10 Translation of a Tibetan Fragment. 
The original was also engraved in the Transactions of the Leipsic 
Academy. It was reprinted with corrections and additionsanda 
new translation by Giorgi in his Alphabetum Tibetanum, and 
has recently been made the subject of animadversion by Mons. 
emusat, in his Recherches sur les Langues Tartares. Of the 
previous performances M. Remusat thus speaks: ‘* On 
avoit d’abord admiré la profonde erudition qui avoit permis & 
Fourmont de reconnoitre seulement la langue dans laquelle le 
volume étoit écrit : on a vanté depuis celle de Giorgi, qui avoit 
like them in the imperfect dictionaries possessed by the trans- 
lators. Afterall, the translation was not only unlike the original, — 
but unlike common sense ; and as was remarked of Fourmont’s 
version by the President de Brosses, the Latin was quite as 
unintelligible as the Tangutan, The following specimens of the 
first lines of the different versions will show that the remark was 
applicable to all as well as to the first. a 
Fourmont’s Translation. 
‘* Attritaé fortitudine quisnam brevis equus frigoris vite 
destruatur (pro) spiritu inest putredo. Contritus oratne? hoe 
est irrisio omnes vident: orat avis contrita ? morbida? non 
scit (non potest amplius) os aperire legis (ratiocinationis).’’ 
| 
was of marvellous use to the translator. Fourmont would 
bot ae dared to write a syllable of such nonsense 12 
rench. 
manner in which Fourmont was led to such @ sr 
misrepresentation of the original is explained by Mons. Remusal, 
whom we may take one instance as a specimen—Thus 
meaning 
syllables before him, 
rendered them according 
