More on "sarva"

[Madhav Deshpande]

Gillon's translation of the Sanskrit line leaves out the rhetorical force 
of the text.  The translation appears 'bland' in comparison with the 
original.  'Yaavaan kaScit pratizedhaH' could perhaps be rendered as 
'Whatsoever negation there is', 'sa sarvaH anupalabdheH': 'all that is 
[caused] by non-apprehension'.  Thus, in the original Sanskrit, I do not 
see any redundanncy, when we take the rhetorical force into account.  
Otherwise, in Sanskrit itself, from a purely propositional point of view, 
one could rephrase the sentence without the word sarva.
	Madhav

On Wed, 5 Apr 1995, Kellner wrote:

> In article <199504051320.JAA17629 at sifon.CC.McGill.CA>
> GILLON at LANGS.Lan.McGill.CA writes:
> 
> >> Though one is inclined to try to find non-redundancy in any 
> >> apparently redundant construction, I have been unable to find 
> >> anything to show in the few cases that `sarva' is anything other 
> >> than redundant. Consider this sentence from Dharmakiirti's 
> >> Pramaa.navaartika (Gnoli p. 5 line 9).
> >> 
> >> yaavaan ka'scit prati.sedha.h sa.h sarva.h anupalabdhe.h.
> >> Any (form of) denial whatsoever arises from non-apprehension.
> >> 
> I may have some problems with your English here (or with
> English in general), but did you want to say that "sarva"
> is redundant in this particular example?
> 
> I would dispute that, although not for syntactical, but
> for content-specific reasons. (which, in turn, would
> not belong to this particular thread)
> 
> Birgit Kellner
> Institute for Indian Philosophy
> University of Hiroshima
> 
>  
>