<p>the quoted text is from <a href="https://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=gb&amp;id=19788" rel="nofollow noreferrer">傳 襄公二十九年</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>且先君而有知也毋寧夫人而焉用老臣</p>
</blockquote>
<p>the last verses of a speech, said by “女叔侯” aka “女齊”</p>
<p>i would chop it as:</p>
<p>且先君而有知也</p>
<p>. . . further (且) [<strong>if</strong>] the previous ruler (先君 —-&gt; 晉悼公) knew about this [而有知也]</p>
<p>毋寧夫人</p>
<p>wouldn’t (毋) [晉悼公] rather (寧) [fetch 取] his wife (夫人 —-&gt; 晉悼夫人) [‘s life]</p>
<p>而焉用老臣</p>
<p>let alone (而；用於句首，相當於「豈」) [晉悼公] would use (焉用) me! (老臣)</p>
<p>there’s a 13 pages pdf file talks about this paragraph, an interesting read </p>
<p>&lt; <a href="https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjaoKe_nYX8AhVVBN4KHSFjB9IQFnoECAoQAQ&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ny.edu.hk%2Fweb%2Fpdf%2Foutcome%2F20.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw0phQCbgF1rQ9HJukNApHhf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjaoKe_nYX8AhVVBN4KHSFjB9IQFnoECAoQAQ&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ny.edu.hk%2Fweb%2Fpdf%2Foutcome%2F20.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw0phQCbgF1rQ9HJukNApHhf</a> &gt;</p>
<p>have fun :)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-19T09:07:45.807Z
2022-12-19T09:07:45.807Z
水巷孑蠻
<p>襄公二十九年(original text)</p>
<p>晋侯使司马女叔侯来治杞田，弗尽归也。晋悼夫人愠曰：「齐也取货。先君若有知也，不尚取之！」公告叔侯，叔侯曰：「虞、虢、焦、滑、霍、扬、韩、魏，皆姬姓也，晋是以大。若非侵小，将何所取？武、献以下，兼国多矣，谁得治之？杞，夏余也，而即东夷。鲁，周公之后也，而睦于晋。以杞封鲁犹可，而何有焉？鲁之于晋也，职贡不乏，玩好时至，公卿大夫相继于朝，史不绝书，府无虚月。如是可矣，何必瘠鲁以肥杞？<strong>且先君而有知也，毋宁夫人，而焉用老臣？</strong>」</p>
<p>襄公二十九年译文(explanation)</p>
<p>晋平公派司马女叔侯来鲁国办理使鲁国归还杞国土田的事情，但没有全部归还给杞国。晋悼公夫人很生气他说：“女齐办事不得力，先君如果有知，不会赞助他这样办事的。”晋平公把这件事告诉了叔侯。叔侯说：“虞国、虢国、焦国、滑国、霍国、杨国、韩国、魏国，都是姬姓，晋国因此而扩大。如果不是入侵小国，将要从哪里取得？武公、献公以来，兼并的国家就多了，谁能够治理它？杞国，是夏朝的后代，而接近东夷。鲁国，是周公的后代，而和晋国和睦。把杞国封给鲁国还是可以的，有什么杞国不杞国？鲁国对于晋国，贡品不缺乏，玩物按时送到，公卿大夫不断前来朝见，史官没有中断过记载，国库没有一个月不接受鲁国的贡品。像这样就可以了，何必要损害鲁国而增强杞国？<strong>如果先君有知，就宁可让夫人自己去办，又哪里用得着我老臣？</strong>”</p>
<p>Note: <a href="https://www.zdic.net/hans/%E6%AF%8B%E5%AE%81" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>毋寧</strong></a> = 不如 (rather, than). <a href="https://www.zdic.net/hans/%E7%84%89" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>焉</strong></a> = 怎么，哪儿 (why, where)</p>
<p>Source: <a href="https://www.gushiwen.com/dianjifanyi/1491.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">襄公二十九年</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-19T09:13:45.937Z
the quoted explanation is, . . . in low quality lah  “齊也取貨” should be “女齊 also accept briberies 貨賂”
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-19T19:04:24.863Z
Yes, not the best interpretation. 貨 does have the meaning of 收买，贿赂, but, in general, it means "**財**". In the story - 晋悼夫人指責道:"齐也取货(財)..." , 叔侯反駮道："....若非侵小，将何所取(財, means 致富)？". What is your opinion?
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-19T19:27:28.153Z
“若非侵小，將何所取”, i would read it as: “if not invading small [nations], how could we [晉國] gain (取 —> 取得) [territories]. it’s not about wealth here, it’s talking about territory; imo 
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-19T20:51:09.013Z
取得什麼呢？I've a different opinion because it seems to dispute the comment made by 晋悼夫人 with the response 取得財富或利益.
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-19T21:03:57.663Z
well, read the provided pdf file lah 
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-19T22:14:19.477Z
Thanks, now I see the point, but the discrepancy between the accusation and the response remains. :)
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-19T02:11:39.513Z
2022-12-19T02:46:32.123Z
2022-12-19T02:46:32.123Z
r13
<p>Could you please help me out with the meaning of this sentence?</p>
<p>且先君（伟大圣明的先君/以先君之明智）而有知也，毋宁夫人，而焉用老臣？《左传·襄公三十年》</p>
<p>I don't think Classical Chinese actually had punctuation, so it would have looked like this I think:</p>
<p>且先君也毋宁夫人而焉用老臣</p>
<p>先君: former emperor??<br />
毋: not have<br />
毋宁夫人: not have peaceful wife??<br />
焉:where, how<br />
焉用老臣: why?? use old minister??</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-19T02:55:20.297Z
Its true that most classical texts didn't have punctuation.  However things like ，and。 were invented by scholars to aid in comprehension of texts, even when classical chinese was still in use. So there may be other opinions but I think there is no reason to try to take away the punctuation when provided.
zagrycha
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-19T09:17:50.873Z
@zagrycha, well, it’s dot & circle (圈點), no comma (， ) lah 
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-19T18:32:19.763Z
@水巷子蠻 I wrote the modern comma since it was the modern equivalent and I didnt want to be confused with the • in foreign names or 、 for lists as they are modernly used.   For clarity to others reading you are correct the true original form of chinese 讀 mark is more like 、or ． in shape.  It's now become the modern 逗號，and joined 頓號、and句號。as the backbone of chinese punctuation.
zagrycha
<classical-chinese>
Need help deciphering this Classical Chinese from 《左传·襄公三十年》
# Need help deciphering this Classical Chinese from 《左传·襄公三十年》

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-12-19)

Could you please help me out with the meaning of this sentence?

且先君（伟大圣明的先君/以先君之明智）而有知也，毋宁夫人，而焉用老臣？《左传·襄公三十年》

I don't think Classical Chinese actually had punctuation, so it would have looked like this I think:

且先君也毋宁夫人而焉用老臣

先君: former emperor??  
毋: not have  
毋宁夫人: not have peaceful wife??  
焉:where, how  
焉用老臣: why?? use old minister??

**Tags:** classical-chinese

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Its true that most classical texts didn't have punctuation.  However things like ，and。 were invented by scholars to aid in comprehension of texts, even when classical chinese was still in use. So there may be other opinions but I think there is no reason to try to take away the punctuation when provided.  
> **username_2**: @username_1, well, it’s dot & circle (圈點), no comma (， ) lah   
> **username_1**: @水巷子蠻 I wrote the modern comma since it was the modern equivalent and I didnt want to be confused with the • in foreign names or 、 for lists as they are modernly used.   For clarity to others reading you are correct the true original form of chinese 讀 mark is more like 、or ． in shape.  It's now become the modern 逗號，and joined 頓號、and句號。as the backbone of chinese punctuation.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-12-19. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

the quoted text is from [傳 襄公二十九年](https://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=gb&id=19788)

> 且先君而有知也毋寧夫人而焉用老臣

the last verses of a speech, said by “女叔侯” aka “女齊”

i would chop it as:

且先君而有知也

. . . further (且) [**if**] the previous ruler (先君 —-> 晉悼公) knew about this [而有知也]

毋寧夫人

wouldn’t (毋) [晉悼公] rather (寧) [fetch 取] his wife (夫人 —-> 晉悼夫人) [‘s life]

而焉用老臣

let alone (而；用於句首，相當於「豈」) [晉悼公] would use (焉用) me! (老臣)

there’s a 13 pages pdf file talks about this paragraph, an interesting read

< <https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjaoKe_nYX8AhVVBN4KHSFjB9IQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ny.edu.hk%2Fweb%2Fpdf%2Foutcome%2F20.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0phQCbgF1rQ9HJukNApHhf> >

have fun :)


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2022-12-19. Score: 1

襄公二十九年(original text)

晋侯使司马女叔侯来治杞田，弗尽归也。晋悼夫人愠曰：「齐也取货。先君若有知也，不尚取之！」公告叔侯，叔侯曰：「虞、虢、焦、滑、霍、扬、韩、魏，皆姬姓也，晋是以大。若非侵小，将何所取？武、献以下，兼国多矣，谁得治之？杞，夏余也，而即东夷。鲁，周公之后也，而睦于晋。以杞封鲁犹可，而何有焉？鲁之于晋也，职贡不乏，玩好时至，公卿大夫相继于朝，史不绝书，府无虚月。如是可矣，何必瘠鲁以肥杞？**且先君而有知也，毋宁夫人，而焉用老臣？**」

襄公二十九年译文(explanation)

晋平公派司马女叔侯来鲁国办理使鲁国归还杞国土田的事情，但没有全部归还给杞国。晋悼公夫人很生气他说：“女齐办事不得力，先君如果有知，不会赞助他这样办事的。”晋平公把这件事告诉了叔侯。叔侯说：“虞国、虢国、焦国、滑国、霍国、杨国、韩国、魏国，都是姬姓，晋国因此而扩大。如果不是入侵小国，将要从哪里取得？武公、献公以来，兼并的国家就多了，谁能够治理它？杞国，是夏朝的后代，而接近东夷。鲁国，是周公的后代，而和晋国和睦。把杞国封给鲁国还是可以的，有什么杞国不杞国？鲁国对于晋国，贡品不缺乏，玩物按时送到，公卿大夫不断前来朝见，史官没有中断过记载，国库没有一个月不接受鲁国的贡品。像这样就可以了，何必要损害鲁国而增强杞国？**如果先君有知，就宁可让夫人自己去办，又哪里用得着我老臣？**”

Note: [**毋寧**](https://www.zdic.net/hans/%E6%AF%8B%E5%AE%81) = 不如 (rather, than). [**焉**](https://www.zdic.net/hans/%E7%84%89) = 怎么，哪儿 (why, where)

Source: [襄公二十九年](https://www.gushiwen.com/dianjifanyi/1491.html)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: the quoted explanation is, . . . in low quality lah  “齊也取貨” should be “女齊 also accept briberies 貨賂”  
> **username_3**: Yes, not the best interpretation. 貨 does have the meaning of 收买，贿赂, but, in general, it means "**財**". In the story - 晋悼夫人指責道:"齐也取货(財)..." , 叔侯反駮道："....若非侵小，将何所取(財, means 致富)？". What is your opinion?  
> **username_2**: “若非侵小，將何所取”, i would read it as: “if not invading small [nations], how could we [晉國] gain (取 —> 取得) [territories]. it’s not about wealth here, it’s talking about territory; imo   
> **username_3**: 取得什麼呢？I've a different opinion because it seems to dispute the comment made by 晋悼夫人 with the response 取得財富或利益.  
> **username_2**: well, read the provided pdf file lah   
> **username_3**: Thanks, now I see the point, but the discrepancy between the accusation and the response remains. :)  

---

