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?

  • 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
    Apr 20, 2015 at 4:01

3 Answers 3


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.

  • 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。” Apr 19, 2015 at 12:31


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

弗:does not,never


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


不去:does not lose。

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


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).

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.