طوطی و بقال

I've written some points in languages as far as I've perceived acording to the number of lines
but not about the purpose of the text although it was too impressive and bring so many questions to the mind.In general Molana's language is so gentle and intersting that solve you in it.
بود بقالی و وی را طوطیی
1-Nicolson wrote'' had '' but Molana has given the sound of continious to his tense with adding a ی to the parrot
در خطاب آدمی ناطق بدی در نوای طوطیان حاذق بدی
3-Nicolson is successfull in having a past image in present like
Molana.
از سوی خانه بیامد خواجه اش بر دکان بنشست فارغ خواجه وش
5-Nicolson has used seated instead of sit to show the atmospher of respect in poetry.

8-Molana has said می and Nicolson showed it with ing
دست من بشکسته بودی ان زمان چون زدم من بر ان خوش زبان
9-Molana has used بودی to show continius plus past perfect but Nicolson has said it in passive to bring the same feeling
10-می and ing in both sentences have the same feeling
11-we have'' بنشسته بودی ''and ''was seated'' which does'nt show the sense and tru meaning
می نمود ان مرغ راهر گون شگفت تا که باشد کاندر اید او به گفت
12-in the first part می and ing match eachother but in second part کاندر آید به گفت and ''to speak''dont and it dos'nt show the process of action.
13-we have می گذشت and passed which dosnt cope although he has used meanwhile to have the meaning in it but sound is diffrent
14-اندر گفت آمد has changed to'' began to talk'' which has a different sound
15-we have آمیختی and Nicolson has showed it in passive'' were mixed''
16-خنده آمد is more beautiful than just ''laughed''

18-Nicolson has seen شد a fact and has used ''is'' instead
هر دو نی خوردند از یک ابخور این یکی خالی و ان بر از شکر
24-molavi's prefered not to use verb to have the permanent meaning and Nicolson has followed him
25-no deffrence in tense but Nicolson has seen different meaning in tow similar ''بین''
Simin Davoodi Malek