More on "sarva"

kellner at kellner at
Thu Apr 6 02:56:26 UTC 1995

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


More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list