sufidao

How to translate 夫?

40 posts in this topic

I am afraid you are wrong, ChiDragon. Look at the entire entry that I quoted from the Kangxi Dictionary, including its example in the Analects:

 

 

又【廣韻】防無切【集韻】【韻會】馮無切【正韻】逢夫切,音扶。語端辭。【論語】夫仁者。

 

Conversely, the very next sentence in the dictionary states:

 

又語已辭。【論語】如斯夫。

 

The character 端, confusingly, can refer to both beginnings and ends. However, in this context, a 语端 as spoken of in the Kangxi Dictionary is the start of a sentence or clause; a 语已 is the end.

 

The examples, both from the Analects, that the Kangxi Dictionary draws upon demonstrate my point.


Link to the digital version of the 《康熙字典》 that I drew from here: http://tool.httpcn.com/Html/KangXi/23/PWPWXVPWMEUYRNPWB.shtml

1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Walker :)

【論語】夫仁者。

Now, what should be the translation of "夫仁者"? should it be translated at all?

Here is the full sentence from the Analects: (punctuation by Charles Muller):

子貢曰。如有博施於民而能濟衆、何如 可謂仁乎。子曰。何事於仁 必也聖乎。堯舜其猶病諸 夫仁者、己欲立而立人、己欲達而達人。能近取譬、可謂仁之方也已。

How about "夫道者" that is frequent particularly in Wenzi and other Daoist and even non-Daoist texts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversely, the very next sentence in the dictionary states:

又語已辭。【論語】如斯夫。

 

The character 端, confusingly, can refer to both beginnings and ends. However, in this context, a 语端 as spoken of in the Kangxi Dictionary is the start of a sentence or clause; a 语已 is the end.

 

The examples, both from the Analects, that the Kangxi Dictionary draws upon demonstrate my point.

 

Link to the digital version of the 《康熙字典》 that I drew from here: http://tool.httpcn.com/Html/KangXi/23/PWPWXVPWMEUYRNPWB.shtml

 

Yes, you are correct about "The character 端, confusingly, can refer to both beginnings and ends"

I should have had stated that 语端 as the ends of a sentence. if you think like a classical Chinese, there are two ends in sentence line. However, it was understood by the classical scholars. Therefore, 夫 can be placed at either end of the classic sentence/phrase.

 

The character 已 in 语 was definitely specified it is at the end of a sentence but not the beginning for sure.

This is a good example that you gave: 又語已辭。【論語】如斯夫。

Edited by ChiDragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am afraid you are wrong, ChiDragon. Look at the entire entry that I quoted from the Kangxi Dictionary, including its example in the Analects:

 

又【廣韻】防無切【集韻】【韻會】馮無切【正韻】逢夫切,音扶。語端辭。【論語】夫仁者。

 

Walker...

May I ask what are you trying to prove here....???

 

To the best of my understanding, I think you want to give an example to show that "夫" was used at the beginning of a phrase as indicated in red.

 

The indication in blue was showing the different ways of pronunciation. Was that your intention...???

 

 

PS....

Another question! You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about the Chinese classics. May I ask you to give me a little background about yourself. Thanks.

Edited by ChiDragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Walker :)

 

【論語】夫仁者。

 

Now, what should be the translation of "夫仁者"? should it be translated at all?

 

Here is the full sentence from the Analects: (punctuation by Charles Muller):

 

子貢曰。如有博施於民而能濟衆、何如 可謂仁乎。子曰。何事於仁 必也聖乎。堯舜其猶病諸 夫仁者、己欲立而立人、己欲達而達人。能近取譬、可謂仁之方也已。

 

How about "夫道者" that is frequent particularly in Wenzi and other Daoist and even non-Daoist texts?

 

子貢曰:如有博施於民,而能濟眾,何如。可謂仁乎。子曰:何事於仁,必也,聖乎堯舜其猶病諸。夫仁者,己欲立而立人,己欲達而達人,能近取譬,可謂仁之方也已。

 

The "" in 夫仁者 should not be translated. It is because the character was used as an auxiliary word to make it sound better to begin a phrase or sentence.

 

Please keep in mind, sometimes, the "" at the beginning of a phrase/sentence can be translated as "therefore".

 

 

 

Edited by ChiDragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Walker :)

 

【論語】夫仁者。

 

Now, what should be the translation of "夫仁者"? should it be translated at all?

 

 

I agree with ChiDragon. I really can't think of a good way to translate 夫 in this sentence.

 

 

 

Yes, you are correct about "The character 端, confusingly, can refer to both beginnings and ends"

I should have had stated that 语端 as the ends of a sentence. if you think like a classical Chinese, there are two ends in sentence line. However, it was understood by the classical scholars. Therefore, 夫 can be placed at either end of the classic sentence/phrase.

 

The character 已 in 语 was definitely specified it is at the end of a sentence but not the beginning for sure.

This is a good example that you gave: 又語已辭。【論語】如斯夫。

 

There is a chance you are right, or that sometimes 语端辞 refers to what you speak of, but I am afraid I do not buy your argument.

 

First of all, you are contradicted by the 《古汉语知识辞典》:

 

发语词,亦作“发语辞”。也称“句首语词”、“发语助词”、“发语助字”、“发声”、“语端辞”、“发端字”、“发语之端”、“发言之端”、“发词(辞)”等。助词的一种。多指用于句首的助词。

(link)

 

Secondly, I spend a lot of time with the Kangxi Dictionary. Following the Kangxi's own patterns of logic, with the entry on 夫 I would say that it does not appear that the authors agree with your definition. I provided a link above to the full Kangxi definition which you may wish to peruse.

 

Since we are on the topic, if you can provide a quotation or direct me to a written source that supports your contention, I would be most happy to go and take a look, and even to humbly stand corrected.

 

 

 

 

Quote

又【廣韻】防無切【集韻】【韻會】馮無切【正韻】逢夫切,音扶。語端辭。【論語】夫仁者。

 

 

 

Walker...

May I ask what are you trying to prove here....???

 

Kangxi lists the various sources. I am not trying to prove anything, but it is worth it students to know that this usage of 夫 shows up in numerous important dictionaries stemming from antiquity, whereas other usages may be more obscure and show up only in specific classics, but not dictionaries.

 

 

PS....

Another question! You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about the Chinese classics. May I ask you to give me a little background about yourself. Thanks.

 

If I appear to have great knowledge of the Classics, forgive me, for I have decieved you.

 

As for my background, 我已不过问.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a chance you are right, or that sometimes 语端辞 refers to what you speak of, but I am afraid I do not buy your argument.

 

First of all, you are contradicted by the 《古汉语知识辞典》:

 

 

Secondly, I spend a lot of time with the Kangxi Dictionary. Following the Kangxi's own patterns of logic, with the entry on 夫 I would say that it does not appear that the authors agree with your definition. I provided a link above to the full Kangxi definition which you may wish to peruse.

 

Since we are on the topic, if you can provide a quotation or direct me to a written source that supports your contention, I would be most happy to go and take a look, and even to humbly stand corrected.

 

Kangxi lists the various sources. I am not trying to prove anything, but it is worth it students to know that this usage of 夫 shows up in numerous important dictionaries stemming from antiquity, whereas other usages may be more obscure and show up only in specific classics, but not dictionaries.

 

If I appear to have great knowledge of the Classics, forgive me, for I have decieved you.

 

As for my background, 我已不过问.

The link you have provided for me do agree with most of what I had learned .

 

 

Since we are on the topic, if you can provide a quotation or direct me to a written source that supports your contention, I would be most happy to go and take a look, and even to humbly stand corrected.

Thank you for the opportunity, I will use the link that you have provided for me to pursue is suffice.

 

If I appear to have great knowledge of the Classics, forgive me, for I have decieved you.

You've sure surprised me..... :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we are on the topic, if you can provide a quotation or direct me to a written source that supports your contention, I would be most happy to go and take a look, and even to humbly stand corrected.

 

your given link

 

亦作“发语辞”。也称“句首语词”、“发语助词”、“发语助字”、“发声”、“语端辞”、“发端字”、“发语之端”、“发言之端”、“发词(辞)”等。助词的一种。多指用于句首的助词。

 

 

首语气词的一种亦称发端词”、“发声”。用于句首,表示发议论或叙事的开始,以引起听者或读者注意,而无实际含义的词。主要有“夫”、“盖”等。如 《左传·庄公十年》: “夫大国难测也。”古代语言学家则用以泛指“句首语气词”。如刘灿《支雅》: “发词:夫、盖、繄、惟、诞、已、思、且。”有些语法学者把这类词归入连词。

 

Walker....

Would you like to give a rough translation of these two quotes....??? May be we can iron out some of the misunderstands. It is optional of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, are you kidding? Let's keep this on topic. A 端语辞 is a 发语词, it goes at the beginning of a sentence, in order to 发端. No need to grasp at straws here, homie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, are you kidding? Let's keep this on topic. A 端语辞 is a 发语词, it goes at the beginning of a sentence, in order to 发端. No need to grasp at straws here, homie.

 

I knew there was something missing in thinking on your part.

 

亦作“发语辞”也称“句首语词”、“发语助词”、“发语助字”、“发声”、“语端辞”、“发端字”、“发语之端”、“发言之端”、“发词(辞)”等。助词的一种。多指用于句首的助词。

 

 

You see the green characters "也称", it means "also called". Thus all the terms followed in red are the synonyms for “发语辞”

 

Edited by ChiDragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. And therefore “语端辞,” just like "发语辞," go at the beginning of the sentence, not at either end, as you originally argued.

 

In striving to prove me wrong you seem to have forgotten what your original points even are. Please, leave the hair-splitting alone. Stop. It is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
又語已辭。【論語】如斯夫。


Isn't this one of the examples you gave with 夫 at the end.....???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering the way you translate:

Ch 2

夫唯弗居

Ch 3

使夫1知者不敢為也

夫 : Originally read: "天"

 

Or how do you explain the position of "fu" in those instances from a grammatical perspective.

 

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a expletive

How do you explain expletive in Chinese? Or how it is said in the spoken language to explain fu? Is it in all DDJ having the same meaning?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites