# 今古有神奉志士



## blyant

Hi, I've been having this sword for a long time. Can't even quite remember from where I got it, but it has some Japanese/Chinese/or something like that letters written on it. Is there anyway I can find out what it says? Are any of you able to translate it? Or at least able to tell me what language it is? I'm sure the Chinese and Japanese letters aren't the same, but I honestly can't see the difference.
I hope it's readable enough, I had some problems writing the letters. the pictures of the sword itself wasn't at all readable and writing it was very hard for me.

i137.photobucket.com/albums/q224/throntel/symbol2red.jpg
i137.photobucket.com/albums/q224/throntel/symbol2.jpg
i137.photobucket.com/albums/q224/throntel/symboler.png

Tried to just use a pencil on a paper while laying the paper on the sword, was the best I could manage to get


----------



## ryuusaki

今古有神奉志士

It sounds like Chinese more than Japanese. I would say it is very likely that it is Chinese, but it sounds like rather old Chinese.

今(now, modern)
古(old, past)
有神(there is a god/gods)
奉(follow/respect/serve/a lot of possible meanings)
志士(men with ambition)

I guess it basically means "Now and past there is a god to *respect* ambitious men."

*I feel that respect is the best word I can find, but it's not that kind of respect. I am not 100% sure what meaning it serves in this sentence.


----------



## blyant

Thanks! Just getting the symbols in a copy- and pasteable form helped alot, some searching at google gave me several translations. Although they all seem to be different, there must be like thousand ways to translate this. Is it always like this with these languages? 
They all seem to include something with now/present/past -and other time related words and something with god and gods though.

Anyway thanks again


----------



## ryuusaki

Because there is no tense in Chinese, the only to indicate the time is to tell it. (Not like english you can use past tense and not mentioning the time at all)


----------



## blyant

Chinese sounds like a  complicated language  still that or japanese are one of the languages I'd really like to learn  Btw, is that possible without going to some form of language school? Like is it possible to understand it by reading books etc?


----------



## ryuusaki

I would say, if you really have the passion to learn that language, it is never impossible to learn it on your own. I am trying to learn Japanese on my own, and I think the progress is going pretty well. But Japanese is a language that you can just look at the words and know how to pronounce them, so it is easier. However, if it comes to some other languages, it can be difficult because you don't know how to pronounce those words.


----------



## I_like_my_TV

blyant said:
			
		

> some searching at google gave me several translations. Although they all seem to be different, there must be like thousand ways to translate this. Is it always like this with these languages?


Since this sentence is fairly condensed and abstract (think of a line of a poem), and is not a kind of sentences you'd often hear in daily life, it's natural that each person will interpret it slightly differently. I don't know what is there through Google but I personally would translate it as: _"Gods have always been on the side of those with courage and ambition"_, or simply: "_Gods have always been on the side of the warrior"_

PS: After thinking further about it, I've come to believe that "今古有神奉志士" is neither Chinese or Japanese but is, like the sword itself, a Western imitation of Japanese, and is intended as Japanese. _So my conclusion is that the sword and the scripts on it are both fake!_


----------



## avlee

To any Chinese people who can read, it's a Chinese sentence. However, I'm not sure if the Japanese thinks so too. 
The above translation is quite good. The sword might be a modern product rather than an ancient antique.


----------



## blyant

Well that's no shock, I bought it fairly cheap in the giftshop at some japanese/chinese looking place in USA.


----------



## samanthalee

avlee said:


> To any Chinese people who can read, it's a Chinese sentence. However, I'm not sure if the Japanese thinks so too.
> The above translation is quite good. The sword might be a modern product rather than an ancient antique.


 
It is a modern product alright. Specifically, it is a Hollywood product.

Dear blyant, you are holding Tom Cruise's sword. It is his battle sword from The Last Samurai.

Is the sword in this photo (http://images.trademe.co.nz/photoserver/50/38854550_full.jpg) the same as yours?

According to New York Times, this inscription means "I belong to the warrior in whom the old ways have joined the new" (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/06/o...&en=126a9e1ca6520a3c&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND). But I'm sure both Chinese and Japanese speakers have absolutely no idea what it means exactly.


----------



## ryuusaki

samanthalee said:


> According to New York Times, this inscription means "I belong to the warrior in whom the old ways have joined the new" But I'm sure both Chinese and Japanese speakers have absolutely no idea what it means exactly.


 
oh yea. I have no idea how 今古有神奉志士 can mean "I belong to the warrior in whom the old ways have joined the new".


----------



## Flaminius

I am wondering what 今古有神奉志士 really means, if it can mean anything in Chinese (Surely it is not "I belong to the warrior in whom the old ways have joined the new"!).   Probably it means something not so different from several translations that have been contributed, but is it written in good grammar?


----------



## ryuusaki

Flaminius said:


> I am wondering what 今古有神奉志士 really means, if it can mean anything in Chinese (Surely it is not "I belong to the warrior in whom the old ways have joined the new"!). Probably it means something not so different from several translations that have been contributed, but is it written in good grammar?


 
I don't know if it is written in good grammar, because it sounds like really old Chinese, and old Chinese has weird grammar. But as far as I read it, I think the grammar is ok. At least I can get the general meaning out of it.


----------



## univerio

I think 奉 takes the meaning of "to watch over, to look after." Therefore, I think it means "A god/spirit looks after courageous men forever."

I did a little research. It is supposed to be Japanese. It can be understood as Chinese as well because the two languages are similar.

And regarding the possibility that it is just a western imitation, I doubt that it is. There's no way a non-Japanese/Chinese-decendant could have come up with something like that... With the Asian population in North America, don't you think the least they could have done is to hire a linguist and write it for them?


----------



## NextNoName

It could be Japanese because Japanese uses Chinese characters in some situation for example in names. Chinese characters usage was even more prevalent in Japan in the past than it is now. That verse could be part of an old Japanese poem. The meanings of Japanese's Chinese characters are rather similar but not identical to Chinese's. That can explain why the sentence construct is unconventional.

Of course it is possible it is a modern concoction. When it is a prop of a Hollywood film, it can be anything.


----------



## Flaminius

NextNoName said:


> It could be Japanese (...)


It may be that the phrase was written by a Japanese but it cannot mean "I belong to the warrior in whom the old ways have joined the new" in Japanese (or any other language that I know of).



> Of course it is possible it is a modern concoction. When it is a prop of a Hollywood film, it can be anything.


All the clues we have considered point to that direction.  ;-)


----------



## eidolon

These words should translated by using the ancient Chinese meaning. 
In my opinion, "今古"  means an ancient period. And "奉"--"give ,favour";“志士”--“有志之士”--"有志向的人"--“somebody who has ambition”。
i.e. gods favour ambitious man.


----------



## 今古有神奉志士

ryussaki did a good job to translate the words, but there is several things to point out:

1 *T*hese are modern *C*hinese characters for sure. but they are speaking in ancient *C*hinese style, which differs greatly from the modern *C*hinese both in meaning and grammar.   btw *By the way*, *J*apanese has quiet a few ancient *C*hinese incorporated in it(a bit like *L*atin with modern *E*nglish),  thus sometimes cause confusions. 

2  *C*hinese is one of the most complicated languages, a single word can has dozens of meanings, sometime quiet different

*H*ere for example 
神  here doesn*'*t mean god/gods as it usually does but means "a man's spirit or mind"

奉 here means  "belong", quiet close to its original meaning

志士 not a man with ambition but a more general meaning ie "warrior" or "great man"

*A*nd the subject was omitted in the sentence which is the sword..

*S*o the meaning of sentence should be like this  奉志士, 今古有神
which means

(I or this sword) belong(s) to a warrior in whom the past has join up with the new.


----------



## AVim

今古有神奉志士 said:


> ryussaki did a good job to translate the words, but there is several things to point out:


马夹? 没必要吧.


----------



## akang

I'm probably never gonna come back to this website again, but I'm just getting a tad bit annoyed about how everyone thinks that this quote was made by the Chinese. Everyone who suggested what the quote actually meant in English are right. No question about it. But the thing is that this is supposed to be written on a JAPANESE sword. The Chinese doesn't entirely focus on the sword as their primary weapon. The Japanese focus more on the sword. Not trying to say that they don't focus on hand-to-hand combat. They did invent karate after all. Anyways this quote was meant for JAPANESE swords so it was created by the Japanese. Now this still doesn't explain why the Japanese writing looks like the Chinese. Thing is, China and Japan started communicating for a very, VERY long time. But when they tried, the Japanese basically warped the Chinese language as close as they can to their own language (even though the Japanese version sounds absolutely NOTHING like the Chinese version) and also adapted the Chinese writing probably for the artistic value. But the translation from each language is the same. I don't know what the picture of the sword looks like (mainly because this is an old thread and the guy that wrote the thread probably took the picture down) but I am very sure that this was made by the Japanese.


----------



## simonsaltwater

今古有神奉志士 said:


> *S*o the meaning of sentence should be like this  奉志士, 今古有神
> which means
> 
> (I or this sword) belong(s) to a warrior in whom the past has join up with the new.


It's a good translation, but I think "奉" here means "serve". Small difference.
The phrase is probably in Japanese Kanji, therefore it looks like Chinese.


----------



## simonsaltwater

Kanji looks like Chinese. But their meaning in Chinese and Jap are both similar and different in some ways.


----------



## Flaminius

simonsaltwater said:


> (I or this sword) belong(s) to a warrior in whom the past has join up with the new.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good translation, but I think "奉" here means "serve". Small difference.
> The phrase is probably in Japanese Kanji, therefore it looks like Chinese.
Click to expand...

The phrase makes no sense at all in Japanese with whatsoever meaning that a sentence could ever have.  In case it is Chinese (whether quoted from a very old Chinese text or just written poorly by a Japanese), we have already determined that it cannot mean "I belong to the warrior in whom the old ways have joined the new" like the New York Times says.



simonsaltwater said:


> Kanji looks like Chinese. But their meaning in Chinese and *Japanese* are both similar and different in some ways.


Japanese texts can hardly be written with Chinese characters only.  If a Japanese writes with Chinese characters, the text is Chinese or at least it is styled with Chinese.

After Thought:
It has just occurred to me that 神 may be the object of 奉.  In that case, the text means "There are ambitious men from old and now who revere the gods."  Still, I am not sure if the word order 神奉 is the correct Chinese grammar.


----------



## s111111

these are ancient *C*hinese characters .It means that god always be there for the people who followed and sacrificed for their ideal and belief . 
the god is not mean the Characters in story.it means a kind of faith . it can be from their ancestor,moral and their ideal for live.


----------



## YangMuye

可能 “今古に神奉の志士有り” 是古代和現代侍奉神的志士？
或者 “今古有る神を奉ずる志士” 待奉自古存在的神的志士？
可能是想模仿訓讀漢語的口吻。


----------



## cateran

这是日本人说的古汉语.
可以在google上查一下就知道了!


----------



## samanthalee

cateran said:


> 这是日本人说的古汉语.
> 可以在google上查一下就知道了!


可是我们的日语版主在#23贴子中已经说这句在日语完全不通。如果是日本人说的古语，那就是我们汉语的文言文。但不管怎么看都不像文言文。既然这句是出现在 Tom Cruise 的道具武士刀上，也许唯一结论只能是--这是好莱坞语吧。


----------



## cateran

samanthalee said:


> 可是我们的日语版主在#23贴子中已经说这句在日语完全不通。如果是日本人说的古语，那就是我们汉语的文言文。但不管怎么看都不像文言文。既然这句是出现在 Tom Cruise 的道具武士刀上，也许唯一结论只能是--这是好莱坞语吧。



那就只能说是好莱坞想象的日本人说的古汉语. 那我们就不用费力气去分析了.这就好像一个外国人说了一句有问题的英语, 一帮英美认识在分析是什么意思.哈哈

类似一帮英美人士在分析: good good study, day day up是什么意思一样, 哈哈


----------



## Sara Elaine

You posted this some time ago, but the responses you received were close but not excellent. To clarify your original question, translation should read, from the past up to the present there have been warriors (or scholars) of good intent who make offerings to the gods. 

The phrase is in classical Chinese, not Japanese. However, Japanese ministeries were still communicating in classical Chinese (by men) up through the 18th century, as this was a mark of education and civility. (Written Japanese was the language of women and literature in early Japan.) Therefore, your sword may indeed be Japanese despite the Chinese inscription. Moreover, Japanese exported large numbers of very fine swords to the Chinese market throughout the Ming (1368-1644) and Qing (1644-1911) dynasties, as Japanese craftsmanship was highly valued at that time. Therefore, it is not surprising to find a Japan-made sword with Chinese inscription.

Regarding the character 士, it originally meant a swordsman or knight, and later came to represent scholars rather than swordsmen already very early in Chinese history. Military men were then designated with the character bing 兵. When Chinese writing was taken to Japan, however, Japanese tended to retain the earlier meaning of 士 as knight. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Jack12345

It's not a traditional Chinese phrase.
Because, 
the subject is 神(deities), 
the verb is 奉(respect, supply...), 
the object is 士(one class in ancient China, they were managers taking part in state governance, and they were all educated well with rich knowledge).
Generally, deities would never respect or supply human being.

This phrase just sounds like traditional Chinese, but the meaning is out of Chinese traditional culture. It's morden ideas.

Just according to the meaning of this phrase, maybe, it could be translated into: 
Whenever ancient time or now,  there would be a deity supporting the man with aspirations.


----------



## Skatinginbc

假如是「今古有神奉志士，天地正氣識英雄」的話，似乎就沒什麼歧義 。 顯然，「神」（deity）對應「天地正氣」（the righteous spirit of the cosmos），「奉」（respect and support）對應「識」（recognize），「志士」（men of high purpose）對應「英雄」（heroes）。

今古有神奉志士: 不論今世還是古代，都有連神明也推崇擁戴的志士。


----------



## Jack12345

Skatinginbc said:


> 都有連神明也推崇擁戴的志士。


这个意思现在是可以的。
如果按照传统，这个话在古代一般是不能说的。天子（上天唯一认定的人）只有一个。神明要去推崇拥戴另一个有志之士，那得变天了。而且古人写七言对仗句有严格的平仄规定，这句话并不符合。
所以这句话不是古人写的。


----------



## Skatinginbc

是電影（最后的武士）台词， 不是古人写的。


----------



## Sara Elaine

Jack12345 said:


> It's not a traditional Chinese phrase.
> Because,
> the subject is 神(deities),
> the verb is 奉(respect, supply...),
> the object is 士(one class in ancient China, they were managers taking part in state governance, and they were all educated well with rich knowledge).
> Generally, deities would never respect or supply human being.
> 
> This phrase just sounds like traditional Chinese, but the meaning is out of Chinese traditional culture. It's morden ideas.
> 
> Just according to the meaning of this phrase, maybe, it could be translated into:
> Whenever ancient time or now,  there would be a deity supporting the man with aspirations.


You misread the classical. The meaning of 士 is as I originally wrote. The idea communicated in the phrase correlates with concepts attributed to Han Yu and others. The same ideas arise in the Bingfa.


----------



## Jack12345

Sara Elaine said:


> Bingfa.


It did not come from 兵法. When 士 is used singly, it was not refer to soldier or a swordsman generally. The 士 is just in 士兵，将士，士卒, etc. has the meaning of soldier. Swordsman is 剑客，侠，侠客 etc.
Now the 志士 means a man who has aspirations or ability to solve social problems in Chinese.
And the meaning of the phrases has some problems. 
The phrase is also not proper in Chinese syntax.
So the phrase is not ancient or traditional Chinese phrases. It's just a dialogue in one film.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Sara Elaine said:


> Regarding the character 士, it originally meant a swordsman or knight


「士」原是 (1) "man, bachelor" 男子通稱  (特別是未婚男子)，(2) "to serve; retainer, officer" 事也, 事其事者。就算指戰士, 原先的「士」是車士, 不是騎士 (knight), 可以是*箭*士 (archer), 不必定是劍士 (swordsman)。
高誘《淮南子注》在車曰士, 步曰卒。
《司馬法》革車一乘，甲士三人，步卒七十二人_。_
《史記》拜唐爲車騎都尉, 主中尉及郡國車士。
賈誼《過秦論》胡人不敢南下而牧馬, 士不敢彎*弓*而報怨。


Sara Elaine said:


> You misread the classical.


志士的「士」,  是義士的「士」(品行高尚的人) , 不是騎士 (乘馬的兵士) 的「士」 (兵士) , 也不是劍士 (精通劍術的人) 的「士」(精通某事的人, 能事其事者)。


----------



## loganfong

Not sure how all this bullshido managed to linger for over a decade, but I'm pretty sure anyone with a decent command in classical Chinese will conclude that the sentence means "god(s) serve(s) ambitious men, whether now or then" or something quite similar. Granted the sentence may not be particularly good sounding and I agree it's probably a Hollywood invention mimicking a line of some Chinese/Japanese (the Japanese wrote--but not spoke--almost purely in Chinese up until around WWII) poem (note the seven character construction), but the meaning is certainly there with minimal ambiguity and it is certainly correct as far as syntax goes.

No offence but IMO sometimes no information is better than wrong information. Or at least say that you are only guessing when you're not so sure, especially if you're not a native speaker. Honestly, if you interpret 志士 as some soldier or knight or class of people in this context, you probably shouldn't have commented on this thread in the first place. Sorry for sounding rude but I can't stand so much misinformation in this thread and I created my account just because of this.


----------

