<p>夫 is a particle that you can ignore in this sentence.</p>

<p>Here, 非 is a negation, in this case as part of a rhetorical question with 與: Is it not? (or, in this case: Are we not?)</p>

<p>盡 in this text means all.</p>

<p>Now, 人之子 belong together: sons of men.</p>

<p>Finally, 與 is a final particle marking a question, like 吗 in modern Chinese.</p>

<p>The translation of the sentence is: “Are we not all sons of men?”</p>

<p>This is a translation without context, of course. I’d have to read the rest of this Mengzi passage to give you a better one.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T20:43:19.763Z
2015-10-02T20:43:19.763Z
Philipp
<p>夫(that (guy))非(is not)盡(only/just)人(man)之('s)子(son)與(?)</p>

<p>So the sentence can translate to "Isn't that (guy) also just a man's son?".</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-03T07:36:30.870Z
To be honest, I think 夫 shouldn’t be translated as a pronoun in this case, but rather than a deictic initial particle (as described by Unger in his grammar (in German)) or as an introductory particle announcing a topic (as seen in the Pulleyblank (in English)). Even if we want to put the king of Qi’s son as the subject (instead of “we”, as I did), I’d still translate 夫 as a deictic particle and assume the subject was omitted. I’d do that because 夫 is used like this way more often than as a pronoun.
Philipp
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T20:46:13.567Z
2015-10-02T20:46:13.567Z
Siyi Deng
<blockquote>
  <p>夫非盡人之子與</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I only understand this sentence from classical Chinese to a very low degree. </p>

<ul>
<li>夫  could be some kind of sentence particle or simply mean "man".</li>
<li><p>非 and  與 often belong together, 非  negates a phrase in a sentence with
a  copula. </p></li>
<li><p>盡 , at least per how I know it, means "to fill" or "utmost"</p></li>
</ul>

<p>So, I cannot make any semantical sense out of it, but if I tried, I would render it as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>a man is not the child of an utmost man (god?), or is he?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Please tell me my misunderstandings and explain the real meaning. </p>

<translation><grammar><classical-chinese>
What is meaning of the sentence 「夫非盡人之子與」?
# What is meaning of the sentence 「夫非盡人之子與」?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-10-02)

> 夫非盡人之子與

I only understand this sentence from classical Chinese to a very low degree.

* 夫 could be some kind of sentence particle or simply mean "man".
* 非 and 與 often belong together, 非 negates a phrase in a sentence with
  a copula.
* 盡 , at least per how I know it, means "to fill" or "utmost"

So, I cannot make any semantical sense out of it, but if I tried, I would render it as:

> a man is not the child of an utmost man (god?), or is he?

Please tell me my misunderstandings and explain the real meaning.

**Tags:** translation, grammar, classical-chinese


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-10-02. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

夫 is a particle that you can ignore in this sentence.

Here, 非 is a negation, in this case as part of a rhetorical question with 與: Is it not? (or, in this case: Are we not?)

盡 in this text means all.

Now, 人之子 belong together: sons of men.

Finally, 與 is a final particle marking a question, like 吗 in modern Chinese.

The translation of the sentence is: “Are we not all sons of men?”

This is a translation without context, of course. I’d have to read the rest of this Mengzi passage to give you a better one.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-10-02. Score: 1

夫(that (guy))非(is not)盡(only/just)人(man)之('s)子(son)與(?)

So the sentence can translate to "Isn't that (guy) also just a man's son?".

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: To be honest, I think 夫 shouldn’t be translated as a pronoun in this case, but rather than a deictic initial particle (as described by Unger in his grammar (in German)) or as an introductory particle announcing a topic (as seen in the Pulleyblank (in English)). Even if we want to put the king of Qi’s son as the subject (instead of “we”, as I did), I’d still translate 夫 as a deictic particle and assume the subject was omitted. I’d do that because 夫 is used like this way more often than as a pronoun.  

---

