<p>Nannuo gave a nice explanation. But there are some of the details I don't agree with.</p>

<p>It seems 夫 is 发语词 to me. Normally one doesn't relate it to anything. </p>

<p>夫唯弗居 => 唯弗居 =>  Only contributing without taking credit.</p>

<p>以 means "because of". 是以 = 以是 = because of it/this/the reason/something.</p>

<p>去 = leave （vanish is also good.)</p>

<p>是以不去 => 以是不去 => Because of the reason above, it (the credit of your contribution) never go away.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-19T12:31:25.863Z
agree that 夫's not a subject in above - though it can also serve as a transition similar in English to "Now, ...".  Example 韩昌黎's 答刘正夫书: “夫君子之于文,岂异于是乎。”
Master Sparkles
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-19T05:29:00.433Z
2015-04-19T21:25:55.333Z
2015-04-19T21:25:55.333Z
FortCpp
<p>夫唯弗居，是以不去。</p>

<p>夫:发语词。no actural meaning。 can be translate to "so".</p>

<p>弗：does not，never</p>

<p>唯：only，just</p>

<p>居：possess (merits) (regard contribution as merits。)</p>

<p>是以：therefore</p>

<p>不去：does not lose。</p>

<p><strong>（So）Just because does not possess（merits） ，therefore never lose it。</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-19T05:40:06.820Z
2015-04-19T05:46:39.330Z
2015-04-19T05:46:39.330Z
sfy
<p>Apologies for my late reply.</p>

<p>I have no formal training in classical Chinese, modern-day Chinese or something akin thereunto; however, in a Japanese sense, the answer should be more or less clear.</p>

<p>My answer is thus shown as follows (in a tentatively explanatory note):</p>

<p>Someone in question is/was merely not at home; therefore, he is/was not gone ([or] he has/had not left for anywhere else [for good]).</p>

<p>The [...] thread has not provided the entire excerpt or, better still, the entire article/account; therefore, I have no choice but to deem that, from these given words, the author of the original phrase ([or] the first-person character or any of the likes) seems to have responded to his or her listener(s)/reader(s), or seems to have provided an explanatory note in re the perceived departure, i.e., as to whether or not someone in question be/have gone. The author has apparently made it clear that the person in question merely was not at home, as opposed to having gone somewhere else (for good [or not]).</p>

<p>Note: In my opinion, whether or not one choose (chooses) to treat the first character (meaning in general: man, husband, this, etc.) as insignificant when being translated into English, it does not matter. The meaning in its essence remains clear that someone is/was merely not at home for the time being; thus, having gone nowhere (as possibly expected/assumed thus or so).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-30T13:11:22.263Z
2017-05-30T13:11:22.263Z
Tada Orazu
<p>it's the end of the second chapter of Dao De Jing. I try to make sense:
是以不去 therefore it's not lost, doesn't go away. 
夫唯弗居? Can anybody help me?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-20T04:01:59.557Z
In (comparatively more) modern Chinese, I would put it as "只有不自居其功，才可以永垂不朽".  "唯" means "an essential factor" or even "the only way".
Henry HO
<meaning-in-context>
夫唯弗居，是以不去 What"s the meaning of the first 4 characters?
# 夫唯弗居，是以不去 What"s the meaning of the first 4 characters?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-04-18)

it's the end of the second chapter of Dao De Jing. I try to make sense:
是以不去 therefore it's not lost, doesn't go away.
夫唯弗居? Can anybody help me?

**Tags:** meaning-in-context

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: In (comparatively more) modern Chinese, I would put it as "只有不自居其功，才可以永垂不朽".  "唯" means "an essential factor" or even "the only way".  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-04-19. Score: 5

Nannuo gave a nice explanation. But there are some of the details I don't agree with.

It seems 夫 is 发语词 to me. Normally one doesn't relate it to anything.

夫唯弗居 => 唯弗居 => Only contributing without taking credit.

以 means "because of". 是以 = 以是 = because of it/this/the reason/something.

去 = leave （vanish is also good.)

是以不去 => 以是不去 => Because of the reason above, it (the credit of your contribution) never go away.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: agree that 夫's not a subject in above - though it can also serve as a transition similar in English to "Now, ...".  Example 韩昌黎's 答刘正夫书: “夫君子之于文,岂异于是乎。”  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2015-04-19. Score: 2

夫唯弗居，是以不去。

夫:发语词。no actural meaning。 can be translate to "so".

弗：does not，never

唯：only，just

居：possess (merits) (regard contribution as merits。)

是以：therefore

不去：does not lose。

**（So）Just because does not possess（merits） ，therefore never lose it。**


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2017-05-30. Score: -1

Apologies for my late reply.

I have no formal training in classical Chinese, modern-day Chinese or something akin thereunto; however, in a Japanese sense, the answer should be more or less clear.

My answer is thus shown as follows (in a tentatively explanatory note):

Someone in question is/was merely not at home; therefore, he is/was not gone ([or] he has/had not left for anywhere else [for good]).

The [...] thread has not provided the entire excerpt or, better still, the entire article/account; therefore, I have no choice but to deem that, from these given words, the author of the original phrase ([or] the first-person character or any of the likes) seems to have responded to his or her listener(s)/reader(s), or seems to have provided an explanatory note in re the perceived departure, i.e., as to whether or not someone in question be/have gone. The author has apparently made it clear that the person in question merely was not at home, as opposed to having gone somewhere else (for good [or not]).

Note: In my opinion, whether or not one choose (chooses) to treat the first character (meaning in general: man, husband, this, etc.) as insignificant when being translated into English, it does not matter. The meaning in its essence remains clear that someone is/was merely not at home for the time being; thus, having gone nowhere (as possibly expected/assumed thus or so).


---

