tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post1228906722020579408..comments2023-08-27T12:35:12.308+02:00Comments on sanscrite cogitare, sanscrite loqui: Does the verb "to have" designate an external state of affairs?elisa freschihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-15012502011456286742011-02-02T11:06:51.006+01:002011-02-02T11:06:51.006+01:00Aleix, I hope you will discuss further the methodo...Aleix, I hope you will discuss further the methodological problem of how can Skt philosophical texts be translated. I agree with you, and often need the Sanskrit text in order to understand the English (or German) translation.<br /><br />But what do you mean with "legal gaps"? That translators try to build sentences in Spanish/English/Italian… as if it were Sanskrit?<br /><br />As for the relation of possessor-possessed, I agree. One does not a verb "to have" to express it. In fact, I am inclined to think of the verb "to have" as a linguistic perversity, since it expresses too many different relations (think of "to have a friend/a cold/a bike/many homeworks" and so on).<br /><br />Re. Wittgenstein and Nāgārjuna: interesting question. Could you frame it a little bit? Why should Nāgārjuna be anticipating Wittgenstein?elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-11173805497285225382011-02-02T10:59:25.942+01:002011-02-02T10:59:25.942+01:00@Michael, this is exactly the point. Please, read ...@Michael, this is exactly the point. Please, read today's post for a more detailed answer.elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-24997468381900668072011-02-02T09:26:13.563+01:002011-02-02T09:26:13.563+01:00I'm eager to read this book you are commenting...I'm eager to read this book you are commenting on. I think language does'nt determine thought, but it does determine the philosophical discourse. Yesterday I was reading a Spanish translation of Nagarjuna's Mûlamadhyamakakârikâ, and Sanskrit was far better comprehensible than Spanish (I must say the translation is purposely literal). My point is that many Sanskrit philosophical discussions are entangled in grammatical "legal gaps" (so to say). The relation of possessor and possessed is frequently implied in Nominative Genitive relations. I would like to ask you if you really consider Nagarjuna a sort of Wittgenstein avant la lettre.Ruy D'Aleixohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16067887151075786024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-3832376640319501042011-02-02T00:35:46.945+01:002011-02-02T00:35:46.945+01:00At a slight tangent:
Then we have the profound sil...At a slight tangent:<br />Then we have the profound silliness in English PC language that emanates from American Academia. I mean the gendered personal pronoun and the usage analogous to the distinction between the specific and the generic, he and she. When moving from a language where the pronoun is not gendered eg. Irish to English we have to imagine our chauvinist index rising. What is the present status of Sapir-Whorf I wonder.michael reidynoreply@blogger.com