Dear Dimitry,

> Dear Yong Peng,
>
> OYP> I think you are right about "no" being an emphatic.
>
> "No" here is a first person plural enclitic (Acc., Dat., Inst.,

Gen.).

>
> I think here it is Genitive "our".

I fully agree with you on the 'no' being 'our' as this is confirmed by
the line with 'vo' (your) just before the 'eva.m vutte' passage that
YP quoted: "kaa ca pana vo antaraakathaa vippakataa ti."

> > DN25 Udumbarika Sutta CSCD55/PTS3.40
> > Aya.m kho no, bhante, antaraakathaa vippakataa; atha bhagavaa
> > anuppatto.
>
> For, Venerable Sir, this our mutual talk is left unfinished,
> and now has reached the Blessed One.

I disagree with your last part as the 'anuppatto' would have to agree
in gender with 'antaraakathaa' ie. 'anuppattaa' and 'bhagavaa' would
have to be 'bhagavanta.m' (acc.). I believe a translation of this part
should read something like "and now the Blessed One has arrived".
Another translation of the complete sentence could be:

This, indeed, Venerable Sir, was our interrupted conversation when the
Blessed One arrived (came by).

Best wishes,
Jim