The thing I do not understand about the above translation is that the translator seems to have ignored the characters 而(이) and 矣(의). What is the purpose of 而(이) in the above sentence? Wouldn't it make better sense if it were not there? Also, doesn't 矣(의) indicate an action has already been completed? If so, then why wasn't the sentence translated in the past tense? Is it possible that the above translation is wrong?
"A sage, I shall not get to see." (ex. 292, Analects)
聖人(성인) - sage
吾(오) - I
不得(부득) - not get
而(이) - ??
見(이견) - to see
之(지) - him
矣(의) - (doesn't it indicate past tense?)
In Korean, the word 부득이 (不得已) means "unavoidably" or "obliged," which just happens to have the same pronunciation as the 不得而 (부득이) in the sentence above. Isn't it possible that the 不得而 in the above sentence was meant to mean "obliged," and that the sentence was meant to be in the past tense? Also, wasn't he addressing the sage, instead of referring to him?
Consider my suggested translation:
聖人吾不得而(已?)見之矣 (성인은, 내가 그를 부득이 봤어요.)I am afraid I am ignorant of the text in question, so my translation may not make any sense in the context of things, but, if so, could someone please explain to me the meaning of 而(이) and 矣(의) in the original sentence? Is it just a conincidence that 不得已(부득이) and 不得而(부득이) have the same pronunciation in Korean?
"Sage, I was obliged to see him."