Debating the centre : the theory of principal qualificand (mukhyavisesya) in classical Indian philosophy

The theory of language has occupied a special place in the history of Indian thought. Indian philosophers give particular attention to the analysis of the cognition obtained from language, known under the generic name of śābdabodha. This term is used to denote, among other things, the cognition episode of the hearer, the content of which is described in the form of a paraphrase of a sentence represented as a hierarchical structure. Philosophers submit the meaning of the component items of a sentence and their relationship to a thorough examination, and represent the content of the resulting cognition as a paraphrase centred on a meaning element, that is taken as principal qualificand (mukhyaviśesya) which is qualified by the other meaning elements. This analysis is the object of continuous debate over a period of more than a thousand years between the philosophers of the schools of Mimāmsā, Nyāya (mainly in its Navya form) and Vyākarana. While these philosophers are in complete agreement on the idea that the cognition of sentence meaning has a hierarchical structure and share the concept of a single principal qualificand (qualified by other meaning elements), they strongly disagree on the question which meaning element has this role and by which morphological item it is expressed. This disagreement is the central point of their debate and gives rise to competing versions of this theory. The Mïmāmsakas argue that the principal qualificand is what they call bhāvanā ̒bringing into being̒, ̒efficient force̒ or ̒productive operation̒, expressed by the verbal affix, and distinct from the specific procedures signified by the verbal root; the Naiyāyikas generally take it to be the meaning of the word with the first case ending, while the Vaiyākaranas take it to be the operation expressed by the verbal root. All the participants rely on the Pāninian grammar, insofar as the Mimāmsakas and Naiyāyikas do not compose a new grammar of Sanskrit, but use different interpretive strategies in order to justify their views, that are often in overt contradiction with the interpretation of the Pāninian rules accepted by the Vaiyākaranas. In each of the three positions, weakness in one area is compensated by strength in another, and the cumulative force of the total argumentation shows that no position can be declared as correct or overall superior to the others. This book is an attempt to understand this debate, and to show that, to make full sense of the irreconcilable positions of the three schools, one must go beyond linguistic factors and consider the very beginnings of each school's concern with the issue under scrutiny. The texts, and particularly the late texts of each school present very complex versions of the theory, yet the key to understanding why these positions remain irreconcilable seems to lie elsewhere, this in spite of extensive argumentation involving a great deal of linguistic and logical technicalities. Historically, this theory arises in Mimāmsā (with Sabara and Kumārila), then in Nyāya (with Udayana), in a doctrinal and theological context, as a byproduct of the debate over Vedic authority. The Navya-Vaiyākaranas enter this debate last (with Bhattoji Dïksita and Kaunda Bhatta), with the declared aim of refuting the arguments of the Mïmāmsakas and Naiyāyikas by bringing to light the shortcomings in their understanding of Pāninian grammar. The central argument has focused on the capacity of the initial contexts, with the network of issues to which the principal qualificand theory is connected, to render intelligible the presuppositions and aims behind the complex linguistic justification of the classical and late stages of this debate. Reading the debate in this light not only reveals the rationality and internal coherence of each position beyond the linguistic arguments, but makes it possible to understand why the thinkers of the three schools have continued to hold on to three mutually exclusive positions. They are defending not only their version of the principal qualificand theory, but (though not openly acknowledged) the entire network of arguments, linguistic and/or extra-linguistic, to which this theory is connected, as well as the presuppositions and aims underlying these arguments.

Multisystem Langerhans' cell histiocytosis (Hand-Schüller-Christian disease) in an adult: a case report and review of the literature.

Langerhans' cell histiocytosis (LCH) is a rare and enigmatic clonal disorder that affects mainly children. It is characterized by single or multiple granulomatous mass lesions composed of cells with the Langerhans' cell phenotype. Clinical presentation and behavior are heterogeneous and can range from a solitary lytic bone lesion (i.e., eosinophilic granuloma) with a favorable course to a fatal disseminated leukaemia-like form, with a wide spectrum of intermediate clinical presentations between these two extremes. Although LCH typically involves the bone, lesions can be found in almost all organs. We are reporting the case of a multisystem LCH in a 47-year-old patient who presented with a panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, and who, 5 years later, developed mandibular, mastoid and femoral lesions. The final diagnosis of LCH was made on mandibular biopsy.

Contrast : a concept in language and its development in Medieval Spanish

The purpose of this PhD thesis is to investigate a semantic relation present in the connection of sentences (more specifically: propositional units). This relation, which we refer to as contrast, includes the traditional categories of adversatives - predominantly represented by the connector but in English and pero in Modern Spanish - and concessives, prototypically verbalised through although / aunque. The aim is to describe, analyse and - as far as possible - to explain the emergence and evolution of different syntactic schemes marking contrast during the first three centuries of Spanish (also referred to as Castilian) as a literary language, i.e., from the 13th to the 15th century. The starting point of this question is a commonplace in syntax, whereby the semantic and syntactic complexity of clause linkage correlates with the degree of textual elaboration. In historical linguistics, i.e., applied to the phylogeny of a language, it is commonly referred to as the parataxis hypothesis A crucial part of the thesis is dedicated by the definition of contrast as a semantic relation. Although the label contrast has been used in this sense, mainly in functional grammar and text linguistics, mainstream grammaticography and linguistics remain attached to the traditional categories adversatives and concessives. In opposition to this traditional view, we present our own model of contrast, based on a pragma-semantic description proposed for the analysis of adversatives by Oswald Ducrot and subsequently adopted by Ekkehard König for the analysis of concessives. We refine and further develop this model in order for it to accommodate all, not just the prototypical instances of contrast in Spanish, arguing that the relationship between adversatives and concessives is a marked opposition, i.e., that the higher degree of semantic and syntactic integration of concessives restricts some possible readings that the adversatives may have, but that this difference is almost systematically neutralised by contextual factors, thus justifying the assumption of contrast as a comprehensive onomasiological category. This theoretical focus is completed by a state-of-the-question overview attempting to account for all relevant forms in which contrast is expressed in Medieval Spanish, with the aid of lexicographic and grammaticographical sources, and an empirical study investigating the expression of corpus in a corpus study on the textual functions of contrast in nine Medieval Spanish texts: Cantar de Mio Cid, Libro de Alexandre, Milagros de Nuestra Sehora, Estoria de Espana, Primera Partida, Lapidario, Libro de buen amor, Conde Lucanor, and Corbacho. This corpus is analysed using quantitative and qualitative tools, and the study is accompanied by a series of methodological remarks on how to investigate a pragma-semantic category in historical linguistics. The corpus study shows that the parataxis hypothesis fails to prove from a statistical viewpoint, although a qualitative analysis shows that the use of subordination does increase over time in some particular contexts.

Al-Bīrūnī's Kitāb Sānk and Kitāb Pātanğal:A Historical and Textual Study

The historical pole of this research distinguishes differing historical and cultural contexts in which the scholar al-Bïrûnî evolved. Between the years 973 and 1017, he lived in Khwarezm (Kät and JürjänTya), Ray, and Jürjän. He also dwelt in Kabul and Ghazna, both situated on a passage between Persia and India, and travelled to some parts of early medieval India between the years 1017 and 1030. Evidence pointing to him having made actual direct observations beyond the abode of Islam remains scanty. According to his writings, only five locales emerge as having been visited by him, all situated in today's Afghanistan and Pakistan. When al-BTrunl visited these places, he encountered the society of the Indian Shähis, who followed a form of Brahmanism. Al-Bïrûnï's knowledge of Sanskrit was the result of a long process that lasted at least 30 years (1000-1030). In order to reach the level of Sanskrit that enabled him to translate several works from Sanskrit into Arabic, he needed to work with literate people well-versed in Sanskrit, who may also have had some comprehension of Arabic, and/or Persian. The textual pole of this dissertation examines the question of the relationship between al- Bïrûnï's Arabic Kitab Sank and Kitäb Pätangal - two works related to Sämkhya-Yoga - and their possible Sanskrit sources. A philological survey based on these Arabic translations and on Sämkhya-Yoga Sanskrit literature highlights that al-Bïrûnï's translations, both, are related to the classical phase in the development of these two Indian philosophical systems. Despite the early spread of Yoga and Sämkhya ideas through Sanskrit literature, it seems that between the early 11th and 16th centuries they lost vitality amongst Indian scholars. Therefore, al-Bïrûnï's translation of works related to these specific Indian philosophies in the early 11th century CE deserves attention. The second pole of this study also demonstrates that al-BTrünl's hermeneutics played an important part in his transmission of these two Indian schools of thought, as he highly transformed his source in both form and substance. This dissertation considers the question of the relationship between al-Bïrûnï's Arabic translations and their possible Sanskrit sources from the viewpoint of Translation Studies; which makes it possible to point out potential candidates for being al-Bïrûnï's original Sanskrit sources with some confidence. Overall, the Kitäb Sank and the Kitäb Pätangal represent original works of Sämkhya and Yoga, as viewed and transmitted by a Perso-Muslim scholar, rather than pure translations of Sanskrit work.