pay ‘much attention to the importance of metaphoric meaning’ he was aware of the process of ‘metaphoric transfer’. In a stimulating study, Pontillo (1994) argues that polysemic words are often explained in the Nirukta in relation to an analogical link connecting the denoted objects. For example, Pontillo (1994, p. 307) notes that the word ūdhas denotes both cow’s udder and night, on the ground that both objects are united by the analogy of emitting liquid—milk and dew, respectively (Nirukta 6.19). The following sections of this paper deal with this and related themes in detail.
Nirukta 2.15: tatra kāṣṭhā ity etad anekasyâpi sattvasya [nāma] bhavati | kāṣṭhā diśo bhavanti | krāntvā sthitā bhavanti | kāṣṭhā upadiśo bhavanti | itarêtaraṃ krāntvā sthitā bhavanti | ādityo ’pi kāṣṭhôcyate | krāntvā sthito bhavati | ājyanto ’pi kāṣṭhôcyate | krāntvā sthito bhavati | āpo ’pi kāṣṭhā ucyante | krāntvā sthitā bhavantîti sthāvarāṇām. Among those [names denoting cardinal directions (diṅnāmāni) listed in Nighaṇṭu I.6, the term] kāṣṭhāḥ [Nighaṇṭu I.6.5] is [the name] of several things (sattva). [1] Directions are [named] kāṣṭhāḥ [because] having traversed (krāntvā) they stand still (sthitā). [2] Intermediate directions are [named] kāṣṭhāḥ [because] having traversed each other they stand still. [3] The sun too is [named] kāṣṭhāḥ [because] having traversed it stands still. [4] A goal (ājyanta) too is [named] kāṣṭhāḥ [because] having traversed it stands still. [5] Waters too are [named] kāṣṭhāḥ [because] having traversed they stand still: [so, kāṣṭhāḥ is a name] of stationary [waters]’. PW and MW take ājyanta to mean the goal in a race-course (āji ‘race-course’ + anta ‘end/goal’). Durga (NirD 2.15 [212,16/175,3]) explains it as the ‘goal/end of the path of an arrow’ (śarapathāntaḥ)
Nir 2.5: gaur iti pr̥thivyā nāmadheyam | yad dūraṃ gatā bhavati | yac câsyāṃ bhūtāni gacchanti | gāter vâukāro nāmakaraṇaḥ | athâpi paśunāmêhe bhavaty etasmād eva. ‘go [listed in Nighaṇṭu I.1.1] is a name of the [object] earth. [Earth is so called] because it goes (√gam) (i.e., extends) far and creatures go (√gam) on it; or it is of/from √gā (“go”/ “praise”) plus the suffix o/au (i.e., gā + o/au > go/gauḥ). Further, [the name go] is here also a name for cattle because of this same [name-giving action]’.
Note four points. First, because of the sandhi in vâukāro, the suffix can be identified either as -o (vā-okāro) (so Durga; NirD 2.5 [179,7/144,15]) or -au (vā-aukāro) (so Maheśvara; NirM 2.5 [42,12]). Note that the Uṇādisūtra (II.67: gamer Ḍoḥ) derives go from √gam (‘go’) with suffix -o.
Second, it is unclear whether gāter vâukāro nāmakaraṇaḥ should be parsed as one syntactic unit or as two (i.e., gāter vā | au-/o-kāro nāmakaraṇaḥ). According to the latter parsing, the affix -o (or -au) should apply also to the two etymological explanations involving the action of going (√gam). Maheśvara (NirM 2.5 [42,12]) adopts this second parsing and identifies the root √gā not with √gā ‘go’ (Dhātupāṭha 1.998) but with √gā ‘sing, praise’ (Dhātupāṭha 3.25) (In the enumeration of the Dhātupāṭha, I follow Böhtlingk’s [1887] edition given as an appendix to his edition and translation of Pāṇini’s grammar). Accordingly, he interprets the first part of the etymology as follows: earth is called go because it is being praised, and because those who praise stand on it.
Third, as noted above, the first application of (2.1) usually refer to Vedic usage, which is illustrated by an accompanying Vedic quotation. While no such quotation is given for go denoting earth, it should be borne in mind that gauḥ is the very first entry recorded in the Nighaṇṭu wordlist.
Fourth, this is one of two instances of (2.1) in which the name’s second application is marked with iha ‘here (in ordinary language [?])’. The other instance is Nirukta 2.6 where the name vi is said to denote both bird and arrow. Kahrs (1998, pp. 133–134) considers this latter passage to be a later interpolation.
Elaborating on Durga’s commentary (NirD 2.5 [179, 9–11/144,18–20]), Rajavade (1940, p. 317) explains that the term tāddhita refers to the use (prayoga) of a word employed in a sense belonging to that word’s taddhita form or forms. For example, as we will see presently, the word go ‘cow’ is also used in the sense of gavya ‘relating to cow’, a taddhita form of the word go.
anūpā anuvapanti lokānt svena svena karmaṇā | ayam apîtaro’ nūpa etasmād eva | anūpyata udakena. In his study of Yāska’s etymology of anūpa (a topic which is not covered in the present paper), Mehendale (1978 [1965], p. 1) notes that anūpa meaning bank or shore ‘is also used in non-Vedic Sanskrit’. This observation would seem to align with my proposal that the name’s second application of (2.1) refer to non-Vedic, ordinary usages. See also Rajavade’s remark concerning itara quoted in note 6.
Nirukta 12.23: adhorāmaḥ sāvitra iti paśusamāmnāye vijñāyate | kasmāt sāmānyād (Bhadkamkar edition: guṇasāmānyād) iti | adhastāt tadvelāyām tamo bhavaty etasmāt sāmānyāt | adhastād rāmas adhastāt kr̥ṣṇaḥ | kasmāt sāmānyād iti | agniṃ citvā na rāmām upeyāt | rāmā ramanāyôpeyate na dharmāya | kr̥snajātīyā etasmāt sāmānyāt | kr̥kavākuḥ sāvitra iti paśusamāmnāye vijñāyate | kasmāt sāmānyād iti | kālânuvādam parītya | kr̥kavākoḥ pūrvaṃ śabdānukaraṇaṃ vacer uttaram.
In terms of the classifications developed by Indian rhetoricians, Durga’s examples are instances of nirūḍhalakṣaṇā or ‘faded metaphor’ (transl. Kunjunni Raja): the etymologically analyzable, original, primary meaning of the word has almost disappeared, and have been replaced by the derivative, secondary meaning. On nirūḍhalakṣaṇā, see Kunjunni Raja (1977 [1963], pp. 262–264). As an example of this kind of lakṣaṇā, the term pravīṇa is mentioned as illustrating the ‘law of generalization’ in meaning (‘skilled with the lutes’ > ‘skilled’) (Ibid., pp. 62–63).
parva punaḥ pr̥ṇāteḥ prīṇāter vā | ardhamāsaparva | devān asmin prīṇantîti | tatprakr̥tītarat sandhisāmānyāt. In the interpretation of (2.2) proposed in this paper, only the name’s primary application receives a direct etymological explanation. Note however that Durga (NirD 1.20 [151,14/118,22]) seems to take ‘filling’ (√pr̥) to provide the etymology for the name’s secondary application, i.e., parvan denoting (rocky) knot.
kakṣo gāhateḥ | ksa iti nāmakaraṇaḥ | khyāter vânarthako ’bhyāsaḥ | kim asmin khyānam iti | kaṣater vā | tatsāmānyān manuṣyakakṣaḥ | bāhumūlasāmānyād aśvasya. Yāska gives three etymologies for kakṣa: (1) √gah (‘plunge/churn’) plus the suffix kṣa; (2) √khyā (‘say’): (a) *ka-khya > kakṣa, the initial reduplicated ka is meaningless; (b) *kiṃ-khya > kakṣa, the initial kiṃ conveys a rhetorical question ‘what is there to be said about it?’—it is implied that it is not worth speaking about; and (3) √kaṣ (‘scratch’). Yāska then notes that kakṣa denoting armpit is on account of a similarity with that (tat°) and kakṣa denoting horse’s girth is on account of a similarity ‘with the root of the limbs’ (tatsāmānyān manuṣyakakṣaḥ | bāhumūlasāmānyād aśvasya). While it seems sufficiently clear that kakṣa denoting horse’s girth is a secondary application of kakṣa denoting armpit, it is unclear what ‘that’ (tat°) may refer to.
Durga (NirD 2.2[169,8–170,3/135,1–11]) takes ‘that’ to refer to a woman. In his interpretation, kakṣa refers to three objects: a woman’s armpit, a man’s (manuṣya°) armpit, and a horse’s girth. The second application is based on the similarity between a woman’s armpit and a man’s armpit. Durga takes two of the etymologies of kakṣa to refer specifically to a woman’s armpit: √gah refers to the churning of butter etc., a task performed by women, and (2b) signifies that a woman’s armpits are to be kept secret (gūhanīya). While it accounts for ‘that’ (tat°), Durga’s interpretation appears strained. Cf. also Rajavade (1940, p. 308). Skandasvāmin (NirS 2.2 [29,7–8]) takes tat° to refer to the actions mentioned in the etymologies for kakṣa (tat° = uktakriyā°).
pādaḥ padyateḥ | tannidhānāt padam | paśupādaprakr̥tiḥ prabhāgapādaḥ | prabhāgapādasāmānyād itarāṇi padāni.
vāco ’kṣa iti vā | akṣo yānasyâñjanāt (Durga (NirD 13.12 [1178,17/1002,19]) seems to read samañjanāt, as noted by Bhadkamkar, Ibid. note 6) | tatprakr̥tîtarad vartanasāmānyāt iti. The following is my (tentative) interpretation of this passage, based on analogy with the other occurrences of (2.2). Durga takes the second application of akṣa to refer to the term aksara whose etymology has been introduced just above.
Nirukta 1.20: etāvantaḥ samānakarmāṇo dhātavo ...etāvanty asya sattvasya nāmadheyāni [Nighaṇṭu I]; etāvatām arthānām idam abhidhānam [Nighaṇṭu II]. Nirukta 4.1: ekārtham anekaśabdam...[Nighaṇṭu I]; yāny anekārthāny ekaśabdāni tāni...[Nighaṇṭu II]
Note that that this second feature is mentioned only in the second of the two places (Nirukta 1.20; 4.1) in which Yāska discusses the organization of the Nighaṇṭu.
References
Abhyankar, K. V. (1986 [1977]). A dictionary of Sanskrit grammar. Oriental Institute.
Bhadkamkar, H. M. (1985 [1919/1942]). The Nirukta of Yāska (with Nighaṇṭu) edited with Durga’s commentary by H. M. Bhadkamkar assisted by R. G. Bhadkamkar (Vols. I and II). Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Böhtlingk, O. (1887). Pāṇini’s Grammatik, herausgegeben, übersetzt, erläutert und mit verschiedenen Indices versehen. Hässel.
Bronkhorst, J. (1981). “Nirukta and Aṣṭādhyāyī: Their shared presuppostions. Indo-Iranian Journal, 23, 1–14.
Bronkhorst, J. (2001). Etymology and magic: Yāska’s Nirukta, Plato’s Cratylus, and the riddle of semantic etymologies. Numen, 48, 147–203.
Bronkhorst, J. (2022). Synchronic etymologising and its role in the acquisition of language. Bhasha. Journal of South Asian Linguistics, Philology and Grammatical Traditions, 1(2), 177–194.
Cardona, G. (1994). Indian linguistics. In G. C. Lepschy (Ed.), History of linguistics Volume I: The eastern traditions of linguistics (pp. 25–60). Routledge.
Cardona, G. (2019). Philology, Text History and History of Ideas. Nagoya Studies in Indian Culture and Buddhism: Saṃbhāṣā, 35, 1–34.
Chatterji, K. C. (1948). Technical terms and technique of Sanskrit grammar (Part I). Vishvanath Chatterji.
Durkin, P. (2015). Etymology. In J. R. Taylor (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the word (pp. 401–415). Oxford University Press.
Edgerton, F. (1938). Etymology and interpretation. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 79(4), 705–714.
Gonda, J. (1975 (1955)). The etymologies in the ancient Indian Brāhmaṇas. Lingua, 5, 61–86. (Reprint: Selected studies. Volume II. E.J. Brill, 1975, pp. 32–57.)
Kahrs, E. (1983). Yāska’s use of kasmāt. Indo-Iranian Journal, 25, 231–237.
Kahrs, E. (1984). Yāska’s Nirukta: The quest for a new interpretation. Indologica Taurinensia, 12, 139–154.
Kahrs, E. (1998). Indian semantic analysis: The Nirvacana tradition. Cambridge University Press.
Kahrs, E. (2002). Playing with words: Nighaṇṭava and the problem of multiple explanations in Yaska’s Nirukta. In G. U. Thite (Ed.), Subhasini: Prof. Dr. Saroja Bhate felicitation volume (pp. 174–186). Prof .Dr. Saroja Bhate Felicitation Committee.
Kunjunni Raja, K. (1977 [1963]). Indian theories of meaning. The Adyar Library and Research Centre.
Kunjunni Raja, K. (1990). Philosophical elements in Yāska’s Nirukta. In H. Coward & K. Kunjunni Raja (Eds.), The philosophy of the grammarians (Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies, Vol. 5, pp. 107–110). Princeton University Press.
Limaye, A. V. P. (2012 [1982]). Commentary of Skandasvāmin & Maheśvara on the Nirukta [Chapters I–VI] critically edited by Dr. Lakshman Sarup, with Additions and Corrections by Acharya V. P. Limaye. Meharchand Lachhmandas Publications.
Mehendale, M. A. (1978 [1965]). “Anūpa” in Mehendale Nirukta Notes, Series II (pp. 1–4). Deccan College Post-graduate and Research Institute.
Mehendale, M. A. (1986). On the Br̥haddevatā 2.102–103. Indo-Iranian Journal, 29(2), 117–120.
NirD = Durga’s commentary on the Nirukta. See Bhadkamkar (1985 [1919]/1942) and Rajavade (1921–1926). [I refer to adhyāya, khaṇḍa, page, lines in Bhadkamkar/Rajavade]
NirM = Maheśvara’s commentary on the Nirukta. See Limaye (2012 [1982]). [I refer to adhyāya, khaṇḍa, page, lines in Limaye].
NirS = Skandasvāmin’s commentary on the Nirukta. See Limaye (2012 [1982]). [I refer to adhyāya, khaṇḍa, page, lines in Limaye].
PW = Böhtlingk and Roth, Petersburger Wörterbuch, https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/PWGScan/2020/web/
Pontillo, T. (1994). Parole polyseme nel Nirukta. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. (Rivista della facoltà di lingue e letterature straniere dell’ università di Venezia.) Estratto XXXIII, 3(Serie Orientale), 303–309.
Rajavade, V. K. (1921). Śrīmadyāskācāryapraṇītaṃ Durgācāryakṛtavṛttisametam Niruktam. Pūrvaṣaṭātmakaḥ prathamo bhāgaḥ. Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series 88. Ānandāśramamudrāṇālaya.
Rajavade, V. K. (1926). Śrīmadyāskācāryapraṇītaṃ Durgācāryakṛtavṛttisametam Niruktam. Uttaraṣaṭātmakaḥ dvitīyo bhāgaḥ. Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series 88. Ānandāśramamudrāṇālaya.
Rajavade, V. K. (1940). Yāska’s Nirukta; Vol. 1: Introduction, full texts of Nighaṇṭu and Nirukta. Cursory examination of Nighanṭu. Notes on Chapters I–III of Nirukta. 25 indexes. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Scharf, P. (2012). The natural-language foundation of metalinguistic case-use in the Aṣṭādhyāyī and Nirukta. In G. Cardona & M. Deshpande (Eds.), Papers of the 12th world Sanskrit conference, Vol. 4. Indian grammars: philology and history (pp. 181–214). Motilal Banarsidass.
Scharf, P. (2014). The relation between etymology and grammar in the linguistic traditions of early India. Bulletin D’ Études Indiennes, 32, 255–266.
Scharfe, H. (1977). Grammatical literature. A history of Indian literature: Scientific and technical literature (Vol. 2). Harrassowitz.
Strauß, O. (1927). Altindische Speculationen über die Sprache und ihre Probleme. Zeitschrift Der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 81, 99–151.
Varma, S. (1953). The Etymologies of Yāska with an assistance of Bhim Dev. Vishveshvaranand Institute Publications.
Visigalli, P. (2023). Philosophy of grammar in ancient India: Reinterpreting the Gārgya controversy in Nirukta 1.12–1.14. Acta Orientalia Hungarica, 76(2), 169–192.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
I am very grateful to the journal’s anonymous reviewer for their thorough and insightful review. They saved me from several errors and helped me better develop my arguments. I am thankful to Professors Johannes Bronkhorst and Tiziana Pontillo for kindly commenting on a previous draft of this paper.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Visigalli, P. Yāska’s Theory of Meaning: An Overlooked Episode in the History of Semantics in India. J Indian Philos 51, 687–706 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-023-09553-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-023-09553-5