264. 294 CHAPTER V TTAHK AMIHAM

294 CHAPTER V TTAHK AMIHAM

other reason than that the object does the action for which the root, from which the noun is derived, stands. It is wrong to assert that the reason why an object is signified by a particular noun is that the object belongs to the genus, for which the noun stands. For, genus has no independent being ; it is invariably concomitant with the action. Though one may admit the genus to have an independent being and to exist in an object even though the object may not be capable of performing the characteristic function, yet the object would not be signified by the word, which 'signifies' an action. For, in that case non-performance of the action being common to all other objects, there will be no reason why the word should not apply to others. No one uses the word 'Pacaka' for one who does not cook. Hence it has to be admitted that the genus 'ghata' is nothing but the characte. ristic function, for which the word stands, and, therefore, function of the object alone is the basis of the use of the expression for it.

The aforesaid view of the functional basis of the use of a noun for an object is distinguished from that of the Vaiyakaranas. For, although the latter derive the nouns from roots, yet they do not recognise function to be the basis of the use of a noun for an object. The Vaiyākaranas, as the very word implies, are concerned with the analysis of words into roots and affixes. They1 are not concerned with the reason why a noun is used to signify an object. For, the Pravrttinimitta is distinct from the Vyutpattinimitta. Thus, according to the Vaiyakaranas, the action of a thing is the reason why the word, that stands for it, is derived from a particular root. 1. V. V., 25.