Where it came from
What 與 first meant, how it became a function word, and where it stands today.
The early forms show hands passing something between parties, giving, joining, and every use on this page flows from that: give, take part, accompany, “and”. The verb “give” was replaced by 給, the conjunction by 和 and 跟, and the final question particle eventually got its own character, 歟, and then died with classical prose. What survives in the modern language is the joining: 參與 “to participate”, 給與 “to grant”, and the frame 與其⋯不如, “rather than”.
Across the books
Densest in Book 9 (16 occurrences).
- 19
- 21
- 36
- 44
- 512
- 68
- 711
- 82
- 916
- 106
- 1111
- 127
- 133
- 149
- 1511
- 164
- 178
- 1810
- 195
- 201
How it works
Every job 與 does, counted over its 144 occurrences in the Analects — commonest first. Tap a passage number to see the whole passage.
- Noun conjunction 59× · 41%
- Comitative preposition
- Question particle (yú) 50× · 35%
- The verb "to give" (yǔ) 9× · 6%
- The verb "to join, side with" (yù) 18× · 13%
- Rather than: 與其⋯寧 6× · 4%
1Noun conjunction59× · 41%
This 與 joins two things, like modern 和 or 跟. Only things. Actions get joined by 而, never by 與.
- Two nouns: 富與貴, “wealth and rank”
- Two noun phrases: 上知與下愚
- Alternatives, where English turns the “and” into “or”: 冕衣裳者與瞽者
Gloss and (like 和)
Look for noun 與 noun — and, in a question with 孰, “or”.
Technical marks a companion or links two terms together, translatable as with or and
4 examples
子曰：「唯上知與下愚不移。」
The Master said: "There are only the wise of the highest class, and the stupid of the lowest class, who cannot be changed."
Legge 1861
Two noun phrases, three characters each, joined by one 與 and sharing a single predicate: 上知與下愚. All eight translators write “and”. Modern Chinese would say 和 here and nothing else would change.
子見齊衰者、冕衣裳者與瞽者，見之，雖少必作；過之，必趨。
When the Master saw a person in a mourning dress, or any one with the cap and upper and lower garments of full dress, or a blind person, on observing them approaching, though they were younger than himself, he would rise up, and if he had to pass by them, he would do so hastily.
Legge 1861
When the joined nouns are alternatives, English turns the “and” into “or”, and all eight translators do that here for the three kinds of person Confucius rose for. The list’s first join is a bare pause; only the last takes the particle, 冕衣裳者與瞽者, the same way English puts its “or” only before the last item.
子貢曰：「夫子之文章，可得而聞也；夫子之言性與天道，不可得而聞也。」
Zigong said: "The Master's personal displays of his principles and ordinary descriptions of them may be heard. His discourses about man's nature, and the way of Heaven, cannot be heard."
Legge 1861
性與天道, the two things Zigong says the Master couldn’t be heard on. Seven translators write “and”, and Slingerland writes “or”, since not hearing about either comes to the same thing.
Notice what 與 can’t join: 言 and 聞, the verbs of the sentence, are linked by 而, not 與.
子曰：「富與貴是人之所欲也，不以其道得之，不處也；貧與賤是人之所惡也，不以其道得之，不去也。君子去仁，惡乎成名？君子無終食之間違仁，造次必於是，顛沛必於是。」
The Master said: "Riches and honors are what men desire. If it cannot be obtained in the proper way, they should not be held. Poverty and meanness are what men dislike. If it cannot be avoided in the proper way, they should not be avoided.
If a superior man abandon virtue, how can he fulfill the requirements of that name?
The superior man does not, even for the space of a single meal, act contrary to virtue. In moments of haste, he cleaves to it. In seasons of danger, he cleaves to it."
Legge 1861
The conjunction in its plainest form, 富與貴, and every translator writes “and”. The sentence pairs it a moment later with 貧與賤, poverty and low station: two nouns joined, twice, and the same particle both times.
2Comitative prepositioncounted within the senses above
“With”: dealings, sharing, association. Modern 跟 and 和 again. Grammarians call this comitative, which just means it marks company. The corpus counts these together with the conjunction, since “A with B” and “A and B” are one construction seen from two sides.
- Before the person, then the verb: 與回言, “with Hui talk”
- Sharing: 與朋友共
- Object first, preposition left standing: 鳥獸不可與同群
Gloss with (like 跟)
Look for 與 + the person, then the verb of dealing or sharing.
5 examples
顏淵、季路侍。子曰：「盍各言爾志？」子路曰：「願車馬、衣輕裘，與朋友共。敝之而無憾。」顏淵曰：「願無伐善，無施勞。」子路曰：「願聞子之志。」子曰：「老者安之，朋友信之，少者懷之。」
Yan Yuan and Jilu being by his side, the Master said to them, "Come, let each of you tell his wishes."
Zilu said: "I should like, having chariots and horses, and light fur dresses, to share them with my friends, and though they should spoil them, I would not be displeased."
Yan Yuan said: "I should like not to boast of my excellence, nor to make a display of my meritorious deeds."
Zilu then said: "I should like, sir, to hear your wishes."
The Master said: "They are, in regard to the aged, to give them rest; in regard to friends, to show them sincerity; in regard to the young, to treat them tenderly."
Legge 1861
Zilu’s wish: carriages, horses, and furs, 與朋友共, shared with friends. Seven translators write “with my friends”, and Watson recasts it: “I and my friends could share”, where the 與 has become the “and” of the other usage.
The two are the same word.
子曰：「吾與回言終日，不違如愚。退而省其私，亦足以發。回也，不愚。」
The Master said: "I have talked with Hui for a whole day, and he has not made any objection to anything I said; — as if he were stupid. He has retired, and I have examined his conduct when away from me, and found him able to illustrate my teachings. Hui! — He is not stupid."
Legge 1861
與 before the person, then the verb: 與回言, “with Hui talk”. Six translators write “talk with Hui”, and Lau and Chin write “speak to Hui”.
The shape 與⋯言, “speak with someone”, recurs eleven times in the book.
長沮、桀溺耦而耕，孔子過之，使子路問津焉。長沮曰：「夫執輿者為誰？」子路曰：「為孔丘。」曰：「是魯孔丘與？」曰：「是也。」曰：「是知津矣。」問於桀溺，桀溺曰：「子為誰？」曰：「為仲由。」曰：「是魯孔丘之徒與？」對曰：「然。」曰：「滔滔者天下皆是也，而誰以易之？且而與其從辟人之士也，豈若從辟世之士哉？」耰而不輟。子路行以告。夫子憮然曰：「鳥獸不可與同群，吾非斯人之徒與而誰與？天下有道，丘不與易也。」
Changju and Jieni were at work in the field together, when Confucius passed by them, and sent Zilu to inquire for the ford.
Changju said: "Who is he that holds the reins in the carriage there?" Zilu told him: "It is Kong Qiu." "Is it not Kong Qiu of Lu?" asked he. "Yes," was the reply, to which the other rejoined: "He knows the ford."
Zilu then inquired of Jieni, who said to him: "Who are you, sir?" He answered: "I am Zhongyou." "Are you not the disciple of Kong Qiu of Lu?" asked the other. "I am," replied he, and then Jieni said to him: "Disorder, like a swelling flood, spreads over the whole empire, and who is he that will change its state for you? Than follow one who merely withdraws from this one and that one, had you not better follow those who have withdrawn from the world altogether?"
With this he fell to covering up the seed, and proceeded with his work, without stopping. Zilu went and reported their remarks, when the Master observed with a sigh: "It is impossible to associate with birds and beasts, as if they were the same with us. If I associate not with these people — with mankind — with whom shall I associate? If right principles prevailed through the empire, there would be no use for me to change its state."
Legge 1861
Every translator writes “with”. The object of 與 comes first here, 鳥獸不可與同群, “birds and beasts, cannot with-them flock together”, so the preposition stands with nothing after it, which is why it can look like a verb. Confucius is answering the two recluses in the field.
曾子曰：「吾日三省吾身：為人謀而不忠乎？與朋友交而不信乎？傳不習乎？」
The philosopher Zeng said: "I daily examine myself on three points: — whether, in transacting business for others, I may have been not faithful; — whether, in intercourse with friends, I may have been not sincere; — whether I may have not mastered and practiced the instructions of my teacher."
Legge 1861
Master Zeng’s second daily question. 與朋友交, “deal with friends”, is treated by the corpus as one unit, and every translator renders it with a noun of relation:
- Legge: “intercourse with friends”
- Slingerland, Ames & Rosemont: “interactions with”
- Lau, Watson: “dealings with”; Chin: “relationship with”
The “with” is the particle’s share. The same four characters open Zixia’s line at 1.7.
朝，與下大夫言，侃侃如也；與上大夫言，誾誾如也。君在，踧踖如也。與與如也。
When he was waiting at court, in speaking with the great officers of the lower grade, he spake freely, but in a straightforward manner; in speaking with those of the higher grade, he did so blandly, but precisely.
When the ruler was present, his manner displayed respectful uneasiness; it was grave, but self-possessed.
Legge 1861
Eight translators, sixteen “with”s. 與下大夫言, 與上大夫言. The passage is describing manner, and the 與 phrase, whom he is speaking with, is the whole condition on which the manner changes.
3Question particle (yú)50× · 35%
At the end of a sentence, read yú and later written 歟, this 與 asks a question, but more gently than 乎. It’s closer to “⋯, I suppose?” or modern 吧 than to a blunt 嗎. The translators split two ways, and both are right. A soft question and a tentative claim are the same thing said two ways.
- A tag question: “⋯, was he?”, “is he not?”
- A hedge: “perhaps”, “I suspect”, “I dare say”
- Common frames: 其⋯與, 也與, 者與
Gloss ⋯? ⋯, I suppose? (like 吧)
Look for sentence-final; often 也與 or 者與.
Technical sentence-final, or occasionally medial, particle marking a question, exclamation, or tentative assertion, equivalent to 歟
4 examples
子貢曰：「管仲非仁者與？桓公殺公子糾，不能死，又相之。」子曰：「管仲相桓公，霸諸侯，一匡天下，民到于今受其賜。微管仲，吾其被髮左衽矣。豈若匹夫匹婦之為諒也，自經於溝瀆，而莫之知也。」
Zigong said: "Guan Zhong, I apprehend, was wanting in virtue. When the Duke Huan caused his brother Jiu to be killed, Guan Zhong was not able to die with him. Moreover, he became prime minister to Huan."
The Master said: "Guan Zhong acted as prime minister to the Duke Huan, made him leader of all the princes, and united and rectified the whole kingdom. Down to the present day, the people enjoy the gifts which he conferred. But for Guan Zhong, we should now be wearing our hair unbound, and the lappets of our coats buttoning on the left side.
Will you require from him the small fidelity of common men and common women, who would commit suicide in a stream or ditch, no one knowing anything about them?"
Legge 1861
Zigong’s question wants agreement, and the softness of 與 in 非仁者與 is what makes it a leading question rather than a demand:
- A tag: Slingerland, Ni, Watson, “Guan Zhong was not a humane man, was he?”
- A hedge: Legge “I apprehend”, Roberts “Wouldn’t you say”, Lau “I don’t suppose”
- Chin drops it and states it flat
Confucius answers by defending Guan Zhong at length.
大宰問於子貢曰：「夫子聖者與？何其多能也？」子貢曰：「固天縱之將聖，又多能也。」子聞之，曰：「大宰知我乎！吾少也賤，故多能鄙事。君子多乎哉？不多也。」
A high officer asked Zigong, saying: "May we not say that your Master is a sage? How various is his ability!"
Zigong said: "Certainly Heaven has endowed him unlimitedly. He is about a sage. And, moreover, his ability is various."
The Master heard of the conversation and said: "Does the high officer know me? When I was young, my condition was low, and therefore I acquired my ability in many things, but they were mean matters. Must the superior man have such variety of ability? He does not need variety of ability."
Legge 1861
者與 closing a noun predicate: “a sage, isn’t he?”
- “is he not?”: Slingerland, Ames & Rosemont, Lau, Chin
- Ni: “Isn’t your Master a sage?”; Watson a plain question mark
- Legge: “May we not say that your Master is a sage?”
The Grand Steward isn’t doubting it. He’s leading up to the puzzle of why a sage should have so many small skills.
逸民：伯夷、叔齊、虞仲、夷逸、朱張、柳下惠、少連。子曰：「不降其志，不辱其身，伯夷、叔齊與！」謂：「柳下惠、少連，降志辱身矣。言中倫，行中慮，其斯而已矣。」謂：「虞仲、夷逸，隱居放言。身中清，廢中權。」「我則異於是，無可無不可。」
The men who have retired to privacy from the world have been Bo Yi, Shu Qi, Yu Zhong, Yi Yi, Zhu Zhang, Hui of Liuxia, and Shao Lian.
The Master said: "Refusing to surrender their wills, or to submit to any taint in their persons;— such, I think, were Bo Yi and Shu Qi.
It may be said of Hui of Liuxia, and of Shao Lian, that they surrendered their wills, and submitted to taint in their persons, but their words corresponded with reason, and their actions were such as men are anxious to see. This is all that is to be remarked in them.
It may be said of Yu Zhong and Yi Yi, that, while they hid themselves in their seclusion, they gave a license to their words; but, in their persons, they succeeded in preserving their purity, and, in their retirement, they acted according to the exigency of the times.
I am different from all these. I have no course for which I am predetermined, and no course against which I am predetermined."
Legge 1861
A name offered with a particle after it: 伯夷、叔齊與, “Bo Yi and Shu Qi, I suppose?”
- “perhaps”: Lau, Ni
- Roberts “I would say”; Watson “that would be Bo Yi and Shu Qi, would it not?”; Chin “that would be”
- Legge, Slingerland, and Ames & Rosemont state it flat: “such were Bo Yi and Shu Qi”
The 與 turns a verdict into a suggestion, which, from the Master, is a courtesy rather than a doubt.
有子曰：「其為人也孝弟，而好犯上者，鮮矣；不好犯上，而好作亂者，未之有也。君子務本，本立而道生。孝弟也者，其為仁之本與！」
The philosopher You said: "They are few who, being filial and fraternal, are fond of offending against their superiors. There have been none, who, not liking to offend against their superiors, have been fond of stirring up confusion.
The superior man bends his attention to what is radical. That being established, all practical courses naturally grow up. Filial piety and fraternal submission! — are they not the root of all benevolent actions?"
Legge 1861
The commonest frame for this 與 is 其⋯與, and the first line of the book’s second passage has it. Lau’s “perhaps” and Ames & Rosemont’s “I suspect” take the particle as a hedge. The other six make it a tag question, “are they not?”. Both readings are right. A soft question and a tentative claim are the same speech act.
4The verb "to give" (yǔ)9× · 6%
The root sense, still a full verb: “give”, “grant”. Modern Chinese replaced it with 給 but kept 與 in 給與 and 授與.
- With a thing given: 與之釜, “give her a fu of grain”
- Standing alone with its recipient: 乞諸其鄰而與之
- Beside the question particle in one line: 抑與之與, given to him?
Gloss to give, to grant
Look for 與 + recipient + thing given, or 與之 with a measure after it.
Technical verb meaning to give, grant, or bestow something on someone, including a position or rank
3 examples
子華使於齊，冉子為其母請粟。子曰：「與之釜。」請益。曰：「與之庾。」冉子與之粟五秉。子曰：「赤之適齊也，乘肥馬，衣輕裘。吾聞之也，君子周急不繼富。」
Zihua being employed on a mission to Qi, the disciple Ran requested grain for his mother. The Master said: "Give her a fu."
Ran requested more. "Give her an yu," said the Master.
Ran gave her five bing. The Master said: "When Chi was proceeding to Qi, he had fat horses to his carriage, and wore light furs. I have heard that a superior man helps the distressed, but does not add to the wealth of the rich."
Legge 1861
與 as an imperative verb with two objects, the person and the measure: 與之釜, give her a fu. Seven translators write “give”, and Roberts writes “let her have a day’s worth”.
The passage says it three times, 與之釜, 與之庾, then 與之粟五秉, as Ran Qiu overrides the Master’s figure.
子禽問於子貢曰：「夫子至於是邦也，必聞其政，求之與？抑與之與？」子貢曰：「夫子溫、良、恭、儉、讓以得之。夫子之求之也，其諸異乎人之求之與？」
Ziqin asked Zigong, saying: "When our master comes to any country, he does not fail to learn all about its government. Does he ask his information? or is it given to him?"
Zigong said: "Our master is benign, upright, courteous, temperate, and complaisant, and thus he gets his information. The master's mode of asking information! — is it not different from that of other men?"
Legge 1861
Two 與 in four characters, 抑與之與, and they’re different words. The first is the verb “give”, the second is the final question particle, read yú.
- “given”: Legge, Lau
- “offered”: Slingerland, Ni, Ames & Rosemont, Chin
- Roberts “furnish”; Watson “give”
This line is the neatest proof on the page that a character is not a word.
子曰：「孰謂微生高直？或乞醯焉，乞諸其鄰而與之。」
The Master said: "Who says of Weishang Gao that he is upright? One begged some vinegar of him, and he begged it of a neighbor and gave it to the man."
Legge 1861
Weisheng Gao, asked for vinegar he didn’t have, begged it from a neighbour 而與之, and gave it. Legge, Ni, Roberts, Watson, and Chin write “gave”, Lau “give”, Slingerland “present”, Ames & Rosemont “presented”. The 之 after the verb is the vinegar, and the man it went to is understood.
5The verb "to join, side with" (yù)18× · 13%
Read in the fourth tone: “take part in”, “join”, “side with”, “approve of”. Modern 參與, “participate”, keeps this reading alive.
- An activity as its object: 不與祭, “not take part in the sacrifice”
- A person: 吾與點也, “I am with Dian”
- Its opposite is 拒: 可者與之，不可者拒之
Gloss take part in; side with; approve
Look for 與 as the main verb, with a sacrifice, a person, or a cause as its object; often 吾與⋯ or 不與⋯.
Technical verb meaning to take part in, join, side with, or approve of someone or something
3 examples
祭如在，祭神如神在。子曰：「吾不與祭，如不祭。」
"Sacrifice as if they were present" means "sacrifice as if the spirits are present." The Master said, "If I am not fully present at the sacrifice, it is as if I did not sacrifice at all."
Editor's translation
Read the commentary
與祭, “take part in the sacrifice”:
- “take part”: Lau, Watson, Chin
- “participate”: Ni, Ames & Rosemont
- “being present at”: Legge; Slingerland “fully present”
When I did this passage in episode 16, I added “fully” too, mainly because plain “present” falls a bit flat in English. You can be present but mentally absent. I’m very familiar with that personally. The object here is an event, not a thing given or a person accompanied, which is the mark of this reading of the character, the one the dictionaries give the fourth tone.
子路、曾皙、冉有、公西華侍坐。子曰：「以吾一日長乎爾，毋吾以也。居則曰：『不吾知也！』如或知爾，則何以哉？」子路率爾而對曰：「千乘之國，攝乎大國之間，加之以師旅，因之以饑饉；由也為之，比及三年，可使有勇，且知方也。」夫子哂之。「求！爾何如？」對曰：「方六七十，如五六十，求也為之，比及三年，可使足民。如其禮樂，以俟君子。」「赤！爾何如？」對曰：「非曰能之，願學焉。宗廟之事，如會同，端章甫，願為小相焉。」「點！爾何如？」鼓瑟希，鏗爾，舍瑟而作。對曰：「異乎三子者之撰。」子曰：「何傷乎？亦各言其志也。」曰：「莫春者，春服既成。冠者五六人，童子六七人，浴乎沂，風乎舞雩，詠而歸。」夫子喟然歎曰：「吾與點也！」三子者出，曾皙後。曾皙曰：「夫三子者之言何如？」子曰：「亦各言其志也已矣。」曰：「夫子何哂由也？」曰：「為國以禮，其言不讓，是故哂之。」「唯求則非邦也與？」「安見方六七十如五六十而非邦也者？」「唯赤則非邦也與？」「宗廟會同，非諸侯而何？赤也為之小，孰能為之大？」
Zilu, Zeng Xi, Ran You, and Gongxi Hua were sitting by the Master. He said to them, "Though I am a day or so older than you, do not think of that. From day to day you are saying, 'We are not known.' If some ruler were to know you, what would you like to do?" Zilu hastily and lightly replied: "Suppose the case of a State of ten thousand chariots; let it be straitened between other large States; let it be suffering from invading armies; and to this let there be added a famine in corn and in all vegetables:— if I were entrusted with the government of it, in three years' time I could make the people to be bold, and to recognize the rules of righteous conduct." The Master smiled at him. Turning to Ran You, he said: "Qiu, what are your wishes?" Qiu replied: "Suppose a state of sixty or seventy li square, or one of fifty or sixty, and let me have the government of it;— in three years' time, I could make plenty to abound among the people. As to teaching them the principles of propriety, and music, I must wait for the rise of a superior man to do that." "What are your wishes, Chi," said the Master next to Gongxi Hua. Chi replied: "I do not say that my ability extends to these things, but I should wish to learn them. At the services of the ancestral temple, and at the audiences of the princes with the sovereign, I should like, dressed in the dark square-made robe and the black linen cap, to act as a small assistant." Last of all, the Master asked Zeng Xi, "Dian, what are your wishes?" Dian, pausing as he was playing on his lute, while it was yet twanging, laid the instrument aside, and rose. "My wishes," he said, "are different from the cherished purposes of these three gentlemen." "What harm is there in that?" said the Master; "do you also, as well as they, speak out your wishes." Dian then said: "In this, the last month of spring, with the dress of the season all complete, along with five or six young men who have assumed the cap, and six or seven boys, I would wash in the Yi, enjoy the breeze among the rain altars, and return home singing." The Master heaved a sigh and said: "I give my approval to Dian." The three others having gone out, Zeng Xi remained behind, and said: "What do you think of the words of these three friends?" The Master replied: "They simply told each one his wishes." Xi pursued, "Master, why did you smile at You?" He was answered: "The management of a State demands the rules of propriety. His words were not humble; therefore I smiled at him." Xi again said: "But was it not a State which Qiu proposed for himself?" The reply was, "Yes; did you ever see a territory of sixty or seventy li or one of fifty or sixty, which was not a State?" Once more, Xi inquired, "And was it not a State which Chi proposed for himself?" The Master again replied: "Yes; who but princes have to do with ancestral temples, and with audiences but the sovereign? If Chi were to be a small assistant in these services, who could be a great one?"
Legge 1861
The most famous 與 in the book. After three disciples’ political ambitions, Zeng Xi wishes only to bathe in the Yi and come home singing, and the Master sighs 吾與點也: “I side with Dian.” Slingerland, Ni, Ames & Rosemont, and Watson write “I am with”. Legge has “I give my approval to”, Lau “in favour of”, Chin “I am for”. To be with someone and to approve of them are one verb here.
子夏之門人問交於子張。子張曰：「子夏云何？」對曰：「子夏曰：『可者與之，其不可者拒之。』」子張曰：「異乎吾所聞：君子尊賢而容眾，嘉善而矜不能。我之大賢與，於人何所不容？我之不賢與，人將拒我，如之何其拒人也？」
The disciples of Zixia asked Zizhang about the principles that should characterize mutual intercourse. Zizhang asked: "What does Zixia say on the subject?" They replied: "Zixia says:— 'Associate with those who can advantage you. Put away from you those who cannot do so.'" Zizhang observed: "This is different from what I have learned. The superior man honors the talented and virtuous, and bears with all. He praises the good, and pities the incompetent. Am I possessed of great talents and virtue?— who is there among men whom I will not bear with? Am I devoid of talents and virtue?— men will put me away from them. What have we to do with the putting away of others?"
Legge 1861
Zixia’s rule of friendship as reported to Zizhang: 可者與之, join those who are acceptable, 不可者拒之, reject those who aren’t. Legge, Slingerland, Ni, Watson, and Chin write “associate with”; Roberts “work with”, Ames & Rosemont “join together with”, Lau “make friends with”. The verb is the opposite of 拒, and Zizhang objects that a gentleman tolerates everyone.
6Rather than: 與其⋯寧6× · 4%
A fixed comparison: 與其 A，寧 B, “rather than A, better B”. The 與 is the preposition “with” and 其 points at the option about to be rejected, so 與其A is literally “compared with that, A”. English collapses the frame into one “than”. The answer can be 寧, as in 與其奢也，寧儉, or 無寧 inside a question, as in 與其死於臣之手也，無寧⋯. There’s more on this frame on the 其 page.
Gloss than, rather than
Look for 與其 at the head of a clause, answered by 寧, 無寧, or 豈若 in the next.
Technical introduces the rejected option in a rather-than comparison, often paired with 其 and answered by 寧, 孰若, or 豈若
3 examples
子曰：「奢則不孫，儉則固。與其不孫也，寧固。」
The Master said: "Extravagance leads to insubordination, and parsimony to meanness. It is better to be mean than to be insubordinate."
Legge 1861
Of the two faults, presumption and shabbiness, the frame chooses shabbiness. “than” from Legge, Ni, Ames & Rosemont, Lau, Chin, and Slingerland alone keeps the Chinese order: “Compared to presumption, shabbiness is to be preferred”, and “compared to” is what 與其 says word for word.
林放問禮之本。子曰：「大哉問！禮，與其奢也，寧儉；喪，與其易也，寧戚。」
Lin Fang asked what was the first thing to be attended to in ceremonies. The Master said: "A great question indeed!
In festive ceremonies, it is better to be sparing than extravagant. In the ceremonies of mourning, it is better that there be deep sorrow than a minute attention to observances."
Legge 1861
與其奢也，寧儉: rather than extravagance, frugality. Every translator writes “than” or “rather than”, and every one of them reverses the order. English names the preferred thing first; Chinese names the rejected one first, with 與其 pointing at it. The frame comes again four characters later, 與其易也，寧戚.
子疾病，子路使門人為臣。病閒，曰：「久矣哉！由之行詐也，無臣而為有臣。吾誰欺？欺天乎？且予與其死於臣之手也，無寧死於二三子之手乎？且予縱不得大葬，予死於道路乎？」
The Master being very ill, Zilu wished the disciples to act as ministers to him.
During a remission of his illness, he said: "Long has the conduct of You been deceitful! By pretending to have ministers when I have them not, whom should I impose upon? Should I impose upon Heaven?
Moreover, than that I should die in the hands of ministers, is it not better that I should die in the hands of you, my disciples? And though I may not get a great burial, shall I die upon the road?"
Legge 1861
Answered by 無寧 instead of 寧, and set inside a question, but the same frame: 與其死於臣之手 names the death Confucius rejects, attended by sham ministers. Legge keeps the Chinese order: “than that I should die in the hands of ministers, is it not better⋯”, and the other seven turn it round: “would I not rather die in your hands than⋯”.