In Indian linguistic thought, the question as to whether the word (śabda) is nitya 'permanent' or kārya 'to be produced' (=anitya) has been discussed from a long time. The Grammmarians (vaiyākaraṇa) also discuss this. And these two viewpoints are reflected in the interpretetions or the operations of the grammatical rules (sūtra).
In this paper, we are concerned with saṁjñā 'the name', saṁjñin 'the named' and their saṁbandha 'relation' from these two views.
In order to understand what is named, we have to seize the relation between saṁjñā and saṁjñin. If there were not saṁjñin, then there would not be the relation and we could not understand it.
Patañjali, in commenting upon P 1. 1. 1 vṛddhir ādaic, says that the phonemes āT and aiC, the saṁjñin, are produced (bhāvyante) by the name vṛddhi, and āT and aiC, which are produced, are called by the name vṛddhi. If the word is to be produced (kārya), we do not have saṁjñin before the production of it. Here, we have to face the mutual dependence (itaretarāśraya) as fallacy between the production (utpatti) of the phonemes, āT and aiC, and their understanding (jñapti).
This fallacy results from kāyapakṣa. In nityapakṣa-view, Pataṇjali on P 1. 1. 1 vt 9 siddhaṁ tu nityaśabdatvāt says that nityeṣu śabdeṣu satām ādaicāṁ saṁjñā kriyate na saṁjñayā ādaico bhāvyante. Since the word is not what is produced, and the relation between samjñā and samjñin are permanent (nitya) in our mind (buddhz), there is no room for the mutual dependence in this view.
The Kāśīkāvṛtti on P 1. 1. 45 ig yaṇaḥ saṁprasāraṇam // gives two sorts of classification of the saṁjñā and the saṁjñin : bhūta 'which has taken place' and bhāvin 'which is still to take place'. This classificaton is introduced by the view point of kāryapakṣa. In nityapakṣa there is no need for considering the concept of bhūta and bhāvin. Because saṁjñā and saṁjñin are permanent in our mind.