<p>judging from the text i searched, the translation of "the rest is obvious" is quite good, at the same time, "beyond this what is there to discuss" is, appropriate.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>於彼微動﹒己先動之着手功夫﹒苟能於此嫻熟﹒則操縱在我不在彼﹒其餘又何論矣</p>
</blockquote>

<p>in general, the "style" of mr 鄭's text, is mainly literary chinese, with occasional written vernacular chinese "toppings".</p>

<p>then, to decipher "其餘又何論矣"</p>

<p>其餘 - the rest of . . .</p>

<p>又何論 - 需 is omitted / assumed, so it's 又何需論</p>

<p>又 - and / further</p>

<p>何需 - need to </p>

<p>論 - discuss</p>

<p>矣 is a 虛字 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_particles" rel="nofollow noreferrer">( chinese particles )</a>, to indicate the end of a clause, in an affirmative manner.</p>

<p>so, put it together with the text:</p>

<p>(in 推手), if you're skillful in "彼微動﹒己先動", you're in charge, not your companion (則操縱在我不在彼)</p>

<p>the rest of this (you're skillful in 彼微動﹒己先動), is not needed to discuss further.</p>

<p>ps: i skip some steps in this explanation, either in literary chinese, or in 太極拳.</p>

<p>have fun :)</p>

<p>edited, in lieu of comment.</p>

<p>well, literary chinese is fuzzy. incorporate the context is important, and easier; to explain particular clause.</p>

<p>imo, the clause "其餘又何論矣" is not fine, it's not "pure" literary chinese. the introduction of "需" is "needed", for easier comprehension.</p>

<p>anyway, this interpretation is, based on my knowledge in literary chinese, and, 太極拳. others might understand the phase differently.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-12T07:36:09.010Z
I appreciate your answer.  I however have a couple issues with it.  The first is the context.  I am with all due respect not asking you to teach me everything around this phrase, I'm only asking you about this one phrase, 其餘又何論矣.

Second, the introduction of "需".  The phrase reads fine without is so why introduce it?  Let's not multiply entities without good reason, okay?

Bit still, thanks.
user3131341
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-12T08:20:35.363Z
i edited the answer, in lieu of putting long text in the comment area.
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-12T06:38:26.990Z
2017-04-12T08:19:26.130Z
2017-04-12T08:19:26.130Z
水巷孑蠻
<p>So, the phrase is 其餘又何論矣. I've seen it translated as "The rest is obvious." The way I read it is "Beyond this what is there to discuss?"</p>

<p>On the other hand, I've never seen 矣 as the tag for a rhetorical question.</p>

<p>Can someone walk me through why I'm right or more likely why I'm wrong? It was written by someone born before the Republic and well educated in the Classics, so it's not modern.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-12T10:39:19.407Z
文言文  is always indistinctness, readers have to use the context to figure out what do the characters mean individually. This book is written in a mixed style of 文言 and 白话. I don't think the 文言 part is written well.  In this context: it is just means "Then the rest is not required to consider, is't it?" But the problem is, in this case, if I am not wrong, 哉is more appropriate, not 矣. I have never seen 矣 this way, maybe cuz I don't read 文言文 much. :) P.S., In this sentence, it wil be more natural to include 需.  其余又何须/需论哉?
sfy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-20T13:02:03.747Z
There are different styles of translation. It is not necessary to translate word by word as long as it looks natural and conveys the message.
OmniBus
<sentence-structure>
Can someone walk me through 其餘又何論矣?
# Can someone walk me through 其餘又何論矣?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-04-11)

So, the phrase is 其餘又何論矣. I've seen it translated as "The rest is obvious." The way I read it is "Beyond this what is there to discuss?"

On the other hand, I've never seen 矣 as the tag for a rhetorical question.

Can someone walk me through why I'm right or more likely why I'm wrong? It was written by someone born before the Republic and well educated in the Classics, so it's not modern.

**Tags:** sentence-structure

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 文言文  is always indistinctness, readers have to use the context to figure out what do the characters mean individually. This book is written in a mixed style of 文言 and 白话. I don't think the 文言 part is written well.  In this context: it is just means "Then the rest is not required to consider, is't it?" But the problem is, in this case, if I am not wrong, 哉is more appropriate, not 矣. I have never seen 矣 this way, maybe cuz I don't read 文言文 much. :) P.S., In this sentence, it wil be more natural to include 需.  其余又何须/需论哉?  
> **username_2**: There are different styles of translation. It is not necessary to translate word by word as long as it looks natural and conveys the message.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-04-12. Score: 1

judging from the text i searched, the translation of "the rest is obvious" is quite good, at the same time, "beyond this what is there to discuss" is, appropriate.

> 於彼微動﹒己先動之着手功夫﹒苟能於此嫻熟﹒則操縱在我不在彼﹒其餘又何論矣

in general, the "style" of mr 鄭's text, is mainly literary chinese, with occasional written vernacular chinese "toppings".

then, to decipher "其餘又何論矣"

其餘 - the rest of . . .

又何論 - 需 is omitted / assumed, so it's 又何需論

又 - and / further

何需 - need to

論 - discuss

矣 is a 虛字 [( chinese particles )](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_particles), to indicate the end of a clause, in an affirmative manner.

so, put it together with the text:

(in 推手), if you're skillful in "彼微動﹒己先動", you're in charge, not your companion (則操縱在我不在彼)

the rest of this (you're skillful in 彼微動﹒己先動), is not needed to discuss further.

ps: i skip some steps in this explanation, either in literary chinese, or in 太極拳.

have fun :)

edited, in lieu of comment.

well, literary chinese is fuzzy. incorporate the context is important, and easier; to explain particular clause.

imo, the clause "其餘又何論矣" is not fine, it's not "pure" literary chinese. the introduction of "需" is "needed", for easier comprehension.

anyway, this interpretation is, based on my knowledge in literary chinese, and, 太極拳. others might understand the phase differently.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I appreciate your answer.  I however have a couple issues with it.  The first is the context.  I am with all due respect not asking you to teach me everything around this phrase, I'm only asking you about this one phrase, 其餘又何論矣.  Second, the introduction of "需".  The phrase reads fine without is so why introduce it?  Let's not multiply entities without good reason, okay?  Bit still, thanks.  
> **username_3**: i edited the answer, in lieu of putting long text in the comment area.  

---

