# 舍魚而取熊掌<者>也



## raymondaliasapollyon

请问，以下句子中的 "者" 是什麽意思?

1. 二者不可得兼，舍鱼而取熊掌*者*也。

为什麽上面那句用 "者"，而下面这句不用呢？

2. 师者，所以传道受业解惑 [*者*] 也。


----------



## lekal

之乎者也 是语气助词，没有什么含义，可以加，也可以不加。
这两句，都是 也可以加 者，也可以不加 者。

 这种语气词，相当于现代的标点符号。因为古代没有标点符号，所以，语气词表示这句话结束了。


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

你说 "也" 是语气助词我可以接受，可是那句话已经有了 "也"，还需要另一个语气助词吗?
而且，"者" 在字典上的助词用法，似乎并不符合原句：

者的文言文解释及意思-文言文字典

①<*助*>用动词、形容词和动词性词组、形容词性词组的后面，组成一个名词性结构，相当于“……的人（人、事、情况等）”。《归去来兮辞》：“悟已往之不谏，知来者之可追。”
②<代>用在数词后面，往往总指上文所提到的人、事、物。翻译时在人、事、物名称前加“个”、“件”、“种”等。《赤壁之战》：“此数者用兵之患也。”
③<代>用在名词名词性词组后面，起区别作用，可译作“这样的”、“这个”等，有时不必译出。《齐桓晋文之事》：“王曰：‘然，诚有百姓者。’”
④<*助*>用在句中主语的后面，表示停顿、判断，无实义。《师说》：“师者，所以传道受业解惑也。”
⑤<*助*>用在因果复句或条件复句偏句的末尾，提示原因或条件。《邹忌讽齐王纳谏》：“吾妻之美我者，私我也。”
⑥<*助*>用在疑问句全句末，表示疑问语气，相当于“呢”。《鸿门宴》：“客何为者？”
⑦<*助>*用在时间词后面，起语助作用，可不译。《鸿门宴》：“今者项庄舞剑，其意常在沛公也。”
⑧<*助*>用某些比况、描写的词语后面，相当于“……的样子”。《黔之驴》：“然往来视之，觉无异能者。”《捕蛇者说》：“言之，貌若甚戚者。”
⑨<*助*>定语后置的标志。《石钟山记》：“石之铿然有声者，所在皆是也。”


----------



## Skatinginbc

鱼，我所欲也 "Fish is what I desire." ==> 所 ("what") is a nominalization particle.
名利，可欲者也 "Fame and fortune are things that can be desired." ==> 者 ("_person that_, _thing that_", "的人、的事、的物") is also a nominalization particle.
所 "what" 與 者 "that", 不可兼用.

师者，所 "what" + 以传道受业解惑 (VP) + 也 
二者不可得兼，舍鱼而取熊掌*者*也。If you cannot have both, then go with _the kind of option that _sacrifices fish for bear paws. ==> The 者 here is similar to the one in "貌若甚戚者" (The facial expression resembles _the kind that_ looks really sad).


----------



## Zooplankton

第二句不能加，因为前面已经有者字了，师者，XXXX也，最典型的者也结构


----------



## lekal

Zooplankton said:


> 第二句不能加，因为前面已经有者字了，师者，XXXX也，最典型的者也结构


师也者，教之以事而喻诸德者也。
礼者，殊事合敬者也。
乐者，异文合爱者也。
大人者，不失其赤子之心者也。

以上都是出自四书五经里的句子。


----------



## Skatinginbc

Zooplankton said:


> 第二句不能加，因为前面已经有者字了，师者，XXXX也，最典型的者也结构


师者 (NP + 者) 的 "者" 和 "舍鱼而取熊掌者" 的 "者" 功能不同. 前者是個 subject marker, 後者是個 nominalization particle. 既然功能不同, 就不相衝突 (e.g., 礼者殊事合敬者也,乐者异文合爱者也。see #6).


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Skatinginbc said:


> 鱼，我所欲也 "Fish is what I desire." ==> 所 ("what") is a nominalization particle.
> 名利，可欲者也 "Fame and fortune are things that can be desired." ==> 者 ("_person that_, _thing that_", "的人、的事、的物") is also a nominalization particle.
> 所 "what" 與 者 "that", 不可兼用.
> 
> 师者，所 "what" + 以传道受业解惑 (VP) + 也
> 二者不可得兼，舍鱼而取熊掌*者*也。If you cannot have both, then go with _the kind of option that _sacrifices fish for bear paws. ==> The 者 here is similar to the one in "貌若甚戚者" (The facial expression resembles _the kind that_ looks really sad).




*所*愛*者*，撓法活之；*所*憎*者*，曲法滅之。So it seems that 所 and 者 can be used together.

And I doubt that 者 in 舍鱼而取熊掌*者*也 is the same as 者 in 貌若甚戚者. As the online definition I quoted shows, the latter is used to mark a manner adverbial, in this case, 貌若甚戚*者*, i.e. with a rather sad-looking expression.

And I don't think "者" is a nominalizer in "舍鱼而取熊掌者."
熊掌 is already a nominal expression.


----------



## Skatinginbc

心有所爱者忘死 those that have what they love in their hearts (those that hold their loved ones in their hearts).  的確, 不相衝突, 便可串用.

另外，固定組合: 所以...者 the reason that...(e.g., 物之所以有韬晦者, 防乎盗也). 者 "that"  可以省略 (e.g., the reason (that) he didn't go to school), 現代語中，則根本不用 (e.g., 他之所以沒去上學)


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I don't think "者" is a nominalizer in "舍鱼而取熊掌者."
> 熊掌 is already a nominal expression.


舍 (verb) 鱼 (object) = VP
取 (verb) 熊掌 (object) = VP
I meant 者 nominalizes 舍鱼而取熊掌.  If P, then Q.  Q may be an NP.  For example, 要早. 就六點的班機(NP). 若只能二選一，就熊掌吧(NP).
Of course, some people treat 者也 together as an emphatic phrase without any actual meaning.


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

这个者真的是可以随便加或者不加的。没那么多讲究。


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Skatinginbc said:


> 心有所爱者忘死 those that have what they love in their hearts (those that hold their loved ones in their hearts).  的確, 不相衝突, 便可串用.
> 
> 另外，固定組合: 所以...者 the reason that...(e.g., 物之所以有韬晦者, 防乎盗也). 者 "that"  可以省略 (e.g., the reason (that) he didn't go to school), 現代語中，則根本不用 (e.g., 他之所以沒去上學)
> 
> 舍 (verb) 鱼 (object) = VP
> 取 (verb) 熊掌 (object) = VP
> I meant 者 nominalizes 舍鱼而取熊掌.  If P, then Q.  Q may be an NP.  For example, 要早. 就六點的班機(NP). 若只能二選一，就熊掌吧(NP).
> Of course, some people treat 者也 together as an emphatic phrase without any actual meaning.



That's interesting. As indicated in the definitions I quoted, 者 as a nominalizer turns a 定語 (adjectival element) into a noun phrase denoting a person or thing that bears the quality specified by the relevant adjectival element.

For example, 知我  as in "知我者謂我心憂" is a VP functioning as an adjectival element, and 者 turns it into 知我者, i.e. people who know me.

But you seem to be saying 者 turns the VP (or rather, the conjoined VP) 舍鱼而取熊掌 into a noun that denotes *not *a person or thing but the action itself. This usage is not among the definitions I quoted. 

Are there similar examples in Classical Chinese writings?


----------



## Skatinginbc

retrogradedwithwind said:


> 这个者真的是可以随便加或者不加的。


加不加, 感覺好像不太一樣.
禮者，殊事合敬也 (禮是殊事合敬)。
禮者，殊事合敬者也 (禮是殊事合敬的東西 = 禮是用來殊事合敬的) = 禮者，所以殊事合敬也.
師者，傳道受業解惑者也 basically means 師者，所以傳道受業解惑也.

所 and 者 have practically the same functions here, and that's why I said  所 "what" 與 者 "that", 不可兼用.  This is different from 物之所以有韬晦者, in which 所以...者 means "the reason that...".


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> you seem to be saying 者 turns the VP (or rather, the conjoined VP) 舍鱼而取熊掌 into a noun that denotes *not *a person or thing but the action itself.


No.  That's not what I meant.  The "option that sacrifices fish for bear paws" (see #4) involves a relative clause functioning as an adjectival (定語).  "Things that can be desired" (see #4) also involves an adjectival relative clause.

知我者 "ones that know me" ==> "that know me" is an adjectival relative clause.


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

Skatinginbc said:


> 加不加, 感覺好像不太一樣.
> 禮者，殊事合敬也 (禮是殊事合敬)。
> 禮者，殊事合敬者也 (禮是殊事合敬的東西 = 禮是用來殊事合敬的) = 禮者，所以殊事合敬也.
> 師者，傳道受業解惑者也 basically means 師者，所以傳道受業解惑也.
> 
> 所 and 者 have practically the same functions here, and that's why I said  所 "what" 與 者 "that", 不可兼用.  This is different from 物之所以有韬晦者, in which 所以...者 means "the reason that...".




这个太复杂了。文言语法也不是一成不变的，从先秦到清也在变化。如果真要细致考察古人用法，大概需要查看古文库。可以去"国学大师"网站上搜一下。
我是觉得，没有验证，恐怕有一部分人就把者也看成和也一样的东西，不一定会区分。


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Skatinginbc said:


> 加不加, 感覺好像不太一樣.
> 禮者，殊事合敬也 (禮是殊事合敬)。
> 禮者，殊事合敬者也 (禮是殊事合敬的東西 = 禮是用來殊事合敬的) = 禮者，所以殊事合敬也.
> 師者，傳道受業解惑者也 basically means 師者，所以傳道受業解惑也.
> 
> 所 and 者 have practically the same functions here, and that's why I said  所 "what" 與 者 "that", 不可兼用.  This is different from 物之所以有韬晦者, in which 所以...者 means "the reason that...".
> 
> No.  That's not what I meant.  The "option that sacrifices fish for bear paws" (see #4) involves a relative clause functioning as an adjectival (定語).  "Things that can be desired" (see #4) also involves an adjectival relative clause.
> 
> 知我者 "ones that know me" ==> "that know me" is an adjectival relative clause.



I see. So you regard "舍鱼而取熊掌*者" *as a noun phrase. That leaves the clause without a verb or subject.

二者不可得兼，舍鱼而取熊掌*者*也。

According to your analysis, the above can be translated as follows:

[If] you cannot gain both, the option that leaves fish but takes the bear claw.

As you can see, the underlined part isn't a "complete clause." I'd like to know whether there are similar verb-less clauses in Classical Chinese writings.

Btw, the 也 ending suggests it is a 判斷句, meaning it's a kind of copular sentence.
It'd be interesting to know whether there are other such subject-less 判斷句 in Classical Chinese.


----------



## Zooplankton

Skatinginbc said:


> 师者 (NP + 者) 的 "者" 和 "舍鱼而取熊掌者" 的 "者" 功能不同. 前者是個 subject marker, 後者是個 nominalization particle. 既然功能不同, 就不相衝突 (e.g., 礼者殊事合敬者也,乐者异文合爱者也。see #6).



是的，我搞错了，得有这个者字才行。

名词A者，名词B也
名词A者，做某事也


----------



## Skatinginbc

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> And I doubt that 者 in 舍鱼而取熊掌*者*也 is the same as 者 in 貌若甚戚者. As the online definition I quoted shows, the latter is used to mark a manner adverbial, in this case, 貌若甚戚*者*, i.e. with a rather sad-looking expression.


To mark a manner adverbial?  I don't think so.  From the online definition you quoted: “然往来视之，觉无异能者。” ==> 然而反覆观察它，觉得没特殊能力的样子。觉无异能者 is not an adverbial to describe the manner of 视, nor is 无异能者 an adverbial to modify 觉.

言之, 貌若甚戚者
说这话(时)，面貌像是很悲伤的(样子 or 神情 NP)。
很悲伤的(样子 or 神情), 如 "吃的，穿的 (東西)"==> NP.
什么什么的样子, like 什么什么的東西, is an NP.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> It'd be interesting to know whether there are other such subject-less 判斷句 in Classical Chinese.


It is not subject-less.  The subject is implied.
合而言之，道也 ==> If 合而言之, then (it is) 道也.
二者不可得兼，舍鱼而取熊掌者也 ==> If 二者不可得兼, then (it is) 舍鱼而取熊掌者也.
If 二者不可得兼, then it (= 我所欲) is 舍鱼而取熊掌者也.  That is, 鱼，我所欲也，熊掌，亦我所欲也, (若)二者不可得兼, (我所欲乃)舍鱼而取熊掌者也.


Skatinginbc said:


> Of course, some people treat 者也 together as an emphatic phrase without any actual meaning.





retrogradedwithwind said:


> 恐怕有一部分人就把者也看成和也一样的东西，不一定会区分。


What I said and what Retro said are basically the same: Many people actually treat 者也 as an emphatic unit (= 也).  That may be the majority opinion.  But I personally am not convinced with that interpretation because I think "加不加, 感覺好像不太一樣" (see #12):
二者不可得兼, 舍鱼而取熊掌也. (若二者不可得兼, 我就會舍鱼而取熊掌) ==> with an implied subject 我.
二者不可得兼, 舍鱼而取熊掌者也. (若二者不可得兼, 我所要的就會是舍鱼而取熊掌那樣的择项). ==> with an implied subject 我所欲.  It may be simply translated as 若二者不可兼得, 則舍鱼而取熊掌, but I think the subtle nuance would be lost in translation.

Nuance: 暗示他的偏好是: 1熊掌 + 0鱼 > 3/4 熊掌 + 1/4鱼 > 1/2 熊掌 + 1/2鱼 > 1/4熊掌 + 3/4鱼 > 0熊掌 + 1鱼 ==> 有選擇的話, 他會選捨魚而取熊掌那樣子的擇項 trade fish for bear paws anytime.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Skatinginbc said:


> To mark a manner adverbial?  I don't think so.  From the online definition you quoted: “然往来视之，觉无异能者。” ==> 然而反覆观察它，觉得没特殊能力的样子。觉无异能者 is not an adverbial to describe the manner of 视, nor is 无异能者 an adverbial to modify 觉.
> 
> 言之, 貌若甚戚者
> 说这话(时)，面貌像是很悲伤的(样子 or 神情 NP)。
> 很悲伤的(样子 or 神情), 如 "吃的，穿的 (東西)"==> NP.
> 什么什么的样子, like 什么什么的東西, is an NP.




Isn't it possible to treat 者 in such sentences as the equivalent of "seemingly," which is an adverb?

“往来视之，觉无异能*者*” could be understood as "It (= the tiger) repeatedly looked at it (= the donkey) and felt it *seemingly *had no special ability"?

If 者 is a nominalization particle there, what does it nominalize? 异能? But then it would seem incompatible with 无. 异能*者 *means a person or other being that had a special ability, but  无 in "无异能*者*" cannot be used to express a negated copula. 非 would be used in that meaning: 其非异能者.

But it is also possible to treat 无异能*者* as a noun phrase meaning a being that had no special ability. Then "觉无异能*者"* would be short for "觉，其 无异能*者.*" 无异能者 would be a subject complement of 其. (It is a being that has no special ability.)

For "言之, 貌若甚戚者," it indeed makes sense to treat 者 as a nominalization particle that turns 甚戚 into 甚戚者, i.e., a person that is really sad.

But I'm considering an analysis whereby 者 is attached to 貌若甚戚, and the resulting 貌若甚戚者 modifies the action of 言之.
It's comparable to "He said it, looking as if he was really sad." The present participial phrase acts as an adverbial modifier to "said it."



Skatinginbc said:


> It is not subject-less.  The subject is implied.
> 合而言之，道也 ==> If 合而言之, then (it is) 道也.
> 二者不可得兼，舍鱼而取熊掌者也 ==> If 二者不可得兼, then (it is) 舍鱼而取熊掌者也.
> If 二者不可得兼, then it (= 我所欲) is 舍鱼而取熊掌者也.  That is, 鱼，我所欲也，熊掌，亦我所欲也, (若)二者不可得兼, (我所欲乃)舍鱼而取熊掌者也.



How about treating "合而言之" as the subject? Then there's no need to posit an "invisible" subject.


----------



## Skatinginbc

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Isn't it possible to treat 者 in such sentences as the equivalent of "seemingly," which is an adverb?


If that is the case, then the word order would be wrong.  It would have been “往来视之，**者*觉无异能” (cf. 往来视之，*似*觉无异能).  Anyway, there is no dictionary that lists 者 as an adverb.  Why?  Because it is NOT an adverb, and it does NOT mean "seemingly".


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> If 者 is a nominalization particle there, what does it nominalize?


It is called a "nominalziation particle" for its ability to form a noun phrase in conjunction with the preceding element, although it may be somewhat a misnomer in that it actually adjectivizes the preceding element (e.g., adjectival relative clause in 知我者 "those that know me").  Given its effect of adjectivizing the preceding element, we now have an _adjectivized noun_ 异能 (changed from "special abilities" to adjectivized "having special abilities, of special abilities" 具有异能的) in conjunction with 者 (meaning "样子, 東西, or 地方") to form a noun phrase 异能者 (meaning "具有异能的样子, 東西, or 地方").  无 + 异能者 ==> 沒 + 具有异能的样子, 東西, or 地方.
仁者 (具有仁心的人), 智者 (具有智慧的人), 勇者 (具有勇氣的人)...


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> How about treating "合而言之" as the subject?


No.  It is an adverbial subordinate clause.  When the adverbial clause gains popularity and becomes a fixed expression (i.e., an idiom), it is still used as an adverbial (like 總而言之 'to sum up').


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I'm considering an analysis whereby 者 is attached to 貌若甚戚, and the resulting 貌若甚戚者 modifies the action of 言之.  It's comparable to "He said it, looking as if he was really sad."


言之, 貌若甚戚者: 言談之間, 神色十分悲傷 ==> 言談之間 is an adverbial subordinate clause.  说这话，面貌像是很悲伤的样子 ==> 说这话 is an adverbial subordinate clause.
"He said it, looking as if he was really sad." ==> "He said it" is the main clause.
You basically turned it the other way around.  You treated the subordinate clause as the main clause, and vice versa.  In your analysis, the main clause (言之) does not have an explicit subject and yet the subordinate clause (貌若甚戚者) has one (i.e., 貌).  It is rather atypical.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

The thread is getting more and more interesting. I think it'd be a pity if we were the only participants.
So I'll start a new thread devoted to 者 meaning ...的樣子 in Mandarin to invite more discussion.


----------

