Dear John and friends,

thanks again. I actually got this wrong, so I provided the answer
from the guide. Rewriting it:

"Puttaa m'atthi dhana.m m'atthi - Iti baalo vihaññati.
sons / have I / wealth / have I / thus / fool / perishes
'I have sons, I have wealth', the fool thus perishes.

Attaa hi attano n'atthi - Kuto puttaa kuto dhana.m."
self / indeed / own / is not / whence / sons / whence / wealth
Indeed, the self is not (one's) own. How then sons? How then wealth?

What do you think?

metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly wrote:

> 13. "Puttaa m'atthi* dhana.m m'atthi - Iti baalo vihaññati.
> sons / have I / wealth / have I / thus / fool / perishes
> Sons have I, wealth have I; thus the fool perishes.
>
> Attaa hi attano n'atthi - Kuto puttaa kuto dhana.m."
> self / indeed / for self / is not / whence / sons /
> whence / wealth
> Self indeed is not for self. Whence sons, whence wealth?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "Self indeed is not for self". I would
translate the last line as something like:
He does not even own his self. How then his sons? How then his
wealth?