Confucius has just been mocked for asking about every detail in the temple, and his whole answer is three characters: 是禮也, “this, ritual”. Legge gives it the bare “This is a rule of propriety”. But five translators hear something more emphatic in the 也 and add a word for it:

• Slingerland: “This asking is, in fact, part of ritual”
• Ni: “It is itself a ritual”
• Roberts: “That in and of itself is ceremonial!”
• Lau: “The asking of questions is in itself the correct rite”
• Ames & Rosemont: “To do so is itself observing ritual propriety”

That’s a good instinct. A one-word answer sealed with 也 is a firm answer.

Here 也 closes a bare noun phrase, 古之道, “the way of the ancients”, and nothing else. There’s no verb in the Chinese at all. All eight translators add one. Legge, Roberts, Lau, Watson, Chin write “This was the old way”, and Slingerland, Ni, Ames & Rosemont write “Such is the ancient Way”.

That verb is what 也 tells you: a whole sentence has just been asserted, not a phrase left hanging. The way of the ancients, in case you’re wondering, is that archery isn’t judged by whether you pierce the hide.

The 者⋯也 frame at its shortest. 者 marks 政 as the thing being defined, and 也 seals the definition. Watch what the translators do with the missing verb:

• Ames & Rosemont: “Governing effectively is doing what is proper”
• Lau, Watson, and Chin: “To govern is to correct”
• Legge and Roberts: “To govern means to rectify”
• Slingerland and Ni: “To govern means to be correct”

Every one of them supplies a verb the Chinese doesn’t have. And there’s a pun here you can’t hear in English: 政 and 正 sound exactly the same, so Confucius is defining a word with its own sound.

The setup is long, then 是知也 closes it: 是 points back at everything just said, 知 is the verdict, and 也 seals it. The verb in the English is the translator’s doing, not a translation of 是, which just means “this”:

• Legge: “this is knowledge”
• Watson: “That’s what knowing is”
• Roberts: “it means telling what you know from what you don’t”

Seven of the eight go with “is” or “that’s”. This is the commonest shape you’ll see this 也 in, and the cleanest.

Four names, four 也, four verdicts: 柴也愚，參也魯，師也辟，由也喭. Each 也 sets up “as for Chai⋯”, “as for Shen⋯”. English has no pause to match, so all eight translators just write “is”. Legge writes “Chai is simple. Shen is dull. Shi is specious. Yu is coarse.”, and Slingerland writes “Zigao is simple-minded, Master Zeng is dull⋯”.

The 也 is what turns a name into a topic, and the “is” is where it went.

The 也 marks 其為人, “his being a person”, as the topic: as for his character, he’s filial and respectful. Two ways to handle the seam. Lau writes it out: “a man whose character is such that he is good as a son”, and Legge lets it vanish: “being filial and fraternal”, where the “being” comes from 為, not from 也.

也者 doubles the pause: the topic is named, then held up for you to look at. Ames & Rosemont write it straight: “As for filial and fraternal responsibility”, and the other seven just start with the topic and let the word order do the work: “Filial piety and fraternal love—they are the root⋯” (Ni).

Notice that the sentence itself ends in 與, the question particle, not 也. This 也 is doing the pausing, not the closing.

Two topics set up the same way: 始吾於人也, “at first, with people”, and 今吾於人也, “now, with people”. The 也 closes each topic and then the sentence gets on with what changed. Watson keeps the shape and the comma: “At first, when it came to people, I listened to their words and trusted their conduct. Now, when it comes to people⋯”. This is the passage where Zai Yu got caught sleeping in the daytime.

Here the explanation announces itself: 故也, “this is the reason”. When 故 sits in front of it, the 也 is closing a sentence whose only job is to give the reason, in this case why the rites of Xia and Yin can’t be documented anymore:

• Legge: “because of the insufficiency of their records and wise men”
• Slingerland, Ni, Lau, Chin: “This is because⋯”
• Ames & Rosemont: “It is because⋯”
• Watson: “This is due to the lack of records”

The 也 closes the reason: offend Heaven, and there’s nowhere left to pray. Chinese puts the marker at the end. English puts the logic at the front instead:

• Lau: “When you have offended against Heaven, there is nowhere you can turn to in your prayers”
• Roberts turns it into a question: “If you affront heaven who will hear your prayers?”
• Watson gets the same finality out of punctuation: “you have nowhere to turn for forgiveness!”

Confucius has just been told by two farmers to give up on the world, and this 也 seals the reason he won’t. Two translators write the join as a word. Slingerland has “If the Way were realized in the world, then I would not need to change anything”, and Chin has “The world has a moral way, [I know,] so I will not change places with those two”. Both put the connector in the middle where the 也 sits at the end, but it’s the same work.

Same shape as 3.13. 不以其道得之，不處也 is a bare condition and its consequence, with 也 sealing the consequence. English opens it instead: “If” from Legge, Ni, Ames & Rosemont, Watson, and Chin, and “Unless” from Slingerland, Roberts, and Lau. Either way the English tells you at the start what the Chinese tells you with 也 at the end.

Zizhang’s question, 十世可知也, has no question word in it at all. Just the closing 也 and the tone of voice. Nobody has a word for the particle:

• Slingerland, Ni, Ames & Rosemont, Watson, Chin put the verb first: “Can we know⋯?”
• Lau: “Can ten generations hence be known?”
• Legge reports it instead of quoting it: “asked whether the affairs of ten ages after could be known”

The inversion and the question mark are all that’s left of the 也. Then look at Confucius’s answer, which ends in exactly the same three characters, 可知也, and this time it’s a statement.

何謂也, “what is meant?”, is the book’s standard way of asking for an explanation. Here it’s Fan Chi asking. 何 does the asking and 也 does the closing. All eight translators write “What did you mean?” or “What does that mean?”, and none of them has a word for the particle. You’ll see the same three characters at 3.8, 3.13, 4.15, 12.22, and 14.40.

Zigong has just been told he’s a vessel, and he asks which kind: 何器也. Two characters of question and one of closing particle. Legge’s “What utensil?” has a question mark for the 也 and nothing else, and that’s all the English there is to give it.

也與 is the closing 也 with the question particle stuck on after it, and the pair is what the English answers:

• Legge: “asked about Zhongyou, whether he was fit to be employed”
• Lau: “Is Chung Yu good enough to be given office?”
• Chin: “Is Zhongyou qualified to hold government office?”

Which of the two characters the “whether” belongs to, I couldn’t tell you. The 也 rounds off the clause and the 與 asks, and English does both at once. Ji Kangzi asks the same thing three times, about three disciples.