百乘之家

Chinese

		a hundred chariots	's; him/her/it; this	home; family; ‑ist home; family; ‑ist; ‑er; ‑ian; measure word for stores and schools
trad. (百乘之家)		百乘	之	家
simp. ^#(百乘之家)		百乘	之	家

Pronunciation

Mandarin
(Pinyin): bǎishèng zhī jiā

(Zhuyin): ㄅㄞˇ ㄕㄥˋ ㄓㄐㄧㄚ

Mandarin
- (Standard Chinese)⁺
  - Hanyu Pinyin: bǎishèng zhī jiā
  - Zhuyin: ㄅㄞˇ ㄕㄥˋ ㄓㄐㄧㄚ
  - Tongyong Pinyin: bǎishèng jhih jia
  - Wade–Giles: pai³-shêng⁴ chih¹ chia¹
  - Yale: bǎi-shèng jr̄ jyā
  - Gwoyeu Romatzyh: baeshenq jy jia
  - Palladius: байшэн чжи цзя (bajšɛn čži czja)
  - Sinological IPA ^(key): /paɪ̯²¹⁴⁻²¹ ʂɤŋ⁵¹ ʈ͡ʂʐ̩⁵⁵ t͡ɕi̯ä⁵⁵/

Noun

百乘之家

(historical) family of a hundred chariots
- 求也，千室之邑，百乘之家，可使為之宰也，不知其仁也。 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
  求也，千室之邑，百乘之家，可使为之宰也，不知其仁也。 [Classical Chinese, simp.]
  From: The Analects of Confucius, c. 475 – 221 BCE, translated based on James Legge's version
  Qiú yě, qiānshì zhī yì, bǎishèng zhī jiā, kě shǐ wéi zhī zǎi yě, bù zhī qí rén yě. [Pinyin]
  Qiu, in a city of a thousand families, or a clan of a hundred chariots, might be employed as governor, but I do not know whether he is perfectly virtuous.
- 萬乘之國弒其君者，必千乘之家；千乘之國弒其君者，必百乘之家。 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
  万乘之国弑其君者，必千乘之家；千乘之国弑其君者，必百乘之家。 [Classical Chinese, simp.]
  From: Mencius, c. 4^th century BCE, translated based on James Legge's version
  Wànshèng zhī guó shì qí jūn zhě, bì qiānshèng zhī jiā; qiānshèng zhī guó shì qí jūn zhě, bì bǎishèng zhī jiā. [Pinyin]
  In the kingdom of ten thousand chariots, the murderer of his sovereign shall be the chief of a family of a thousand chariots. In the kingdom of a thousand chariots, the murderer of his prince shall be the chief of a family of a hundred chariots.
- 百乘之家，不畜聚斂之臣。與其有聚斂之臣，寧有盜臣。 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
  百乘之家，不畜聚敛之臣。与其有聚敛之臣，宁有盗臣。 [Classical Chinese, simp.]
  From: The Book of Rites, c. 4^th – 2^nd century BCE, translated based on James Legge's version
  Bǎishèng zhī jiā, bù xù jùliǎn zhī chén. Yǔqí yǒu jùliǎn zhī chén, nìng yǒu dàochén. [Pinyin]
  So, the house which possesses a hundred chariots should not keep a minister to look out for imposts that he may lay them on the people. Than to have such a minister, it were better for that house to have one who should rob it of its revenues.