In favor of this view, its defenders observe that there must be some common word-meaning among sentences such as “Bring the cow,” “See the cow,” “Bring the sheep,” and “See the sheep” in order for hearers to understand what is being communicated. What we learn as language-users, through trial and error and association of these various sentences with the world, is the invariable meaning of the words. Against this “connection of denoted meanings” view, Śālikanātha and other Prābhākara philosophers, as discussed earlier, argue that what is remembered on hearing an individual word does not constitute a genuine meaning without its being connected to the other words—emphasizing the inferential element of meaning. Their view, the “designation of meanings-as-connected” (anvitābhidhāna), rejects the role of secondary meaning as a sentence-unifier.