<p>the quoted text is from <a href="https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&amp;chapter=898316" rel="noreferrer">ctext.org</a>, paragraph 5:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>慨夫蒙子入塾，首授以四子書，聽其終日伊吾；及少長也，則為之師者，就書衍說。至於逐字之部分類別，與夫字與字相配成句之義，且同一字也，有弁於句首者，有殿於句尾者，以及句讀先後參差之所以然，塾師固昧然也。而一二經師自命與攻乎古文詞者，語之及此，<strong>罔不曰</strong>此在神而明之耳，未可以言傳也。噫嚱！此豈非循其當然而不求其所以然之蔽也哉！後生學者，將何考藝而問道焉？</p>
</blockquote>
<p>about “罔不曰”, we need to consider</p>
<blockquote>
<p>而一二經師自命與攻乎古文詞者，語之及此，罔不曰此在神而明之耳，未可以言傳也</p>
</blockquote>
<p>roughly is:</p>
<p>also, (而) some “self-claimed” scholars (一二經師自命), and (與) ancient texts experts (攻乎古文詞者), [when they] talked about this (語之及此); none [of them] (罔) would not (不) say (曰) this is (此在) . . .</p>
<p>basically, ”罔不” is a double negative structure. “罔” refers to the scholars and experts, “不” refers to negative of saying.</p>
<p>together, “罔不曰” means “all scholars and experts would say”</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think 夫 is 那个 here</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>至於逐字之部分類別，<strong>與夫</strong>字與字相配成句之義</p>
</blockquote>
<p>well, i would interpret it as:</p>
<p>as for (至於) the categorisation of each character (逐字之部分類別); and (與), sigh (夫), the meaning of characters combinations (字與字相配成句之義)</p>
<p>“夫” is a modal particle here, to display author’s disappointment.</p>
<p>have fun :)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-29T21:25:42.003Z
Thanks for your very complete answer!《马氏文通》was published 1898. Why was the author still using classical Chinese? Because he could?
Pedroski
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-30T01:53:39.813Z
@Pedroski, the author used western method, “葛郎瑪” (grammar)  to comprehend literatures of yore. at 1898, the formal, virtually all intellectuals, using was literary chinese 
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-29T03:07:13.660Z
2022-05-29T03:07:13.660Z
水巷孑蠻
<p>What is the meaning of  罔不曰 here?<br />
Is  罔不 a person? (Can't find a 罔不先生)<br />
Is  罔不 = 没有?<br />
Something else?</p>
<p>I think 夫 is 那个 here.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>马建忠， 《马氏文通》序：</p>
<p>至于逐字之部分类别，与夫字与字相配成句之义 .... 罔不曰， 此在神而明之耳，未可以言传也。噫嘘！此岂非循其当然而不求其所以然之蔽也哉！</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-29T01:36:08.237Z
what is before 罔?
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-29T21:20:16.943Z
I got this as a quote in a book that Betty recommended: 名词和动词，沈家煊。So I didn't know what was left out.
Pedroski
<meaning-in-context>
What is the meaning of 罔不曰 here?
# What is the meaning of 罔不曰 here?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-05-29)

What is the meaning of 罔不曰 here?  
Is 罔不 a person? (Can't find a 罔不先生)  
Is 罔不 = 没有?  
Something else?

I think 夫 is 那个 here.

> 马建忠， 《马氏文通》序：
>
> 至于逐字之部分类别，与夫字与字相配成句之义 .... 罔不曰， 此在神而明之耳，未可以言传也。噫嘘！此岂非循其当然而不求其所以然之蔽也哉！

**Tags:** meaning-in-context

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: what is before 罔?  
> **username_0**: I got this as a quote in a book that Betty recommended: 名词和动词，沈家煊。So I didn't know what was left out.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-05-29. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

the quoted text is from [ctext.org](https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&chapter=898316), paragraph 5:

> 慨夫蒙子入塾，首授以四子書，聽其終日伊吾；及少長也，則為之師者，就書衍說。至於逐字之部分類別，與夫字與字相配成句之義，且同一字也，有弁於句首者，有殿於句尾者，以及句讀先後參差之所以然，塾師固昧然也。而一二經師自命與攻乎古文詞者，語之及此，**罔不曰**此在神而明之耳，未可以言傳也。噫嚱！此豈非循其當然而不求其所以然之蔽也哉！後生學者，將何考藝而問道焉？

about “罔不曰”, we need to consider

> 而一二經師自命與攻乎古文詞者，語之及此，罔不曰此在神而明之耳，未可以言傳也

roughly is:

also, (而) some “self-claimed” scholars (一二經師自命), and (與) ancient texts experts (攻乎古文詞者), [when they] talked about this (語之及此); none [of them] (罔) would not (不) say (曰) this is (此在) . . .

basically, ”罔不” is a double negative structure. “罔” refers to the scholars and experts, “不” refers to negative of saying.

together, “罔不曰” means “all scholars and experts would say”

> I think 夫 is 那个 here

> 至於逐字之部分類別，**與夫**字與字相配成句之義

well, i would interpret it as:

as for (至於) the categorisation of each character (逐字之部分類別); and (與), sigh (夫), the meaning of characters combinations (字與字相配成句之義)

“夫” is a modal particle here, to display author’s disappointment.

have fun :)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for your very complete answer!《马氏文通》was published 1898. Why was the author still using classical Chinese? Because he could?  
> **username_2**: @username_0, the author used western method, “葛郎瑪” (grammar)  to comprehend literatures of yore. at 1898, the formal, virtually all intellectuals, using was literary chinese   

---

