# 精诚所至，金石为开



## Konstantinos

“如果诚心实意，即使像金属和石头那样硬的东西也会被打动。”“精诚所至，金石为开”这一成语也便由此流传下来。

Hi all. I found this in the Standard Course Book of HSK5, chapter 7. I understand the 精诚所至，金石为开 as idiom but I try to understand its literal translation as well:

精诚：absolute sincerity
所至：？
金石：metal and stone
为开：？

Can you help me?

提前感谢。


----------



## Lamb67

人的诚心所到，能感动天地，使金石为之开裂


----------



## tinsh

Most of the dictionary explains as this:
人的诚心所到，能感动天地，使金石为之开裂。比喻只要专心诚意去做，什么疑难问题都能解决。
BUT, this explanation is not so good in one place!
至，“极点”或“达到极点”的意思。
所，用作助词，用在主谓语中间，使其变成偏正短语，表示强调，相当于“之、的”。如：关键所在。
所至，主要强调“至”。
精诚所至，就是“精诚”达到极点。
为，表示承接关系，相当于则、就、Then。 如：君子有勇而无义为乱，小人有勇而无义为盗。
金石为开，就是“金属和石头就会开裂”的意思。
这里的“为”读作wéi，而词典中的“为之开裂”的“为”读作wèi，意思是“为了……”、 for the sake of 。So, as I said earlier, that explanation is not so good. It might confuse us. Isn’t it?


----------



## ktdd

tinsh said:


> 为，表示承接关系，相当于则、就、Then。 如：君子有勇而无义为乱，小人有勇而无义为盗。
> 金石为开，就是“金属和石头就会开裂”的意思。
> 这里的“为”读作wéi，而词典中的“为之开裂”的“为”读作wèi，意思是“为了……”、 for the sake of 。So, as I said earlier, that explanation is not so good. It might confuse us. Isn’t it?


Is it?
“金石為開”語出漢‧劉向《新序‧雜事四》：“熊渠子見其誠心，而金石為之開，況人心乎？”
Apparently it's a preposition/coverb that takes an object. But 《成语大词典》 specifically notes that “为”此处不读wèi. So what does it mean? My guess:
《漢語大詞典》
35.介詞。被。
 《左傳‧襄公十年》：“戰而不克，為諸侯笑。”
 《史記‧屈原賈生列傳》：“身客死於秦，為天下笑。”
 宋劉子翬《兼道攜古墨來感作此》詩：“汗青得失更誰論，尤物競為人寶愛。”
 王統照《霜痕‧紀夢》：“她並沒為這秋日的風景引動。”



tinsh said:


> 所，用作助词，用在主谓语中间，使其变成偏正短语，表示强调，相当于“之、的”。如：关键所在。
> 所至，主要强调“至”。
> 精诚所至，就是“精诚”的到来。现代汉语忽略了“所”，可直接翻译为“‘精诚’到了”，或“‘精诚’达到了”。


This doesn't seem right either.
I'm going with this:
19.助詞。表示結構。與動詞相結合組成名詞性詞組。
 《詩‧鄘風‧載馳》：“百爾所思，不如我所之。”
 《左傳‧昭公四年》：“召而見之，則所夢也。”
 《漢書‧王嘉傳》：“千人所指，無病而死。”
 唐白居易《與元九書》：“時之所重，僕之所輕。”
 清蒲松齡《聊齋志异‧促織》：“折過牆隅，迷其所往。”

Actually, _An Introduction to Literary Chinese_ by Michael Fuller has a better explanation.
I can't quote the book, but my understanding is that 所 makes it possible to talk about the object of a verb without naming the object, in this case, the destination of 至 (=達到極點).
精誠所至 = 精誠達到極點之處/之時

Of course I'm quite sloppy in my classical study. Waiting for @skating-in-bc 's opinion.


----------



## tinsh

ktdd said:


> “金石為開”語出漢‧劉向《新序‧雜事四》：“熊渠子見其誠心，而金石為之開，況人心乎？”
> Apparently it's a preposition/coverb that takes an object. But 《成语大词典》 specifically notes that “为”此处不读wèi. So what does it mean? My guess:
> 《漢語大詞典》
> 35.介詞。被。
> 《左傳‧襄公十年》：“戰而不克，為諸侯笑。”
> 《史記‧屈原賈生列傳》：“身客死於秦，為天下笑。”
> 宋劉子翬《兼道攜古墨來感作此》詩：“汗青得失更誰論，尤物競為人寶愛。”
> 王統照《霜痕‧紀夢》：“她並沒為這秋日的風景引動。”


此成语的出处不一定就是刘向的《新序》，也可能是这些：

《庄子·渔父》：“真者，精诚之至也，不精不诚，不能动人”。
《新序》
汉·王充《论衡·感虚篇》：“精诚所加，金石为亏。”
南朝·宋·范哗《后汉书·广陵思王荆传》：“精诚所加，金石为开。”
明·凌蒙初《初刻拍案惊奇》第九卷：“精诚所至，金石为开，贞心不寐，死后重谐。”
即便是只有《新序》这一个出处，提取成语的时候，换个词（wèi 换成 wéi）也属正常。所以，我仍坚持认为“为”是“则”，而不是“被”。


----------



## tinsh

ktdd said:


> 19.助詞。表示結構。與動詞相結合組成名詞性詞組。
> 《詩‧鄘風‧載馳》：“百爾所思，不如我所之。”
> 《左傳‧昭公四年》：“召而見之，則所夢也。”
> 《漢書‧王嘉傳》：“千人所指，無病而死。”
> 唐白居易《與元九書》：“時之所重，僕之所輕。”
> 清蒲松齡《聊齋志异‧促織》：“折過牆隅，迷其所往。”
> 
> Actually, _An Introduction to Literary Chinese_ by Michael Fuller has a better explanation.
> I can't quote the book, but my understanding is that 所 makes it possible to talk about the object of a verb without naming the object, in this case, the destination of 至 (=達到極點).
> 精誠所至 = 精誠達到極點之處/之時


Yes, 至 = 极点 = 至至 = 达到极点 != 到达,  I think you're right. I've re-edit my first reply to correct this.


----------



## skating-in-bc

tinsh said:


> 我仍坚持认为“为”是“则”，而不是“被”。


我也認為是“則”.

比較:
元.戴表元《剡源集》慈仁所加_, _無間軒陛。==> 沒「則」的概念。
唐.王棨《牛羊勿踐行葦賦》若使大武斯履, 柔毛所加, *則*八月洲前無複凝霜之葉, 三秋江上難逢似雪之花。==> 明擺著的「則」。
漢.王充《論衡.感虛》精誠所加, 金石*為*虧。==> 用「為」傳達「則」的概念 (cf. 《國語辭典》指加以誠心, *則*能感動天地, 使金石開裂)。

換句話說, 我認為「為」(wei2) 是條件或假設關係連詞 (e.g., 就, 便), 連接前提分句和後果分句。

「為」既然連接的是兩個分句 (clauses), "精誠所加" (or "精誠所至") must _function_ as a clause, not a noun. Take "眾望所歸" as an example, although syntactically it can be seen as a noun phrase (e.g., 無患子《染輕容》只好依眾望所歸, 硬著頭皮憋氣一飲而盡), it usually functions as a clause (e.g., 張汝誠《實用易經》眾望所歸, 則道易行也), corresponding to 眾望有歸 or 眾望攸歸.

That is to say, 所 (無義詞綴) = 有、攸 (動詞前的詞綴, 無實際意義)。
精誠所至, 金石為開 = 精誠有至, 金石則開

Pragmatically,
精誠所加, 金石為虧 = 加以精誠, 金石則毀。施加精純的誠心, 金石就能損毀。
精誠所至, 金石為開 = 至以精誠, 金石則開。達到十分的誠心, 金石就能開裂。


> 西漢.劉向《新序》熊渠子見其誠心, 而金石為之開, 況人心乎?


"金石為之開" 到底是為其而開 (active; e.g., 宋.羅椅《孫氏女哀詞》"魂為之飛" = 魂因其而飛), 還是為其所開 (passive; e.g., 清.王韜《淞隱漫錄》"神為之奪" = 神被其所奪)?

其實, "為之 + 作為動詞的動詞" (as opposed to 作為名詞的動詞 nominalized verb), 絕大多數是主動語態的用法 (e.g.,《史記》蒼帝行德, 天門為之開 = 因其而開)。例外通常是近代的產物 (e.g., "神為之奪")。為去歧義, 被動常會加上 "所" (e.g.,《史記》終為之所擒矣 = 被其所擒)。"金石為之開" 的 "default interpretation" (i.e., salient interpretation under normal circumstances) 是為其而開.


----------



## zhg

tinsh said:


> 为，表示承接关系，相当于则、就、Then。 如：君子有勇而无义为乱，小人有勇而无义为盗。


1.“为”是*没有表承接的连词用法的*不可能相当于则，你举得例子中“为”就是现代汉语中“是”的意思，为当是讲的这种用法在古汉语中也并不是为的最常见用法。



skating-in-bc said:


> 比較:
> 元.戴表元《剡源集》慈仁所加_, _無間軒陛。==> 沒「則」的概念。
> 唐.王棨《牛羊勿踐行葦賦》若使大武斯履, 柔毛所加, *則*八月洲前無複凝霜之葉, 三秋江上難逢似雪之花。==> 明擺著的「則」。
> 漢.王充《論衡.感虛》精誠所加, 金石*為*虧。==> 用「為」傳達「則」的概念 (cf. 《國語辭典》指加以誠心, *則*能感動天地, 使金石開裂)。


这个类比的逻辑恕我实在无法理解，暂且不论对错，首先你的三个举例子跨度千年，汉、唐、元的文言文虽说都是在模仿先秦但有些字词意都发生了很大变化，对于这样的类比得出的结论我持怀疑态度。
其次“所加”和“为”和“则”这些词有什么内在联系我实在看不出，我倒觉得第二句的“则”是呼应开头的"若"，和"所加"则毫无关系，”若..则..." 这个常见用法在现代汉语里我想也是存在的吧。



skating-in-bc said:


> 換句話說, 我認為「為」(wei2) 是條件或假設關係連詞 (e.g., 就, 便), 連接前提分句和後果分句。


这个说法严重缺乏证据支持。况且连词顾名思义，连接句子的词怎么会出现在句中？



tinsh said:


> 所，用作助词，用在主谓语中间，使其变成偏正短语，表示强调，相当于“之、的”。如：关键所在。


2.所也不是助词（当然所也有助词的用法但在精诚所至里明显不是），“关键所在”中的所也是指示代词（不然什么叫“关键的在”，明显讲不通），关键所在=关键所在的那个地方(或者你也可以理解为抽象的地方，点之类的，总之是指示代词不可能是偏正短语助词的）

精诚所至，金石为开，（整句话的意思我和ktdd的理解是基本一样的，就不赘述了）


----------



## ktdd

Hi, thanks to you all for your replies. Though I must admit I'm still not convinced.

First, let's look at the origin, or more practically, the textual tradition, for an idiomatic expression may have evolved over a long period of time. These are the relevant citations in (hopefully) chronological order.

1) 文子（老子弟子，與孔子同時）《文子·精誠》：
老子曰：勇士一呼，三軍皆辟，其出之誠也。唱而不和，意而不載，中必有不合者也。不下席而匡天下者，求諸己也，故說之所不至者，容貌至焉，容貌所不至者，感忽至焉，感乎心發而成形，精之至者可形接，不可以照期。
This is the source of #3, #4.

2) 莊子（约前369年－前286年）《庄子·漁父》：
孔子愀然曰：「請問何謂真？」客曰：「真者，精誠之至也。不精不誠，不能動人。……
This, in my opinion, is tangential at best. It didn't mention metal or stone, and it isn't quoted by other texts that did mention metal or stone. And you can't use it to prove 精誠所至 = 精誠之至 (more on that later).

3) 韓嬰（約前200年－前130年）《韓詩外傳·卷六》：
勇士一呼而三軍皆避，士之誠也。昔者，楚熊渠子夜行，寢石以為伏虎，彎弓而射之，沒金飲羽，下視，知其為石。*石為之開*，而況人乎！
He seems to be the first who (mis)quoted 文子 and expounded on the idea by telling the stone-as-tiger story, thus establishing a link between 射箭 and the power of 誠, although 誠 didn't appear in the immediate context of 石為之開.

4) 劉向（前77年－前6年）《新序·雑事四》：
勇士一呼，三軍皆辟，士之誠也。昔者，楚熊渠子夜行，見寢石以為伏虎，關弓射之，滅矢飲羽，下視，知石也。卻復射之，矢摧無跡。*熊渠子見其誠心而金石為之開*，況人心乎？
Same story, slightly different wording. 《漢語大詞典》 gives this as the origin, probably because this was the earliest instance where the exact word 金石 (not 石) was used and 誠 also appeared in the same sentence? Anyways, I think the existence of 之 in #3 and #4 supports my view that 為 is a preposition/coverb (pronounced wéi, introducing the agent in a passive construction).

5) ？劉歆（前50年？－23年）《西京雑記·卷五》：
李廣與兄弟共獵於冥山之北，見臥虎焉。射之，一矢即斃。斷其髑髏以為枕，示服猛也。鑄銅象其形為溲器，示厭辱之也。他日，復獵於冥山之陽，又見臥虎，射之。沒矢飲羽。進而視之，乃石也，其形類虎。退而更射，鏃破簳折而石不傷。余嘗以問揚子雲，子雲曰：「*至誠則金石為開*。」
The inclusion of 則 in 揚雄's response kind of proves my point that 為 ≠ 則.
(Quite incidentally that sentence is translated into passive voice in OP's textbook: 人们对这件事情感到很不解，就去问当时最有影响力的学者扬雄。扬雄回答说：“如果诚心实意，即使像金属和石头那样硬的东西也会被打动。”“精诚所至，金石为开”这一成语也便由此流传下来。 — Fun fact: 劉歆's story didn't end there. He gave two examples in which 至誠 didn't work and asked 揚雄 why, to which 揚雄 had no answers lol.)

6) 王充（27年－約97年）《論衡·感虛篇》：
儒者《傳書》言：「堯之時，十日並出，萬物燋枯。堯上射十日，九日去，一日常出。」此言虛也。夫人之射也，不過百步，矢力盡矣。日之行也，行天星度，天之去人，以萬里數，堯上射之，安能得日？使堯之時，天地相近，不過百步，則堯射日，矢能及之；過百步，不能得也。假使堯時天地相近，堯射得之，猶不能傷日，傷日何肯去？何則？日、火也，使在地之火，附一把炬，人從旁射之，雖中，安能滅之？地火不為見射而滅，天火何為見射而去？此欲言堯以精誠射之，*精誠所加，金石為虧*，蓋誠無堅則亦無遠矣。夫水與火，各一性也，能射火而滅之，則當射水而除之。洪水之時，流濫中國，為民大害，堯何不推精誠射而除之？堯能射日，使火不為害，不能射河，使水不為害。夫射水不能郤水，則知射日之語虛，非實也。或曰：「日、氣也，射雖不及，精誠滅之。」夫天亦遠，使其為氣，則與日月同；使其為體，則與金石等，以堯之精誠，滅日虧金石，上射日則能穿天乎？世稱桀、紂之惡，射天而毆地；譽高宗之德，政消桑穀。今堯不能以德滅十日，而必射之，是德不若高宗，惡與桀、紂同也，安能以精誠獲天之應也？
Sorry I have to quote the whole passage. By Wang Chong's time, the idea (or rather ideal) must be pretty prevalent that if you're sincere enough, you're unstoppable. And he basically says, that's bullshit.

7) 范曄（398年－445年）《後漢書·光武十王列傳》
In a letter 廣陵王 wrote to 東海王 urging his elder brother the former crown prince to rebel and revenge their mother's death after their father died, the phrase 精誠所加，金石為開 was used. It was used as an idiom, in an abstract way, with no association with archery, and 300 years had passed.

8) 凌濛初（1580年6月18日－1644年2月21日）《初刻拍案驚奇》（1628年）
Now we have the current version 精誠所至，金石為開 appearing in 第九卷 and 第四十卷. (There's probably a not-so-obvious reason why it settled on 至: 平平仄仄、平仄平平 sounds better than 平平仄平、平仄平平.)

To summarize, I think it's safe to say that it all started with 韓嬰, who co-opted a Taoist text to promote his Confucianist ideal. He probably got his inspiration from 《孔子家語》夫钟之音，怒而击之则武，忧而击之则悲。其志变者，声亦随之，故至诚感之，通于金石，而况人乎？ But Confucius was talking about music, not rock-splitting superhero. Anyway, 韓嬰 made an extraordinary claim, and was directly responsible for the chengyu we're discussing.


Second, about the grammatical function of 所.

Like I said, just because 荘子 wrote 真者，精誠之至也。不精不誠，不能動人, doesn't mean 精誠所至 = 精誠之至. On the other hand, it's easy to prove 所 ≠ 之 in such phrases as 關鍵所在 by inserting a 之 without breaking it (關鍵之所在), or by replacing 所 with 之 and sort of making it less grammatical (關鍵之在?). We native speakers instinctively know that 關鍵所在 is a place where the key lies. But why?

Here's my explanation. Take this sentence as an example: 魚，我所欲也 "Fish, is what I want."
I can want many things, money, power, a beautiful wife, being able to fly like a bird...  我所欲 creates a category for all the things that I want. And 魚，我所欲也 simply states that fish belongs in such a category. (By contrast, 我之欲 is 'my desire', there's a semantic distinction.)

An important point is 所+verb turns a verbal phrase into a noun phrase that *refers to the object of the verb*. 所V = V的人、V的东西、 V的地方 etc, depending on the nature of the verb. This is comparable to an English free/fused/nominal relative clause, such as "what I want", in which the relative pronoun ('what') serves as the object of the verb ('want') in the subordinate clause. Note the object being referred to can be an unknown entity, e.g. 己所不欲，勿施於人 = Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire; 我的所愛在山腰 = That which I love is on the mountainside (it could well be a pavilion, if we didn't know the next line 想去尋她山太高).

This is the most common usage of 所. It can sometimes make a sentence quite complex and hard to unravel, like this:
楚人有涉江者，其劍自舟中墜於水，遽契其舟曰：「是吾劍之所從墜。」舟止，從其所契者入水求之。舟已行矣，而劍不行，求劍若此，不亦惑乎？
What does 是吾劍之所從墜 mean? Well, a canonical sentence may look like this:
吾　劍　　 從　　是　墜。
My sword from here fell.

Suppose we want to emphasize HERE. To do that, we can topicalize it, i.e. move it to the beginning of the sentence:
是，　　　吾　劍　　從　　○　墜。
Here (=) my sword from ○ fell.

There's a gap left behind by the moved-away object (of 'from'). We fill that gap with 所, then move it to the front of the coverb 從 (a bit like the wh-movement in English, except it doesn't move all the way to the beginning of the sub clause):
是，　　　吾　劍　　　所　　從　　墜。
Here (=) my sword [where from fell].

Since 所從墜 is a noun phrase now, it is okay to throw in an optional 之 to connect the two noun phrases:
是，　　　吾　劍　　之　所　　從　　墜。
Here (=) my sword 's [where from fell].

To make it more idiomatic:
是吾劍之所從墜。
This is the place from which my sword fell.

It's actually quite hard to translate this sentence into Modern Mandarin.
是吾劍之所從墜。
這裡就是我的劍掉下去的地方。 Hmm, where is 從?
我的劍就是從這裡掉下去的。 Different word order, different stress.


Third, I agree that once a string of words becomes an idiom/set phrase, it is often no longer bound by its original grammatical role. Pragmatically speaking, 精誠所至 is the protasis/if-clause and 金石為開 the apodosis/then-clause. But Chinese does not necessarily need a subordinate clause, or a conjunction, for that matter. Topic-comment structure and parallel structure can serve the purpose of connecting condition and consequence quite well.

精誠所至 (topic)
金石為開 (comment)

In fact, I want to retract my previous assertion that 至 means 達到極點. That way, it wouldn't look much different from, say,
桃花過處，
寸草不生。
金錢落地，
人頭不保。


----------



## skating-in-bc

zhg said:


> “为”是*没有表承接的连词用法的*


請參見《漢典.為》:
為 wéi
<連>
(2) 則，就 [then]——表示承接關係. 君子有勇而無義為亂, 小人有勇而無義為盜。——《論語·陽貨》

《國語辭典.為》:
㈠  ㄨㄟˊ
<連>
則。《論語．陽貨》：「君子有勇而無義為亂，小人有勇而無義為盜。」《史記．卷一一八．淮南衡山列傳．淮南厲王》：「今暴摧折之，臣恐卒逢霧露病死，陛下為有殺弟之名，奈何？」


zhg said:


> 和"所加"则毫无关系


"毫無關係" 正是我想說的:
條件概念和 "N + 所加" (or N + 所至) 這個構造無關。

"若柔毛所加, *則*難逢似雪之花" 有條件概念, 是因為「若...則」。

為何 "慈仁所加_, _無間軒陛" 不是 "加以慈仁, 就能無間軒陛" 的意思, 而 "精誠所加, 金石為虧" 卻有條件概念? 我認為, 是因為後者存在 "為" 的關係。


zhg said:


> 连接句子的词怎么会出现在句中？


《史記》卒逢霧露病死, 陛下*為*有殺弟之名 ==> 《國語辭典》說這個 "為" 是連詞, 是不是在你所說的 "句中"?


ktdd said:


> I think the existence of 之 in #3 and #4 supports my view that 為 is a preposition/coverb (pronounced wéi, introducing the agent in a passive construction).


Why? 為什麼 "為之開" 必須理解為 "被其所開", 而不是 "因其而開"?  難道故事是說, 加以精誠, 就能變得力大無窮, 連金石也能被射穿? 我還以為是說, 加以精誠, 就能感動天地, 讓金石主動開裂, 吞沒箭矢 (cf.《國語辭典》指加以誠心, 則能感動天地, 使金石開裂)!!

王充《論衡·感虛篇》夫人之射也，不過百步，矢力盡矣。日之行也，行天星度，天之去人，*以萬里數，堯上射之，安能得日*？使堯之時，天地相近，不過百步，則堯射日，矢能及之；過百步，不能得也。假使堯時天地相近，*堯射得之，猶不能傷日，傷日何肯去*？何則？日、火也，使在地之火，附一把炬，人從旁射之，雖中，安能滅之？*地火不為見射而滅, 天火何為見射而去? * *精誠所加, 金石為虧*, 蓋誠無堅則亦無遠矣。

==> 堯哪能射得那麽遠, 射到太陽? 就算射得到, 又怎能傷得了堅固的太陽? 地球上的地火射不滅, 太陽上的天火又怎能射得滅? 太陽金石不是被射滅的, 而是被精誠感動而自毀的。


ktdd said:


> *熊渠子見其誠心而金石為之開*...為 is a preposition/coverb (pronounced wéi, introducing the agent in a passive construction).


《康熙字典》【廣韻】【集韻】【韻會】于僞切，音䧦。【廣韻】助也。【增韻】所以也，緣也，被也，護也，與也。==> 這些意思中古發音其實沒區別, 有區別是近代的事。

《國語辭典.為》
㈠  ㄨㄟˊ
<介>
被。《論語．子罕》：「出則事公卿，入則事父兄，喪事不敢不勉，不為酒困，何有於我哉？」唐．杜甫〈有懷台州鄭十八司戶〉詩：「從來禦魑魅，多為才名誤。」
㈡  ㄨㄟˋ
<介>
被。《三國志．卷五四．吳書．周瑜魯肅呂蒙傳．呂蒙》：「師還，遂征合肥，既徹兵，為張遼等所襲，蒙與淩統以死扞衛。」
==> 為 (= 被) 讀 wei2 或 wei4.

為什麽 "熊渠子見其誠心而金石為之開" 的 "為" 就一定要讀作 wei2?

為什麽 "熊渠子見其誠心而金石為之開" 的 "為" 就一定要等於 "精誠所加, 金石為虧" 的 "為"?  語境畢竟不同.


ktdd said:


> 他日，復獵於冥山之陽，又見臥虎，射之。沒矢飲羽。進而視之，乃石也，其形類虎。退而更射，鏃破簳折而石不傷。余嘗以問揚子雲，子雲曰：「*至誠則金石為開*。」


這個 "為" 的確是 "被" 的意思, 但這個故事版本與其他的有所不同--視角轉到石虎被箭射到的結局: "石不傷"。

俄軍宣稱要炸毀馬里烏波爾鋼鐵廠的石牆。數日後:
基輔居民A: 石牆被炸毀了嗎?
基輔居民B: 快了。多幾顆榴彈, 石牆就會被炸毀。(cf. 至誠, 則金石為開)
莫斯科居民A: 石牆炸毀了嗎?
莫斯科居民B: 快了。多幾顆榴彈, 石牆就會炸毀。(cf. 至誠, 則金石開)

則金石開; 金石則開; 金石為(= 則)開.


ktdd said:


> 精誠所至 (topic)
> 金石為開 (comment)
> ...
> 桃花過處，
> 寸草不生。


假如 "精誠所至, 金石為開" 如同 "桃花過處, 寸草不生", 那麼, 其意應為:
(1) 精誠所到之處, (所有的)金石(都會)被裂開  ==> 意思不對.
(2) 精誠所到之處, 有金石被裂開的現象 (cf. "曉風過處, 一片清新") ==> 意思不對.

俄軍所至, 鬼哭狼嚎, 人亡家毀 ==> 所到之處, 皆是那般景象。
精誠所至 (Topic) + 金石為開 (comment), 意思不會是 "人的誠心所到，能感動天地，使金石為之開裂"。


ktdd said:


> 精誠所至 = 精誠達到極點之處/之時


若 精誠所至 = 精誠達到之時, 就會像 "金錢落地, 人頭不保" (一旦金錢落地, 就會人頭不保)。問題是: "N+所+V" 可以表達 "N+V 之時" 嗎? 我想不到例子.

"眾望所歸之時就能登高一呼" 可以說成 "眾望所歸, 登高一呼" 嗎?  不行. 意思不同.


----------



## zhg

skating-in-bc said:


> 請參見《漢典.為》:
> 為 wéi
> <連>
> (2) 則，就 [then]——表示承接關係. 君子有勇而無義為亂, 小人有勇而無義為盜。——《論語·陽貨》
> 
> 《國語辭典.為》:
> ㈠ ㄨㄟˊ
> <連>
> 則。《論語．陽貨》：「君子有勇而無義為亂，小人有勇而無義為盜。」《史記．卷一一八．淮南衡山列傳．淮南厲王》：「今暴摧折之，臣恐卒逢霧露病死，陛下為有殺弟之名，奈何？」


1.你有没有查过其他的古汉语字典？我查了其他两本，一本是古汉语常用字典，一本古汉语虚词字典，都无一例外的没有收录所谓的表承接的”则”的用法，给我的感觉好像是国语辞典先收录了所谓的“则”的用法，然后汉典也模仿了国语辞典，竟连例句都是一样的。



skating-in-bc said:


> "毫無關係" 正是我想說的:
> 條件概念和 "N + 所加" (or N + 所至) 這個構造無關。
> 
> "若柔毛所加, *則*難逢似雪之花" 有條件概念, 是因為「若...則」。
> 
> 為何 "慈仁所加_, _無間軒陛" 不是 "加以慈仁, 就能無間軒陛" 的意思, 而 "精誠所加, 金石為虧" 卻有條件概念? 我認為, 是因為後者存在 "為" 的關係。


3.这里我认真读了好几遍始终是不能理解你想表达什么，
古汉语有时候确实意思表达了条件，因果，等等关系但却一个逻辑连接词都没有，这是由于文言文本身的特点即表达精炼和有明确而具体的上下文的缘故从而限定了句意造成的。你这么单找三句句子一来没什么可比性，二来试图找出所谓的结论不可信也毫无意义。



skating-in-bc said:


> ==> 堯哪能射得那麽遠, 射到太陽? 就算射得到, 又怎能傷得了堅固的太陽? 地球上的地火射不滅, 太陽上的天火又怎能射得滅? 太陽金石不是被射滅的, 而是被精誠感動而自毀的。


这个理解就很奇怪了，明明上下文都在谈论尧射箭的事情，怎么突然切换到金石“被精诚感动到*自*毁的”。明明原文说的是，作者不相信尧的精诚感动了天地，加在他的箭上使得他的箭能够射穿了金石。


后面的点不一一回复了，又要离题太远了，总之如果你坚持认为石头感动到可以毁灭了自己，“为”可以当“则”讲。我想这样再讨论下去也不会有什么结果的。


----------



## skating-in-bc

zhg said:


> 这个理解就很奇怪了，明明上下文都在谈论尧射箭的事情，怎么突然切换到金石“被精诚感动到*自*毁的”。明明原文说的是，作者不相信尧的精诚感动了天地，加在他的箭上使得他的箭能够射穿了金石。


"此欲言堯以精誠射之，*精誠所加，金石為虧*，蓋誠無堅則亦無遠矣。" ==> 這句不是在表達作者自己的看法, 而是作者在解釋別人的看法。與 "作者不相信尧的精诚感动了天地" 無關。太陽既遠又堅, 非人力所能射毀, 所以有人 (不是作者自己) 可能想辯說: 堯射以精誠, 感動天地, 使金石(在此比喻太陽)為之 "開裂" (active voice)。如: 使你為之 "傾倒" (active voice), 使你為之 "痛苦" (active voice).

"皮膚開裂" 340,000 google results
"開裂皮膚" 7,790 google results
"金石開裂" 6,880 google results
"金石被開裂" 0 google results

"人的誠心所到，能感動天地，使金石為之開裂", "加以真誠，連金石都會為之開裂" ==> 是 "為wei4之開裂" (active voice).

金石開裂的原因:
(1) external forces (被毁): 主要來自箭帶來的外力.
(2) internal changes (自毁): 主要來自石頭內部的物理化學變化. 金石感動得 "心" (內部化學成分 chemical composition) 都軟了.

"太陽既遠又堅, 非人力所能射毀" 是說金石開裂的原因, 不可能主要來自箭的外力.


----------



## ktdd

skating-in-bc said:


> 精誠所至 (Topic) + 金石為開 (comment), 意思不會是 "人的誠心所到，能感動天地，使金石為之開裂"。





skating-in-bc said:


> "人的誠心所到，能感動天地，使金石為之開裂", "加以真誠，連金石都會為之開裂" ==> 是 "為wei4之開裂" (active voice).


到底是“是”還是“不是”啊，拿個準注意好不好。

就以“精誠所至，金石為開”來說，“為”到底是連詞還是介詞？如果是介詞，是表被動還是表原因？如果是後者，為什麼所有的詞典都堅持“為”應讀二聲？

另外買定離手，不要幾天之前的帖子也改來改去的好不好？



skating-in-bc said:


> "皮膚開裂" 340,000 google results
> "開裂皮膚" 7,790 google results
> "金石開裂" 6,880 google results
> "金石被開裂" 0 google results


我現在不方便上Google，可否告知“開金裂石”有多少結果？


----------



## ktdd

zhg said:


> 这个理解就很奇怪了，明明上下文都在谈论尧射箭的事情，怎么突然切换到金石“被精诚感动到*自*毁的”。


你也覺得很突兀是吧？我特意比對我前面的完整引文，發現他的引法很有意思，掐頭去尾，中間還漏了一句“此欲言堯以精誠射之”，呵呵：


skating-in-bc said:


> 王充《論衡·感虛篇》夫人之射也，不過百步，矢力盡矣。日之行也，行天星度，天之去人，*以萬里數，堯上射之，安能得日*？使堯之時，天地相近，不過百步，則堯射日，矢能及之；過百步，不能得也。假使堯時天地相近，*堯射得之，猶不能傷日，傷日何肯去*？何則？日、火也，使在地之火，附一把炬，人從旁射之，雖中，安能滅之？*地火不為見射而滅, 天火何為見射而去? * *精誠所加, 金石為虧*, 蓋誠無堅則亦無遠矣。


----------



## skating-in-bc

ktdd said:


> 到底是“是”還是“不是”啊，拿個準注意好不好。


你沒懂我的意思.


skating-in-bc said:


> 精誠所至 (Topic) + 金石為開 (comment), 意思不會是 "人的誠心所到，能感動天地，使金石為之開裂"。


我是說, 假如你把 "精誠所至, 金石為開" 分析為 "精誠所至 (Topic) + 金石為開 (comment)", 意思就不會是 "人的誠心所到, 能感動天地, 使金石為之開裂"。假如你認為該句意思是 "人的誠心所到, 能感動天地, 使金石為之開裂", 那麼你的分析似乎不妥。


skating-in-bc said:


> "人的誠心所到，能感動天地，使金石為之開裂", "加以真誠，連金石都會為之開裂" ==> 是 "為wei4之開裂" (active voice).


我是說, 常見的翻譯譬如 "人的誠心所到，能感動天地，使金石為之開裂" 和 "加以真誠，連金石都會為之開裂", 他們所用的 "開裂", 其實是 intransitive 的用法, 是 "為wei4之開".


ktdd said:


> 為什麼所有的詞典都堅持“為”應讀二聲？


(1) 讀 "為 wei2" 不一定就是 "被" 的意思.  連詞 "為" 也讀 wei2.
(2) 我是在討論 "金石為之開" 的 "為" 的發音.  詞典給的是 "金石為開" 的發音, 不是 "金石為之開" 的發音.


ktdd said:


> 掐頭去尾，中間還漏了一句“此欲言堯以精誠射之”，呵呵：


"掐頭去尾" 是要刪掉與 "精誠所加, 金石為虧" 無關的內容. "中間還漏了一句" 是 copy and paste 過程中無意出的錯, 沒發現漏了一句.


ktdd said:


> 不要幾天之前的帖子也改來改去的好不好？


幾天之前的帖子能被改嗎? 超過一天就不能改了.


----------



## ktdd

skating-in-bc said:


> 幾天之前的帖子能被改嗎? 超過一天就不能改了.


是嗎？
Friday at 7:37 AM
Last edited: Yesterday at 12:31 AM




skating-in-bc said:


> "金石為之開" 到底是為其而開 (active; e.g., 宋.羅椅《孫氏女哀詞》"魂為之飛" = 魂因其而飛), 還是為其所開 (passive; e.g., 清.王韜《淞隱漫錄》"神為之奪" = 神被其所奪)?
> 
> 其實, "為之 + 作為動詞的動詞" (as opposed to 作為名詞的動詞 nominalized verb), 絕大多數是主動語態的用法 (e.g.,《史記》蒼帝行德, 天門為之開 = 因其而開)。例外通常是近代的產物 (e.g., "神為之奪")。為去歧義, 被動常會加上 "所" (e.g.,《史記》終為之所擒矣 = 被其所擒)。"金石為之開" 的 "default interpretation" (i.e., salient interpretation under normal circumstances) 是為其而開.


這段是你後加上去的，觀點倒也簡單，我舉幾個先秦兩漢的反例應該就夠了吧：

戰國·尉繚《尉繚子·戰威》
凡兵，有以道勝，有以威勝，有以力勝。講武料敵，使敵之氣失而師散，*雖形全而不為之用*，此道勝也。審法制，明賞罰，便器用，使民有必戰之心，此威勝也。破軍殺將，乘闉發機，潰眾奪地，成功乃返，此力勝也。王侯如此，所以三勝者畢矣。

西漢·司馬遷《史記·儒林列傳》
清河王太傅轅固生者，齊人也。以治詩，孝景時為博士。與黃生爭論景帝前。黃生曰：「湯武非受命，乃弒也。」轅固生曰：「不然。夫桀紂虐亂，天下之心皆歸湯武，湯武與天下之心而誅桀紂，*桀紂之民不為之使而歸湯武*，湯武不得已而立，非受命為何？」

西漢·司馬遷《史記·酈生陸賈列傳》
齊王曰：「天下何所歸？」曰：「歸漢。」曰：「先生何以言之？」曰：「漢王與項王力西面擊秦，約先入咸陽者王之。漢王先入咸陽，項王負約不與而王之漢中。項王遷殺義帝，漢王聞之，起蜀漢之兵擊三秦，出關而責義帝之處，收天下之兵，立諸侯之後。降城即以侯其將，得賂即以分其士，與天下同其利，*豪英賢才皆樂為之用*。諸侯之兵四面而至，蜀漢之粟方船而下。項王有倍約之名，殺義帝之負；於人之功無所記，於人之罪無所忘；戰勝而不得其賞，拔城而不得其封；非項氏莫得用事；為人刻印，刓而不能授；攻城得賂，積而不能賞：天下畔之，*賢才怨之，而莫為之用*。故天下之士歸於漢王，可坐而策也。……

東漢·蔡邕《蔡中郎集·卷一·故太尉橋公廟碑》
公稟性貞純，幼有弘姿；剛而不虐，威而不猛，聞仁必行，睹義斯居。文以典術，守以純固。弱冠從政，當官而行。刺史周公辟舉從事，所部二千石受取有驗。公糾發贓罪，致之于理。時有椒房貴戚之託，周公累息。*公不為之動*。史魚之勁直，山甫之不阿，于是始形。


其它的等我先睡一覺，你該改的也都改好再說～


----------



## skating-in-bc

《汉典.用.详细解释》
用 yòng  〈动〉
(10) 出力;效命 [put forth one's strength] 国有事，则学民恶法，商民善化，技艺之民不用，故其国易破也。——《商君书》


ktdd said:


> 使敵之氣失而師散，雖形全而*不為之用*


使敵方的士氣喪失而軍隊渙散, (軍隊)雖外表完整卻 (1) 不為它效命 or (2) 不被它使用.
(軍隊)不為它效命 ==> 軍隊即使受命到了前線, 也敷衍了事, 不盡全力.
(軍隊)不被它使用 ==> (1) 它不用軍隊, or (2) 軍隊拒絕受命, 寧可造反或當逃兵 (Note: 若兵逃軍隊瓦解了, 就不是 "形全", 所以不是這個選項).
Default interpretation: 不為它效命


> 賢才怨之而*莫為之用*。


賢才不為他效命 ==> 項王任用的人當中, 還是有賢才的, 只是賢才心存怨懟, 因而不為他盡心效力.
賢才不被他任用 ==> 項王不任用賢才; 項王任用的人當中, 沒有賢才.
Default interpretation: 不為他效命.


> 時有椒房桂戚之託, 周公累息, 公*不為之動*。


公不因此動搖 (to move; 改變原來位置; "風移影動" 的 "動") ==> 椒房桂戚施壓之下, 周公大氣不敢吭一聲, 橋玄卻不因此動搖, 改變立場。


skating-in-bc said:


> "為之 + 作為動詞的動詞" (as opposed to 作為名詞的動詞 nominalized verb), *絕大多數*是主動語態的用法 (e.g.,《史記》蒼帝行德, 天門為之開 = 因其而開)。例外*通常*是近代的產物 (e.g., "神為之奪")。為去歧義, 被動常會加上 "所" (e.g.,《史記》終為之所擒矣 = 被其所擒)。"金石為之開" 的 "default interpretation" (i.e., salient interpretation under normal circumstances) 是為其而開.


我說 "絕大多數", 就是 "the great majority", 不是 "所有的" (All). 我說 "通常", 就是 "usually", 不是 "always".

"為" 字被動式數目:
郭維茹 (2012《師大學報》p. 1-21) 統計《朱子語類》中表被動的「為」字式句數:
為A所V (= 被A所V) ==> 近 240 句之多
為AV (= 被AV) ==> 100 句左右
為V (= 被V) ==> 3 句

郭維茹的文章中引用:
唐鈺明（2002,〈唐至清的「被」字句〉，載於《著名中年語言學家 自選集》, p. 302）統計《朱子語類》中表被動的「為」字式句數:
為A所V (= 被A所V) ==> 185 (句數)
為AV (= 被AV) ==> 18 (句數)
為V (= 被V) ==> 0 (句數)

魏培泉 (1994,〈古漢語被動式的發展與演變機制〉，載於《中國境內語言暨語言學第二輯歷史語言學, p. 306）：「（兩漢六朝時）『為AV』式的使用比例*遠不如*『為A所V』式，因為它很容易產生歧義。一旦『被AV』開始流行，它就更沒有可利用的價值了。」

梅廣, 2015《上古漢語語法綱要》, p. 297: "早期「為+動」的例子,「為」還是一個準繫詞 (「成為」或「作為」),「為」後面的動詞其實是當一個名詞來使用。古代漢語行為動詞常有表達動作形成的結果或狀態的, 故可用如名詞。" ==> 為V (e.g., 金石為開) 不太可能是 "被開".

張峻豪, 2017〈「為」字句被動用法由來與演變〉，載於《思辯集》, p. 305-318, 列了數個先秦 "為V" 不是 "被V", "為AV" 不是 "被AV" 的證據, 其中包括:
(1) "為" 字後方的動詞種類甚為局限, 不夠多元化.
(2) 可插入形容詞:
不從君者為戮 ==> 《國語.晉語》不從君者為大戮
必為天下笑 ==> 《荀子·強國》必為天下大笑


----------



## ktdd

OK睡好了，繼續。(And hoping we're not derailing this thread completely.)

前面我完整的問題是這樣的：


ktdd said:


> 就以“精誠所至，金石為開”來說，“為”到底是連詞還是介詞？如果是介詞，是表被動還是表原因？如果是後者，為什麼所有的詞典都堅持“為”應讀二聲？


這是個連環題、決策樹。我就是想看看你最終落腳何處。結果你跟我玩太極，沒給正面回答：


skating-in-bc said:


> (1) 讀 "為 wei2" 不一定就是 "被" 的意思. 連詞 "為" 也讀 wei2.
> (2) 我是在討論 "金石為之開" 的 "為" 的發音. 詞典給的是 "金石為開" 的發音, 不是 "金石為之開" 的發音.


我知道連詞「為」也讀wéi啊。所以你認為「精誠所至，金石為開」裡的「為」是連詞嘍？我就當答案是YES了，畢竟最開始你就講了：


skating-in-bc said:


> 我也認為是“則”.
> ……
> 換句話說, 我認為「為」(wei2) 是條件或假設關係連詞 (e.g., 就, 便), 連接前提分句和後果分句。



其實我想到個最直截了當的辦法，就是去看看你最信賴的《國語辭典》它究竟是怎麼說的：
精誠所至，金石為開
jīng chéng suǒ zhì ， jīn shí wéi kāi
加以真誠，連金石都會為之開裂。用以勉勵人只要有誠心，沒有辦不成的事。

嗯，很給力啊，對這個解釋我完全沒有意見。而且作為一個講道理的人，我也完全可以接受將「為之開裂」理解為「主動為其而開裂」，只要有人能夠講明白為什麼它一定非要讀wéi。

雖然不明白你為什麼要捨近求遠，放著樓主所問的「精誠所至，金石為開」現成的詞條不用，非要去引用一個變體「精誠所加，金石為虧」的詞條，但是呢，既然你可以認定韓晶的「石為之開」、劉向的「熊渠子見其誠心而金石為之開」、揚雄的「至誠則金石為開」與「精誠所至，金石為開」互不相干，我當然也可以否認王充的「精誠所加，金石為虧」與我們要討論的「精誠所至，金石為開」之間有任何聯繫。畢竟語境不同嘛，對不對。——話說回來，「精誠所至，金石為開」裡面的「為」到底是從哪個石頭縫裡蹦出來的呢？真是奇哉怪也！

——————————嚴肅的分割線——————————

在我看來，「精誠所至，金石為開」這一成語，其出處典故、歷史流變，脈絡已十分清晰。在我數小時尋章摘句google-fu的不懈努力之下，甚至比現有的詞典都更加完備。實在想不出再這樣討論下去還有什麼意義。就簡單地把我的想法重新整理一下吧。

0) 子曰過的「故至诚感之，通于金石，而况人乎」只能說是為這個成語的誕生提供了必要的思想養分。孔子所說的金石應該指的是編鐘一類的樂器。孔子認為樂器可以隨人的情緒而作喜怒哀樂之聲，可見至誠可通於金石，你只要出自真心，連樂器都聽你的，更別說大活人了（主要因為那時候還沒互聯網）。孔子是個樸素的人，不會像後世儒學家那樣大吹法螺，搞出感天動地那套東東。孔子那會兒是儒家，漢朝以後就是儒教了。

1) 「通于金石，而况人乎」到了韓嬰這裡就變成了「石為之開，而況人乎」。乖乖隆地咚，從敲鐘到破石，這可是好大一步啊，他也不怕扯著。韓老闆應該是比太史公更早記錄下李廣射虎這一傳奇故事的，並且賦予了它哲學意義。您還別說，先秦諸子講的「誠」，經他這麼一演繹，比僅僅是能讓樂器隨心演奏酷了不止一點點。

2) 拷貝粘貼匠劉向對這一成語的貢獻，在於金石並舉，聲勢更盛，添油加醋，越傳越邪乎。「熊渠子見其誠心而金石為之開，況人心乎」——哇，好贊的雞湯，擱我恐怕也得忍不住在朋友圈轉發一下。

3) 而同樣的意思經揚雄之口說出來更有文藝腔了。他把劉老前輩的「金石為之開」五字砍為四字，原因也不難理解。駢四驪六的文體就興於漢代，揚雄乃是漢賦四大家之一，四字句顯然更符合時代的審美口味。（附帶的結果之一就是流傳至今的成語中，四字的佔了絕大多數。深受中國傳統文化影響的日本，也是一堆四字熟語，並且至今仍然愛把長詞缩成四個音節，包括外來語，比如 sekuhara = sexual harasment, amefuto = American football 等等，讓第一次接觸的人完全摸不著頭腦。）

至此，「精誠所至，金石為開」的後半部分，基本定型。後來雖有王充往偏裡帶了一下，但很快又回來了。等到東漢廣陵王劉荊說“精誠所加，金石為開，哥哥咱幹吧！”的時候，「金石為開」已經完全和金石的語境脫鉤，變成一句大家都能懂的成語。再往後的事情就和出處起源無關了。

在此我想說的是，詞語的繼承演化是有跡可循的，雖然不排除傳抄錯誤等意外，但不至於同一詞裡的同一字，毫無緣由地整天把詞義、詞類變著玩。至於什麼“視角轉換”、“石不傷”之類的生拉硬扯能力，我只能表示呵呵。拿弓箭射石頭，射不進去是正常，射進去了才值得說道說道。那年頭讀書人的圈子就那麼大，劉向父子和揚雄又都是飽學之士，韓嬰用李廣射虎的故事來闡發「誠」這件事，這幾個人顯然是都知道的。甚至揚雄也知道劉向的「金石為之開」，否則人家給他講射石虎的故事，他憑什麼提到金？又不是金虎。（所以根本不像教科書裡說的那樣，“人们对这件事情感到很不解，就去问当时最有影响力的学者扬雄”，純粹就是劉歆找揚雄逗悶子去了。）而且劉向也寫了李廣知道是石虎之後再也射不進去，你怎知他和揚雄不是同一視角，是因為多了「之」還是少了「則」？視角轉換的恐怕只有你一人罷了。

——————————對比的分割線——————————

我來總結一下迄今為止你對於「精誠所至，金石為開」這一條演化路線上「為」字的各種觀點，你看看對不對。
1) 石為之開，而況人乎：「為」=「因為」，讀wèi。
2) 而金石為之開，況人心乎？：「為」=「因為」，讀wèi。
3) 至誠則金石為開：「為」=「被」，讀wéi。


skating-in-bc said:


> 這個 "為" 的確是 "被" 的意思


4) 精誠所加，金石為虧：「為」=「則」，讀wéi。


skating-in-bc said:


> 漢.王充《論衡.感虛》精誠所加, 金石*為*虧。==> 用「為」傳達「則」的概念 (cf. 《國語辭典》指加以誠心, *則*能感動天地, 使金石開裂)。


然而……一天後：「為」=「因為」，讀wèi。


skating-in-bc said:


> "此欲言堯以精誠射之，*精誠所加，金石為虧*，蓋誠無堅則亦無遠矣。" ==> 這句不是在表達作者自己的看法, 而是作者在解釋別人的看法。與 "作者不相信尧的精诚感动了天地" 無關。太陽既遠又堅, 非人力所能射毀, 所以有人 (不是作者自己) 可能想辯說: 堯射以精誠, 感動天地, 使金石(在此比喻太陽)為之 "開裂" (active voice)。如: 使你為之 "傾倒" (active voice), 使你為之 "痛苦" (active voice).


5) 精誠所加，金石為開：「因為」，讀wèi。 (EDIT: 徵得本人意見後已修正)


skating-in-bc said:


> "使金石為wei4之開裂", "連金石都會為wei4之開裂"。我說這兩句的 "為" 讀wei4.


6) 精誠所至，金石為開：「為」=「則」，讀wéi。


skating-in-bc said:


> 我也認為是“則”.
> 
> 比較:
> 元.戴表元《剡源集》慈仁所加_, _無間軒陛。==> 沒「則」的概念。
> 唐.王棨《牛羊勿踐行葦賦》若使大武斯履, 柔毛所加, *則*八月洲前無複凝霜之葉, 三秋江上難逢似雪之花。==> 明擺著的「則」。
> 漢.王充《論衡.感虛》精誠所加, 金石*為*虧。==> 用「為」傳達「則」的概念 (cf. 《國語辭典》指加以誠心, *則*能感動天地, 使金石開裂)。
> 
> 換句話說, 我認為「為」(wei2) 是條件或假設關係連詞 (e.g., 就, 便), 連接前提分句和後果分句。


明顯與《國語辭典》相抵觸。而且你是用「精誠所加，金石為虧」來論證「精誠所至，金石為開」的，那邊如今變成了「因為」的wèi，這邊是不是也該同步更新一下了？

我也不用一條一條擇了，你自己看看這一團亂麻，不覺得很好笑嗎？

——————————最後的分割線——————————

我估計，「為」是連詞的說法，你自己也堅持不下去了。
剩下的就是在介詞「被」和介詞「因」之間。
我選了「為」=「被」，因為它本身就讀二聲。
你如果選「為」=「因」，並且能解決為什麼它也讀二聲的問題，我很樂意投誠到你那邊去。
嗯，就是這樣了。


----------



## tinsh

从发音的角度来看，“为”表被动时，应该和“被”一样发去声，读作 wèi 。


----------



## skating-in-bc

ktdd said:


> 你自己看看這一團亂麻，不覺得很好笑嗎？


我的看法一直都很一致:
精誠所加，金石為 (wei2 = 則, 連詞) 虧.
精誠所至，金石為 (wei2 = 則, 連詞) 開 = 精誠所至，金石為 (wei4 = 因, 介詞) 之開。


ktdd said:


> 3) 至誠則金石為之開：「為」=「被」，讀wéi。


是「至誠則金石為 (wei2, 被) 開」, 不是「至誠則金石為之開」, 你抄錯了。


ktdd said:


> 然而……一天後：「為」=「因為」，讀wèi。


哪來的? 我在解釋 "開", 哪裡提到 "為" 的發音?


ktdd said:


> 5) 「為」= ？？，讀？？（似乎說過什麼，又似乎什麼也沒說過）


"使金石為wei4之開裂", "連金石都會為wei4之開裂"。我說這兩句的 "為" 讀wei4.


ktdd said:


> 6) 精誠所至，金石為開：「為」=「則」，讀wéi。明顯與《國語辭典》相抵觸。


哪有? "精誠所至，金石為開", 換個說法是 "精誠所至，金石為之開", 換個說法是 "加以真誠, 連金石都會為之開裂", 《國語辭典》是把整句的意思用現代語言說出來, 又不是逐字直譯


ktdd said:


> 我估計，「為」是連詞的說法，你自己也堅持不下去了。


我的看法一直沒變.
「精誠所加，金石為(= 則)虧」和「精誠所至，金石為(= 則)開」結構一樣。
「精誠所至，金石為(= 則)開」和「精誠所至，金石為(= 因)之開」結構不同, 雖然說的是一碼事。


----------



## ktdd

skating-in-bc said:


> 是「至誠則金石為 (wei2, 被) 開」, 不是「至誠則金石為之開」, 你抄錯了。


哦，是的，已更正。



skating-in-bc said:


> 哪來的? 我在解釋 "開", 哪裡提到 "為" 的發音?


No, 你在解釋“為”的 active voice 用法. 難道你想說「使你為之 "傾倒" (active voice)」, 「使你為之 "痛苦" (active voice)」裡面的“為”不讀wèi嗎？



skating-in-bc said:


> "使金石為wei4之開裂", "連金石都會為wei4之開裂"。我說這兩句的 "為" 讀wei4.


嗯，很好，有你的表態，我可以去把問號那條改了吧？



skating-in-bc said:


> 《國語辭典》是把整句的意思用現代語言說出來, 又不是逐字直譯


啊，是嘛？我怎麼一直都不知道……
那麼也就是說，在第一帖中，你那精巧的配色毫無用處嘍？
我還以為，《國語辭典》裡有沒有“則”，跟金石為虧的“為”是不是等於“則”有莫大關係，你想用不同顏色來表達點什麼呢！原來不是啊？
那你搞啥子飛機啊？你就說你 cf 一下《國語辭典》意圖何在吧。
另外你能偷偷告訴我，為啥《國語辭典》三條裡面，你不選“精誠所至，金石為開”，也不選“金石為開”，偏偏選了“精誠所加，金石為虧”嗎？


skating-in-bc said:


> 我也認為是“則”.
> 
> 比較:
> 元.戴表元《剡源集》慈仁所加_, _無間軒陛。==> 沒「則」的概念。
> 唐.王棨《牛羊勿踐行葦賦》若使大武斯履, 柔毛所加, *則*八月洲前無複凝霜之葉, 三秋江上難逢似雪之花。==> 明擺著的「則」。
> 漢.王充《論衡.感虛》精誠所加, 金石*為*虧。==> 用「為」傳達「則」的概念 (cf. 《國語辭典》指加以誠心, *則*能感動天地, 使金石開裂)。
> 
> 換句話說, 我認為「為」(wei2) 是條件或假設關係連詞 (e.g., 就, 便), 連接前提分句和後果分句。


所以，基本上你就是說：因為我前面說了我認為“為”=“則”，所以我認為“為”=“則”。
嗯，自己玩去吧。拜拜了您呢！



skating-in-bc said:


> 我的看法一直沒變.
> 「精誠所加，金石為(= 則)虧」和「精誠所至，金石為(= 則)開」結構一樣。
> 「精誠所至，金石為(= 則)開」和「精誠所至，金石為(= 因)之開」結構不同, 雖然說的是一碼事。


結構一樣不一樣有什麼關係啊？年代不同，語境不同，視點不同。
所以結構不同絲毫也證明不了詞義不同。
所以，所有的“精誠所至，金石為開”及其變體裡面的“為”都是代表“被”的意思。
QED 證畢！


----------



## skating-in-bc

ktdd said:


> No, 你在解釋*“為”的 active voice* 用法. 難道你想說「使你為之 "傾倒" (active voice)」, 「使你為之 "痛苦" (active voice)」裡面的“為”不讀wèi嗎？


說多少次, 我在解釋 "開"!!
"開" is in the active voice, so are "傾倒" and "痛苦".  動詞才有 active /passive voice 可言.  連詞, 介詞哪有什麼 active voice?


ktdd said:


> 我還以為，《國語辭典》裡有沒有“則”，跟金石為虧的“為”是不是等於“則”有莫大關係...為啥《國語辭典》三條裡面，你不選“精誠所至，金石為開”，也不選“金石為開”，偏偏選了“精誠所加，金石為虧”嗎？


《國語辭典》金石為開: *比喻*誠心誠意足以打動萬物。==> 講的是比喻用法.
《國語辭典》精誠所至, 金石為開: (*若*)加以真誠，連金石都會為之開裂。==> 條件或假設關係
《國語辭典》精誠所加, 金石為虧: 加以誠心，*則*能感動天地，使金石開裂。==> 條件或假設關係

《國語辭典》給的兩句釋義, 都帶有條件或假設關係.  所以我說: "我認為「為」(wei2) 是條件或假設關係連詞 (e.g., 就, 便), 連接前提分句和後果分句。"

我選 “精誠所加, 金石為虧”, 因它比 "精誠所至，金石為開" 更早出現, 而且我堅信二者結構完全相同, 解釋了一個就等於解釋了另一個。


ktdd said:


> 所以，基本上你就是說：因為我前面說了我認為“為”=“則”，所以我認為“為”=“則”。
> 嗯，自己玩去吧。拜拜了您呢！


你明明知道我引《國語辭典》的釋義, 作為該句帶有條件或假設關係的佐證!!

我的邏輯是這樣:
我認為“為”=“則”. 為什麼呢?  因為:
理由1:《國語辭典》的釋義有“條件或假設關係”的概念
所以我認為“為”=“則”.

別忘了「至誠, 則金石為開」也帶有 “條件或假設關係” 的概念。所以, 我們可以說, 這個諺語常被理解為是帶有 “條件或假設關係” 的概念的。

理由2:
先秦 "為V" 作為被動, 少之又少; 即使有看似被動的 (e.g., "為戮"), 到底是不是真的被動, 學術界上還有爭議 (e.g., 裘鍚圭 2014《承繼與拓新：漢語語言文字學研究》)。西漢時 "為V" 作為被動, 可能存在, 但仍舊罕見。《西京雜記》「至誠則金石為開」相傳是東晉葛洪著，一說漢朝劉歆作，沒定論。所以, 除非沒有其他說得通的解釋, 不應優先考慮被動式。

理由3:《史記》「臣恐卒逢霧露病死 (前提分句), 陛下 (subject) *為* (= 則)有殺弟之名 (VP, predicate)」跟「精誠所至 (前提分句), 金石 (subject) *為* (= 則) 開 (VP, predicate)」結構平行, 句法上行得通。而且, "精誠所至, 金石* 為* (= 則) 開" 意思是 "加以真誠，金石就會開裂", 語義上行得通。既然 "為 = 則" 這個分析句法語義上都行得通, 就沒必要認為 "為開" 是漢朝不常見的 "為V" 被動式。

理由4: "精誠所至, 金石* 為* (wei2) 開" 的發音必須是二聲 "為" (wei2)。"為  = 則" 的 "為" 同樣也必須讀二聲。然而, "為 = 被" 的 "為" 可讀二聲 (e.g., 《國語辭典》多為wei2才名誤) 或四聲 (e.g.,《國語辭典》為wei4張遼等所襲)。倘若 "金石為開" 的 "為" 是 "被" 的意思, 就不會一定得讀二聲。


ktdd said:


> 你搞啥子飛機啊？...嗯，自己玩去吧。拜拜了您呢！


我冒犯你了嗎?


ktdd said:


> 結構一樣不一樣有什麼關係啊？年代不同，語境不同，視點不同。
> 所以結構不同絲毫也證明不了詞義不同。
> 所以，所有的“精誠所至，金石為開”及其變體裡面的“為”都是代表“被”的意思。
> QED 證畢！


你的邏輯: 兇器不同不能證明兇手不同, 所以，所有的案件都是同一個人幹的。證畢！
我的反應:


----------



## ktdd

skating-in-bc said:


> 說多少次, 我在解釋 "開"!!
> "開" is in the active voice, so are "傾倒" and "痛苦". 動詞才有 active /passive voice 可言. 連詞, 介詞哪有什麼 active voice?


沒錯，動詞才有voice。只不過，介詞“為”是表被動還是表原因，決定了後面動詞的語態。
而你呢，要解釋“開”就解釋“開”好了，把“為”扯進來做什麼？“為”不是已經被你作為連詞用掉了嗎？難道你忘了？還是說連詞也能影響語態？
所以你說多少次也沒用！ You can't have your cake and eat it!



skating-in-bc said:


> 《國語辭典》精誠所至, 金石為開: (*若*)加以真誠，連金石都會為之開裂。==> 條件或假設關係


看看看看，你又夾帶私貨，國語辭典就在那兒擺著，有你這個“若”嗎？還好意思特意弄成紅的。
不過你這一例正好說明了我一直就在表達的觀點：漢語中條件句與結果句之間不需要連詞。



skating-in-bc said:


> 《西京雜記》「至誠則金石為開」相傳是東晉葛洪著，一說漢朝劉歆作，沒定論。所以, 除非沒有其他說得通的解釋, 不應優先考慮被動式。


葛洪自己在跋裡說他是從劉家留存的劉歆遺稿中挑出未收入漢書的部分整理成書。和揚雄對話那段用的是第一人稱，講述射虎故事時，詞語之間，與劉向（也就是劉歆他爹）頗為相似，這對我而言已足夠。不過這些都是小事。
問題在於，「這個 "為" 的確是 "被" 的意思」是你自己說的，xxx！



skating-in-bc said:


> 你的邏輯:
> 我的反應:


我不過是模仿一下你的邏輯而已，怎麼你的反應也是？😄


————————————————————


我就問你一句，你覺得你能說服我嗎？
我呢，也沒打算說服你。
來這論壇回帖，只為傳播知識。
xxx

我的觀點很明確：
一、漢語，特別是古漢語中，表達條件與結果關係，連詞並非必須。 You gotta go, you gotta go.
二、成語「精誠所至，金石為開」的後半部分「金石為開」本身也是成語。
往前追溯，則有​「石為之開，而況人乎」​「熊渠子見其誠心，而金石為之開，況人心乎」​「至誠則金石為開」​三句。其中揚雄的「金石為開」更與現今通行版本一字不差。​此三句中，「為」字皆不存在做連詞的可能。​三、由此三句演化出的「精誠所至，金石為開」的各種版本，流傳至今，其中的「為」字皆讀二聲wéi。
四、所以「為」只能是表被動的介詞。

你也不用與我糾纏，咱倆的任務不是互相說服。
你若有不同觀點，擺出來就好。
「金石為開」出自何處，其中的「為」字音義又如何演變，擺出來讓大家瞧瞧。
xxx

你再引我進來，我也只會複製粘貼以上一段作為回答。
所以就此別過，好自為之吧。👋


----------



## Flaminius

Just in case someone like me is wondering if 為 can be used in a passive construction (被動式) for an inanimate subject, here is what I found in 韓非子・八説:
石不能為人多少
Gloss: The dry measure cannot be increased or deceased by people.

It has been argued that the passive construction with 為V is very old, and may not be suitable for the time.  I'd like to point out that the transitive use of 虧 in 金石為虧 is also very old (viz. 動詞 sense 4).  Passive reading of this saying may be statistically an outlier, but plausible in view of its historical analogues.  I even think it was intended as a hyper-archaism all the way.

Edit:
1. I mentioned the transitivity of 虧 because an intransitive verb cannot be passivised.
2. I also realise that 為 for passive can draw a nice parallelism with 所.  That way, the third letter in both phrases are related to passiveness.


----------



## skating-in-bc

Flaminius said:


> Just in case someone like me is wondering if 為 can be used in a passive construction (被動式) for an inanimate subject, here is what I found in 韓非子・八説:
> 石不能為人多少
> Gloss: The dry measure cannot be increased or deceased by people.


It calls for supporting evidence or references to validate your claim because the sentence has been typically analyzed as an active construction. For example,

石不能*為*wei4(= 因、依 'according to')人多少，衡不能為人輕重: "the weight can not change the quantities of things *according to* human wants nor can the balance make things lighter or heavier according to human wishes."

石不能*為*wei4 (= 替、給 'for')人多少，衡不能為人輕重: "量器本身不能*給*人增多或減少財物，衡器本身不能給人加重或減輕財物."

《管子·明法解》權不能為之多少其數，而衡不能為之輕重其量也.

Take "不為酒困" as an example.  Although one may argue that it can be interpreted as "不為(= 被)酒(所)困" from the view of Post-Classical Chinese syntax, it cannot be used as evidence for a passive construction in Old Chinese because it is equally if not more plausible to mean "不為(= 因)酒(而)困 (= 亂性)".
劉寶楠正義：“困，亂也……未嘗為酒亂其性也。”
不被酒所亂 ==> 喝再多, 也不會被酒所亂, 真是海量!
不因酒而亂 ==> 喝酒有節制, 不喝到亂性的地步, 不過量!


Flaminius said:


> It has been argued that the passive construction with 為V is very old


The "為V" construction is indeed very ancient, but whether it is truly a passive construction in Old Chinese from the syntactic point of view is quite controversial (see 張峻豪 2017《「為」字句被動用法由來與演變》).


Flaminius said:


> It has been argued that the passive construction with 為V is very old, and may not be suitable for the time.


It would be more helpful if you can include references for that statement since it clearly contradicts my understanding of the "為V" development into a passive construction, which is MORE likely to be seen AFTER the Old Chinese period.
My understanding comes from such sources as 梅廣 2015《上古漢語語法綱要》and 張峻豪 2017《「為」字句被動用法由來與演變》.


skating-in-bc said:


> (《西京雜記》至誠則金石為開)...這個 "為" 的確是 "被" 的意思。





skating-in-bc said:


> 西漢時 "為V" 作為被動, 可能存在, 但仍舊罕見。《西京雜記》「至誠則金石為開」相傳是東晉葛洪著，一說漢朝劉歆作，沒定論。所以, 除非沒有其他說得通的解釋, 不應優先考慮被動式。


我是說:
雖然「至誠則金石為開」的 "為" 是 "被" 的意思, 然而, 《西京雜記》的作者是誰還沒定論, 我們無法確定這究竟是西漢的句子, 還是東晉的句子。即使這句算是西漢被動式的例子, 西漢時 "為V" 作為被動, 仍是罕見。所以, 除非沒有其他說得通的解釋, 不應優先考慮被動式。
I meant:
"為開" is a passive construction in 至誠則金石為開, but we are not 100% sure of its author.  Some say it was written in 西漢; others believe it was in 東晉.  Even if we count it as a concrete example of passive voice in 西漢, it was still a rare example--Such passive constructions were rare in the Han dynasty (the time of 漢.王充《論衡》「以精誠射之，精誠所加，金石為虧」).


Flaminius said:


> the transitive use of 虧 in 金石為虧 is also very old (viz. 動詞 sense 4)....as a hyper-archaism


The earliest attestation of "虧 = 毀(壞)" that I can find is intransitive (i.e.,《詩經.魯頌》「不虧不崩, 不震不騰」; 漢.鄭玄注：虧、崩皆謂毀壞也).

A clear example of the transitive "虧 = 毀(損)" (as opposed to "虧 = 減損、耗損") can be found in a much later dynasty (e.g,, 南朝梁任昉《為范尚書讓吏部封侯第一表》虧名損實).

The transitive use of 虧 (= 破壞違背 'break, violate') can be found in the 戰國時代 as well as in the later dynasties:
《商君書·賞刑》有善於前, 有過於後, 不為*虧*法 ==> will not bend the rules for those who have done 善 before and 過 afterwards.
《韓非子．孤憤》重人也者, 無令而擅為, *虧*法以利私 ==> to bend or break the rules.
裴松之引晉王沉《魏書》有犯死者, *虧*制以活之。==> to bend the rules.
*虧*心事 ==> 違背良心的事

I am not able to find any example of transitive "虧" meaning "to destroy something, to ruin something" or "to break something (without the connotation of "bending" rules or conscience)".  It will be greatly appreciated if you can provide an example to support your claim that "the transitive use of 虧 in 金石為虧 is also very old".  The example from 《國語辭典》(《韓非子.孤憤》重人也者, 無令而擅為, 虧法以利私) unfutunately falls under the definition of "《漢典.虧》(8) 違背 [violate]".


Flaminius said:


> I also realise that 為 for passive can draw a nice parallelism with 所.  That way, the third letter in both phrases are related to passiveness.


Sorry, I am not sure what you meant.

精誠所加, 金石為虧 ==> It is "所...為" in that sentence, not the common passive construction "為...所".  Also, 所 in the passive construction "為...所" is originally meant to nominalize the verb when the construction first appears in 戰國時代.

Did you mean 精誠所(= 被)加, 金石為(= 被)虧?  "所 = 被" is not something that I know of.  Please provide references or supporting evidence.


----------



## ktdd

Just passing by...

For transitive use of 虧 meaning "to break/destroy physically", one need look no further than the next paragraph in 王充《論衡·感虛篇》：夫天亦遠，使其為氣，則與日月同；使其為體，則與金石等，以堯之精誠，滅日虧金石，上射日則能穿天乎？

And a reminder to everyone: whenever skating-in-bc tries to spin 精誠所加，金石為虧 or 精誠所至，金石為開 into "金石 為(for)之 虧/開", just remind him that 為 is a conjunction (=則) in his theory and cannot double as a preposition.

Cheers!


----------



## Flaminius

skating-in-bc said:


> 石不能*為*wei4(= 因、依 'according to')人多少，衡不能為人輕重: "the weight can not change the quantities of things *according to* human wants nor can the balance make things lighter or heavier according to human wishes."
> 
> 石不能*為*wei4 (= 替、給 'for')人多少，衡不能為人輕重: "量器本身不能*給*人增多或減少財物，衡器本身不能給人加重或減輕財物."
> 
> 《管子·明法解》權不能為之多少其數，而衡不能為之輕重其量也.


I stand corrected.  I don't know how 為 is identified with wèi in this text, but I should have remembered that a 正反動詞 (my ad-hoc term) is often intransitive.  In fact, I could have consulted the traditional Japanese scholarship before posting to see that the intransitive reading has been the norm in my neck of the wood...


As a quick side note, I understand a passive construction should;
1. block the transitive verb from taking an Accusative noun, AND
2. dethrone the AGENT subject, and only allow its optional re-entry into the sentence as the CAUSE (Burzio's generalisation).


Looked in this light, 而金石為之開 is certainly a passive sentence.  Here I assume a strong association between 開 and 虧 (= 毀壞 as in 滅日虧金石, and 虧法以利私).

For understanding the shift from 為之開 to 為開, dislocation by 於 may help:
彼伍胥父兄為戮於楚 (史記)​His father and elder-brother have been executed by the Chu Kingdom.​Dislocated pronouns like 於之 can be done away with completely.




skating-in-bc said:


> Did you mean 精誠所(= 被)加, 金石為(= 被)虧? "所 = 被" is not something that I know of. Please provide references or supporting evidence.


No, I only pointed out a loose connection. The two letters 所 and 為 are often used in passive constructions, not that 精誠所至 is actually passive.


Finally, about 為 being equal to 則.  I understand that the latter can express temporal, and conditional relationships. One example for each will follow:
白雁至則霜降 (筆談 24)
強本而節用則天下不能貧 (荀子・天論)

I find 精誠所至 too static to be the X for an X則Y construction.  In both senses, phrases X and Y are pretty dynamic.  This is only a mild objection, so I will be happy to see an example of 則 placed after a 所 phrase.


----------



## skating-in-bc

Flaminius said:


> the transitive use of 虧 in 金石為虧 is also very old (viz. 動詞 sense 4)...as a hyper-archaism.





skating-in-bc said:


> It will be greatly appreciated if you can provide an example to support your claim that "the transitive use of 虧 in 金石為虧 is also very old".





ktdd said:


> For transitive use of 虧 meaning "to break/destroy physically", one need look no further than the next paragraph in 王充《論衡·感虛篇》：夫天亦遠，使其為氣，則與日月同；使其為體，則與金石等，以堯之精誠，滅日虧金石，上射日則能穿天乎？


Obviously, I was asking for an example that proves it is "very old", long predating 王充, so that it can be used as supporting evidence for the hypothesis of "hyper-archaism".

Put hyper-archaism aside, 王充《論衡》滅日虧金石 cannot serve as evidence for the transitive interpretation of 王充《論衡》金石為虧 because the context clearly suggests that the two sentences are intended to express different concepts:

此欲言(this is intended to say)堯以精誠射之, 精誠所加, 金石為虧...bla bla bla..，非實也(so it is not true)。或曰(some people however might argue):「日、氣也，射雖不及，精誠滅之。」...bla, bla, bla...以堯之精誠，滅日虧金石，上射日則能穿天乎？==> "以堯之精誠，滅日虧金石" must present an explanation entirely different from "堯以精誠射之, 精誠所加, 金石為虧" regarding why "堯上射十日，九日去". 


ktdd said:


> And a reminder to everyone: whenever skating-in-bc tries to spin 精誠所加，金石為虧 or 精誠所至，金石為開 into "金石 為(for)之 虧/開", just remind him that 為 is a conjunction (=則) in his theory and cannot double as a preposition.


Stop putting words in my mouth!  It's getting old.  Pragmatically, 金石為(= 則)開 and 金石為(= 'for')之開 convey the same idea in the context of "精誠所至...", and the 開s are intransitive in both constructions (i.e., 金石為(= 則)開 and 金石為(= 'for')之開).  I never said 為 can simultaneously serve as a conjunction and a preposition in either construction.  If you thought I did, then your interpretation of what I said was obviously wrong.    


ktdd said:


> 來這論壇回帖，只為傳播知識。...你也不用與我糾纏，咱倆的任務不是互相說服。


知識傳播是一種知識分享過程, 各方在傳遞、交流、反饋等過程中, 取得理解, 分享知識。你問我怎麼想 (e.g., "裡面的“為”不讀wèi嗎?), 我回答; 你誤解我的話 (e.g., "怎麼現在又想反悔了麼?), 我解釋; 你侮辱嘲諷 (e.g., "反复無常之輩"),我忍氣吞聲; 你犯錯, 我點到為止 (e.g., "你抄錯了。"), 不趁機冷嘲熱諷; 結果呢? 你說我糾纏。不想與你糾纏, 你卻欲罷不能, 想盡方法糾纏我 (e.g., "And a reminder to everyone: whenever skating-in-bc tries to...")。


Flaminius said:


> No, I only pointed out a loose connection.


Thank you for letting me know.


Flaminius said:


> I find 精誠所至 too static to be the X for an X則Y construction.  In both senses, phrases X and Y are pretty dynamic.


I am not sure what you mean by "static".  Do you mean "精誠所至" is a noun and therefore "static"?  As mentioned previously, I treat 精誠所至 as a clause containing a noun (精誠) + VP (所至, in which 所 is a 無義詞綴).  I have demonstrated that 眾望所歸 = 眾望攸歸 = 眾望有歸.  所 = 有、攸 (動詞前的詞綴, 無實際意義)。


----------



## Flaminius

skating-in-bc said:


> Obviously, I was asking for an example that proves it is "very old",


Okay, I admit I cannot go beyond 韓非子 with the transitive 虧.


----------



## skating-in-bc

Flaminius said:


> Okay, I admit I cannot go beyond 韓非子 with the transitive 虧.


You got me wrong.  We only need an example that is a couple hundred years earlier than 王充.  I don't think 韓非子's sentence is convincing enough simply because it doesn't mean "to break/destroy physically", not because it is not ancient enough.

By the way, I actually like your hypothesis of hyper-archaism, although we don't have enough evidence on hand to validate it.


----------



## Flaminius

skating-in-bc said:


> We only need an example that is a couple hundred years earlier than 王充.


Since you want an instance of the transitive 虧 used for physical destruction, here is one from 儀礼・祭儀:
不虧其體，不辱其身，可謂全矣。

I didn't know this passage before searching, but it wasn’t unexpected since a figurative use (viz. 韓非子) is usually based on a more concrete sense.


I hope we can all discuss it with civility, but I take issues with the ethos in your following argument:


skating-in-bc said:


> Pragmatically, 金石為(= 則)開 and 金石為(= 'for')之開 convey the same idea in the context of "精誠所至...", and the 開s are intransitive in both constructions (i.e., 金石為(= 則)開 and 金石為(= 'for')之開).



You appear to be saying that 為 means two different things in the similar proverbs about 誠 and 金石.  It is simpler to assume the same function for all instances of 為 in the analogues of 精诚所至金石为开 (Occam's razor).  It is even more so after the explicit injunction:


ktdd said:


> 《成语大词典》 specifically notes that “为”此处不读wèi.



I hasten to add that a simpler argument is not always the correct one.  Still, a more complicated hypothesis need be justified by arguments as to how it is possible, profitable or imperative.


Seeing that you edited #27 to add a paragraph about 所 being 無義詞綴 (details to be found in #7), I will keep going for a while.  If the two parts of the saying are to be connected with a THEN word, it is best placed before 金石.  One of the historical analogues "熊渠子見其誠心, 而金石為之開" uses a THEN word before 金石 and 為 after it.  From the viewpoint of seeing one function of 為 throughout, this makes it highly unlikely that 為 is the THEN word in 金石為開.

You can still argue for the FOR or BECAUSE OF reading of 為.  This line of argument would then need to;
1. disprove 成语大词典 somehow, and
2. show that 為 can be FOR or BECAUSE OF without an explicit complement (金石為開).

[I admit that "不读wèi" is causing a lot of headache to me.  If only we can say that 為 is BECAUSE OF in all variations of the proverb!]


----------



## skating-in-bc

Flaminius said:


> It is simpler to assume the same function for all instances of 為 in the analogues of 精诚所至金石为开 (Occam's razor)...a more complicated hypothesis need be justified by arguments as to how it is possible, profitable or imperative.


(1) possible: Does the interpretation make sense in terms of semantics and syntax?
(2) imperative/profitable: Does the context or discourse call for a specific interpretation of 為? Or does the interpretation better fit the context or discourse?

(1) possible:
開 'to separate, to break apart' is an ambitransitive verb. For example:《隋書》開(transitive)天闢地 vs.《初學記》天開(intransitive)地闢。

為 can be pronounced in Mandarin as wei4 meaning 'for; because of; for the sake of' (e.g.,《芋老人傳》生為之飽), or as wei2 meaning 'by' (preposition; e.g.,《資治通鑑》為操所先) or 'then' (conjunction; e.g.,《論語》無義為盜)。

It is thus grammatically possible for 為開 to mean 'then would break apart', and 為之開 to mean 'to break apart for him; to break apart because of him'.

(2) imperative/profitable: Obviously, not all analogues of the saying have the same wording.  A careful examination of the respective contexts is therefore required.

For instance:
*Context 1* [+initiation]: *Agentive *subject, with an unergrative verb describing an action _initiated_ by the subject.
韓嬰《韓詩外傳·卷六》勇士一呼而三軍(agentive subject)皆避 (unergrative), 士之誠也。昔者, 楚熊渠子夜行, 寢石以為伏虎, 彎弓而射之, 沒金飲羽, 下視, 知其為石。石(agentive subject)為之開(unergrative), 而況人乎！

==> "而況人乎" stipulates a parallel: 三軍 or 人(subject) is the agent of the unergrative action 避, and by analogy 石 (subject) is the agent of the verb 開. 石為之開 parallels 人(agentive subject)為之避(unergrative). Therefore, in the clause 石為之開, 之 cannot bear an agent thematic relation and, instead, has to take the role of beneficiary (e.g., for the sake of him) or cause (e.g., because of him). Please note that 避 and 開 belong to the semantic domain of "to be apart from each other" and are able to form a compound "避開".

*Context 2* [-initiation][+result]: *patientive* subject with an unaccusative verb expressing a happening that _results_ in a new state.
《西京雑記》李廣與兄弟共獵於冥山之北, 見卧虎焉, 射之, 一矢即斃。斷其髑髏以為枕, 示服猛也; 鑄銅象其形為溲器, 示厭辱之也。他日復獵於冥山之陽, 又見卧虎, 射之, 沒矢飲羽。進而視之, 乃石也, 其形類虎。退而更射(cause), 鏃(patientive subject)破(anticausative, effect)簳(patientive subject)折(anticausative, effect)而石(patientive subject)不傷(anticausative, effect)。餘嘗以問楊子云, 子云曰: 至誠則金石(patientive subject)為開(stative passive, effect)。餘應之曰: 昔人有遊東海者, 既而風惡船漂不能制, 船隨風浪, 莫知所之。一日一夜得至一孤洲, 其侶歡然, 下石植纜, 登洲煮食(cause)食未熟而洲沒, 在船者斫斷其纜, 船復漂盪, 曏者孤洲, 乃大魚(patient), 怒掉揚鬣吸波吐浪而去(effect), 疾如風雲, 在洲死者十餘人。又餘所知陳縞, 質木人也, 入終南山採薪還, 晚趨舍, 未至, 見張丞相墓前石馬, 謂為鹿也, 即以斧撾之, 斧(patientive subject)缺(anticausative, effect)柯(patientive subject)折(anticausative, effect), 石馬(patientive subject)不傷(anticausative, effect)。此二者亦至誠也, 卒有沈溺缺斧之事(effect), 何金石(patientive subject)之所感偏(nominalized anticausative, effect)乎? 子云無以應餘。

==> The entire discourse, which gives an account of whether some external forces (e.g., 射石虎, 煮食, 射石馬) cause or fail to cause the patients (e.g., 石虎, 大魚, 石馬) to come to a new resulting state (e.g., 傷 in 石虎不傷; 去 in 大魚波吐浪而去; 傷 in 石馬不傷; 開 in 金石為開), frequently puts the patients in the foreground (i.e, has the thematic patients serve as the grammatical subjects).  Given that 金石 is a patientive subject in this context, 開 may be either a passive like 毀 in 石馬被毀 (cf. "_broken_" in "_The window was_ _broken_") or an anticausative like 傷 in 石馬不傷 (cf. "_broke_" in "_The window broke_").  Which one?  From the viewpoint of parallelism, it strongly suggests an anticausative reading parallel to such expressions in the text as 鏃(patient)破(anticausative), 簳(patient)折(anticausative), 石(patient)不傷(anticausative), 斧(patient)缺(anticausative), 柯(patient)折(anticausative), 石馬(patient)不傷(anticausative), and 金石(patient)之所感偏(nominalized anticausative), against a dynamic passive reading like 眼為開 in《饋佩之新筍用前韻》客路逢師眼為開 ("_my eyes were opened_").  From the syntactic point of view however, it suggests a passive reading due to coexistence of 則 and 為 and lack of an object (e.g., 之) in "則金石為開".  Since there is already a 則, 為 cannot be interpreted as 則, and yet since there is no object (e.g., 之), it cannot be interpreted as "_for_; _for the sake of_; _for the benefit of_; _because of_".  My solution to the dilemma is a stative passive (aka 'false passive') like "_separated_" in "_We are separated_" (marital status), which expresses a result state as do those anticausative verbs in the same text.

Technically, 為 (a passive marker) does not always equate 被 (a dynamic-passive marker), but for lack of a better word or for the sake of brevity we may loosely claim 為 = 被 here to signal it is a passive marker.

*Context 3* [-volition][+change]: *patientive* subject with a decausative verb expressing a _change_ of state without presupposition of a cause.
《初刻拍案驚奇第九卷：宣徽院仕女鞦韆會，清安寺夫婦笑啼緣》有一個父母許了又悔的, 也弄得死了活轉來。一念堅貞, 終成夫婦, 留下一段佳話, 名曰《秋千會記》。正是: 精誠所至, 金石為開, 貞心不寐, 死後重諧。The story in《初刻拍案驚奇第九卷》concerns an engaged couple who were separated by the female party's family, resulting in a tragic suicide for love, and who finally got reunited and happily married after the dead partner miraculously came back to life.  The story starts with "話說人世婚姻前定" and ends with "若不是生前分定, 幾曾有死後重歡", spelling out the crux of the story--Marriage is predestined.  By fate or by divine will?  It doesn't say.  In the story, the couple demonstrated 堅貞/精誠 towards each other and then something unforeseen happened--"金石為開", metaphorically referring to the opening of the door to the afterlife to allow the dead partner back to life. 堅貞/精誠 as the non-volitional cause for breaking the 鬼門/金石 open is implied but never explicitly articulated.  Without explicit identification of the clause, we cannot take it for granted because the author's thesis statement is "Marriage is predestined."  If it is predestined, whether there is 精誠 or not would not "cause" a difference. 

==> Again, given that 金石 is a patientive subject in this context, 開 may be either a passive (like "_broken_" in "_The door was_ _broken_") or a decausative (like "_The door broke_"). The difference between the two lies in a clear presupposition of a causation agent in the passive.  The decausative reading better fits the context because the author has cleverly evaded mention of the agent that caused the resurrection.  Thus, I interpret "精誠所至, 金石為開" as a condition-result sentence, rather than a cause-effect sentence.
精誠所至 (condition), 金石為(= 則)開 (result)


tinsh said:


> 金石为开...这里的“为”读作wéi，而词典中的“为之开裂”的“为”读作wèi，意思是“为了……”、 for the sake of 。





ktdd said:


> Is it?
> “金石為開”語出漢‧劉向《新序‧雜事四》：“熊渠子見其誠心，而金石為之開，況人心乎？”
> Apparently it's a preposition/coverb that takes an object. But 《成语大词典》 specifically notes that “为”此处不读wèi.





tinsh said:


> 提取成语的时候，换个词（wèi 换成 wéi）也属正常。所以，我仍坚持认为“为”是“则”，而不是“被”。





Flaminius said:


> It is simpler to assume the same function for all instances of 為 in the analogues of 精诚所至金石为开 (Occam's razor).  It is even more so after the explicit injunction...This line of argument would then need to;
> 1. disprove 成语大词典 somehow


Did you look it up in 成语大词典?  I tried to download it but failed.  成语词典s are typically organized as such (e.g., 包括注音、释义、出处、例句、近义、反义、辨析、提示、用法、连用等):

以攻为守
〖读音〗yǐ gōng wéi shǒu
〖释义〗攻：进攻。守：防守，防御。指用主动进攻的策略来达到防御的目的。
*〖辨析〗为，此处不读“wèi”。*
〖实例〗为

OR
以攻为守：
拼音：yǐ gōng wéi shǒu
注音：ㄧˇ ㄍㄨㄙ ㄨㄟˊ ㄕㄡˇ
发音：
成语繁体：以攻為守
常用程度：常用成语
感情色彩：中性成语
成语结构：偏正式成语
产生年代：古代成语
近义词：以退为进、以屈求伸
反义词：以守为攻
成语用法： 偏正式；作谓语、状语、宾语；用于战斗、政治等
成语解释： 以：凭借；用。用主动进攻的战略作为积极防御的措施。
成语出处： 宋 陈亮《酌古论 先主》：“且吾又闻之，用兵之道，有攻法，有守法，此用兵之常也；以攻为守，以守为攻，此兵之变也。”
*成语正音：为，不能读作“wèi”。 *
成语辨形：攻，不能写作“功”。
成语例子： 在这次足球比赛中，主队采取了以攻为守的战术。
英语翻译：attack in order to defend

“为, 此处不读wèi" is typically listed under the category of 辨析 or 成语正音, meant to prescribe the pronunciation of the idiom itself.  As I see it, “为, 此处不读wèi" is specifically for the idiom 金石为开, not specifically for 金石为之开 in the 出处section (e.g., 語出漢‧劉向《新序‧雜事四》熊渠子見其誠心，而金石為之開，況人心乎?).  From the conversation between tinsh and ktdd, it seemed to me that tinsh thought so as well.


----------

