白馬非馬，可乎？
可。
曰：何哉？
曰：馬者，所以命形也；白者，所以命色也。命色者非命形也。
故曰：白馬非馬。
白話翻譯
〔客：〕白馬不是馬，可以這樣說嗎？
〔主：〕可以的。
〔客：〕為什麼呢？
〔主：〕「馬」這個詞是指形狀；「白」這個詞是指顏色。
指顏色的詞不同於指形狀的詞。
所以說：「白馬非馬」。
英語翻譯
[Client:] Can we say that a white horse is not a horse?
[Philosopher]: Yes, that is correct.
[Client]: Why is that?
[Philosopher] : The word "horse" refers to the shape or form, while the word "white" refers to the color. A word denoting color is different from a word denoting shape. Therefore, we can say "a white horse is not a horse".
2. 曰：有白馬，不可謂無馬也。不可謂無馬者，非馬也。
白話翻譯
〔客：〕有白馬，不可以說沒有馬吧。
不可以說沒有馬，難道（白馬）不就是馬嗎？
有白馬是為有馬，但白的（馬）就不是馬，這是為什麼？
英語翻譯
[Client]: If there is a white horse, we cannot say there is no horse, right? We cannot say there is no horse, so isn't the (white) one still a horse? If there is a white horse, it means there is a horse, but the white (horse) is not a horse. Why is that?
3. 曰：
求馬，黃、黑馬皆可致；
求白馬，黃、黑馬不可致。
使白馬乃馬也，是所求一也。
所求一者，白馬不異馬也；
所求不異，如黃、黑馬有可有不可，何也？
可與不可，其相非明。
故黃、黑馬一也，而可以應有馬，
而不可以應有白馬。
白馬之非馬，審矣！
白話翻譯
〔主：〕若只是要一匹馬，找到黃馬或黑馬都可以；
若要一匹白馬，就不能找一匹黃馬或黑馬來充數。
如果說「白馬」就是「馬」，這就表示找的對象理應相同。
若是找的對象相同，那就是白馬跟馬沒有差別。
然而若是找的對象沒有差別，
為什麼有時黃馬黑馬算數有時又不算數呢？
有時可以有時不可以，可以與不可以顯然是互相排斥的。
所以黃馬、黑馬是一回事，都可以回答說有馬，
但不可以回答說有白馬。
可見白馬不是馬，這是再明白不過的。
英語翻譯
[Philosopher]: If you just need a horse, you can find a yellow horse or a black horse. But if you want a white horse specifically, you cannot substitute it with a yellow horse or a black horse. If "white horse" is the same as "horse", it means the object being sought should be the same. If the object being sought is the same, then there should be no difference between a white horse and a horse. However, if there is no difference in the object being sought, why is it that sometimes a yellow horse or a black horse can count, but sometimes they cannot? The ability and inability to count them are clearly mutually exclusive. So a yellow horse and a black horse are the same thing, and you can answer that there is a horse, but you cannot answer that there is a white horse. Therefore, it is obvious that a white horse is not a horse.
4. 曰：
以馬之有色為非馬，天下非有無色之馬也。
天下無馬可乎？
曰：
馬固有色，故有白馬。
使馬無色，有馬如已（「而已」）耳，安取白馬？
故白者非馬也。
白馬者，馬與白也。馬與白，馬也？
故曰：白馬非馬也。
白話翻譯
〔客：〕
如果認為馬有顏色就不是馬，但天下沒有無色之馬啊。
說天下沒有馬，可以嗎？
〔主：〕
馬當然有顏色，所以才有白馬。
如果馬沒有顏色，那就只能叫做「馬」，哪裡還得到「白馬」這個名稱？
因此我說「白的」不是「馬」，
所謂「白馬」，就是「馬」與「白」兩個詞（加在一起）。
「馬」與「白」加起來等於「馬」嗎？所以才說白馬不是馬啊。
英語翻譯
[Client]: If you think that a horse with color is not a horse, but there are no horses without color in the world. Can you say that there are no horses in the world?
[Philosopher]: Of course horses have color, which is why there are white horses. If horses had no color, then you could only call them "horses", and where would the term "white horse" come from? Therefore, I say that "the white" is not "the horse". The so-called "white horse" is the two words "horse" and "white" (put together). Does "horse" plus "white" equal "horse"? That's why I say a white horse is not a horse.
5. 曰：
馬未與白為馬，白未與馬為白。
合馬與白，復名白馬。是相與以不相與為名。
故曰：
白馬非馬未可。
白話翻譯
〔客：〕
「馬」這個詞在未與「白」這個詞接觸之前，
它是（單獨的）「馬」；
「白」在未與「馬」接觸之前，它是（單獨的）「白」。
把「馬」和「白」兩個詞連起來，複合而成「白馬」這個名稱。
這是以兩個單獨（不相與）之詞結合（相與）而成的一個名稱。
因此我們不能說「白馬」非「馬」。
英語翻譯
[Client]: The word "horse" is (simply) "horse" before it comes into contact with the word "white"; "white" is (simply) "white" before it comes into contact with "horse". When you connect the two words "horse" and "white", they are compounded to form the name "white horse". This is a name formed by the combination (interaction) of two separate (non-interacting) words.
Therefore, we cannot say that "white horse" is not "horse".
6. 曰：
白者不定所白，忘之而可也。
白馬者，言白定所白也。
定所白者，非白也。
馬者，無去取於色，故黃、黑皆所以應。
白馬者，有去取於色，故黃、黑馬皆所以色去，
故唯白馬獨可以應耳。無去者非有去也。
故曰：白馬非馬。
白話翻譯
〔主：〕
單獨的「白」沒有確定所指的白物，可以不論（可以忘掉）。
但在「白馬」這個詞中，「白」是有所定白的。
有所定白的「白」就不是不定所白的「白」。
至於「馬」，這個詞是不對顏色有所選擇的，
因此答以黃馬、黑馬都算數。
至於「白馬」，這就不同了，
它是有顏色的選擇的，因此排除了黃馬、黑馬，
而只有應以白馬才算數。
不具排除作用的就不是具有排除作用的。
所以說：白馬非馬。
英語翻譯
[Philosopher]: The standalone "white" does not have a definite referent, so it can be ignored (disregarded). But in the word "white horse", the "white" has a definite whiteness. A "white" with a definite whiteness is not the same as an indefinite "white". As for "horse", this word does not make a selection based on color, so answering with a yellow horse or a black horse would both count.
However, "white horse" is different. It makes a color selection, so it excludes yellow horses and black horses, and only a white horse would count. What does not have an excluding function is not the same as what does have an excluding function. Therefore, I say: a white horse is not a horse.
7. 曰：
有白馬不可謂無馬者，離白之謂也。
不離者有白馬不可謂有馬也。
故所以為有馬者，獨以馬為有馬耳，非以白馬為有馬。
故其為有馬也，不可以謂「馬，馬也」？
白話翻譯
〔客：〕
有白馬不能說沒有馬，那就是說「白」是可以（跟「馬」）分離的。
如果不能分離就不可以說有白馬為有馬。
因此所以認為有馬，是因為「白馬」中有個「馬」字而說有馬，
並非因為「白馬」兩個字而說有馬。
既然可以這樣解釋「有馬」，
難道還不能說（「白馬」一詞中的）「馬」就是指「馬」嗎？
英語翻譯
[Client]: Having a white horse does not mean there is no horse, which means that "white" can be separated (from "horse"). If they cannot be separated, then you cannot say that having a white horse means having a horse. Therefore, the reason for thinking there is a horse is because there is the character "horse" in "white horse", and not because of the two-character word "white horse". Since we can explain "having a horse" in this way, why can't we say that the "horse" in the term "white horse" simply refers to "horse"?
8. 曰：
以有白馬為有馬，謂有馬為有黃馬，可乎？
白話翻譯
〔主：〕
認為有白馬為有馬，可以說有馬即是有黃馬嗎？
英語翻譯
[Philosopher]: If you believe that having a white horse means having a horse, can you then say that having a horse means having a yellow horse?
9. 曰：
未可。
曰：
以有「馬」為異有「黃馬」，是異「黃馬」於「馬」也；
異「黃馬」於「馬」，是以「黃馬」為非「馬」。
以「黃馬」為非「馬」，而以「白馬」為「馬」，
此飛者入池而棺槨異處，此天下之悖言亂辭也。
白話翻譯
〔客：〕
還不可以這樣說。
〔主：〕
認為有「馬」不同於有「黃馬」，這是把「黃馬」跟「馬」視為相異；
把「黃馬」跟「馬」視為相異，就是認為「黃馬」不是「馬」。
認為「黃馬」不是「馬」，但又認為「白馬」是「馬」，
這豈非就像空中飛的進到水裡去，棺、槨被分放在不同地方，
這不是天下之悖言亂辭是什麼！
英語翻譯
[Client]: You cannot say it that way.
[Philosopher]: Believing that having a "horse" is different from having a "yellow horse" means treating "yellow horse" and "horse" as distinct. Treating "yellow horse" and "horse" as distinct means believing that "yellow horse" is not "horse". Believing that "yellow horse" is not "horse", but also believing that "white horse" is "horse" - is this not like a flying thing entering the water, or a coffin and its inner lining being placed in different places? What else would you call such contradictory and confusing language?