〈禮記．檀弓上〉孔子曰：「之死而致死之，不仁而不可為也；之死而致生之，不知而不可為也。是故，竹不成用，瓦不成味，木不成斲，琴瑟張而不平，竽笙備而不和，有鐘謦而無簨虡，其曰明器，神明之也。」鄭玄注云：「成猶善也。竹不可善用，謂邊無滕；味當作沬，沬，靧也。」孔穎達正義曰：「成，善也，故為器用並不精善也。……瓦不成味者，味，猶黑光也。今世亦呼黑為沬也。瓦不善沬，謂瓦器無光澤也。」又云：「鄭注云：味當作沬；沬，靧也。靧謂靧面。證沬為光澤也。」學者大抵遵從此說。高本漢先生《禮記注釋》一書，運用精審之語言文字考證功夫，列論諸家《禮記》疏解之得失凡591則，每有正本清源獨到之處，而為學者所稱譽。其中屬於假借相關議題部分共277則，大抵皆能就文字運用之假借途徑以及還原本字之原則進行論述。就「瓦不成味」一句則依郝懿行所主張，用「味」的本音、本義說解，以為他的意皆為：「瓦製的器皿（盛著食物，吃起來也）沒有什麼味道。」本文試以訓詁學言必有據之態度，檢討鄭注、孔疏以及高本漢先生《禮記注釋》的說法，以為注疏的說解，雖則必須輾轉引申而且未必精當，但仍有其可說之理；高本漢先生的注釋，雖然基於郝懿行的主張，卻與本指相去太遠，而有可以商榷的餘地。

In Liji (The Book of Rites) ＂Tan Gong I＂ chapter Kong Yinda refers to Zheng Xuan's interpretation and explains that the significance of the phrase ＂Wa (earthenware) Bu (not) Chen (perfection) Wei (luster) should be interpreted as ＂an imperfect earthenware has no luster＂. Most of the scholars would agree with his interpretation. In his ＂Annotation to the Book of Rites (Liji Zhu Shi)＂, Klas Bernhard Johannes Karlgren, with his precise textual research and criticism, had listed 591 interpretations on annotations for The Book of Rites. His interpretations were highly valued by scholars since he was able to evaluate the merits and demerits of the interpretations of different schools. Among them, 277 entries are derived from the Chinese classification method of rebus or phonetic loan characters (jiajie), and they are mostly understandable following this method in the discourse. Nevertheless, Karlgren quoted Hao Yi Xing and focused on the phonetic and literal meanings of the character and asserted that in the phrase ＂Wa (earthenware) Bu (not) Chen (perfection) Wei (luster)＂ the word ＂Wei＂ should be interpreted as ＂the earthenware (even if filled with food) makes no taste to the food＂. This paper aims to examine interpretations offered by Zheng Xuan, Kong Yin Da, and Klas Bernhard Johannes Karlgren from a classical Chinese linguistic point of view and proposes that though Karlgren had referred his interpretation to Hao Yi Xing, his interpretation is out of the context and must be reconsidered.