From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat May 27 11:51:19 2000
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
Received: (qmail 7245 invoked from network); 27 May 2000 18:51:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 May 2000 18:51:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO qg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.27) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 May 2000 18:51:19 -0000
Received: (qmail 18846 invoked from network); 27 May 2000 18:51:19 -0000
Received: from n1.onelist.org (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by iqg.egroups.com with SMTP; 27 May 2000 18:51:19 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.10.94] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 May 2000 18:51:18 -0000
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 18:49:22 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: coi rodo - mi'e .aulun.
Message-ID: <8gp5bi+i25b@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <392FD495.1F3C@math.bas.bg>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 473
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._T=FCting?=" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>

Ivan,

> {do na finpe} vs {do na du mi} does not quite get across the
> parallelism of the original, which had, I take it, something
> like _ni3 bu4shi4 yu2_ vs _ni3 bu4shi4 wo3_. 

you're right: the original is "zi3 fei1 yu2" - "zi3 fei1 wo3" (Big5:
=A4l=ABD=B3=BD=A1X=A4l=ABD=A7=DA) in ancient Chinese. (You can find a
graphic text 
in 'Files').
I tried to post some remarks on writing Chinese cmene - yet failed
somehow (maybe sent the message only to xorxes.)

Alfred