Auxilliary words in Literary Chinese

[Mark Yong]

I found a really good article on the comparison between Literary Chinese and Literary Latin (both of which have the common feature of being the common binding written language of their respective regions - East and West, respectively - for over a few centuries). Here is the link: www.humancomp.org/ftp/yijing/litchinese_in_light_of_litlatin.html

In the article, the author cites an example article (and FBI bulletin for Chinese migrants to the USA), supposedly written in Literary Chinese. He points out the use of 第 for the word 'but' rather than 但 (but), since 但 as the word for ''but" was a later development. He further states that the word should have been 然.

However, Michael A. Fuller's An Introduction to Literary Chinese states that the word for 'but' (as listed in his Appendix) is 顧 (and sometimes 而 and 乃, when involving verb coordination). Is this correct? What about 卻? Is it modern usage or Literary Chinese usage? Can they be used as "顧..." or "卻..." just like modern Mandarin "但是..."?

[malinuo]

I don't know the answers to your questions, but I'd like to thank you for the link. A very interesting article!