Rules

Negations

Omissions

I, We

You, You plural

He, She, It, They

Possessives

Poetic Uses of the Possessives

Reflexives

Indirect Discourse

Putative Adjective

Active and Passive

As the Verb "to be."

Omission of Yě with Adjective and Numbers

Ongoing Action

Gerund

Adverbs and Adverbial Yě

Temporary State

With a Complementary Infinitive

To Indicate Completion

Zhǐ

Implied Relative Clauses

Classical Chinese is taught in American colleges, if at all, with the greatest reluctance. Students are required to first take two or three years of modern Chinese, and only then exposed to classical texts. These are elucidated almost exclusively by bad translations into the modern language --- as though classical Chinese were nothing but modern Chinese with a lot of words left out.

Not only does this method not teach classical Chinese, it rarely works even to impart the modern tongue. Because of the difficulty of memorizing the characters, and the added trouble of all the words being monosyllables that sound like nothing in particular (though all too much like each other), learning Chinese is at best tortuous. One must review and re-review the same material, till it seeps at last, drop by hard-won drop, into long term memory. Now, if the material one is passing ever and again before one's eyes consists of banalities that, once mastered, will only enable one to annoy people in restaurants --- well, most men of imagination simply quit. Even if one does persist for years, and chokes down all the ugly simplified characters and the diet of trivial chatter, one is still quite unable to read a Tang poem or a line from Confucius.

How much better it would be to begin with the classical language! Because of the great simplicity of Chinese grammar, one could plunge into real literature on day one. There is no long apprenticeship (as there is for Indo-European languages) during which one must memorize noun and verb paradigms. One can learn the grammar with the vocabulary as one goes along. But instead students are made to suffer through years of conning how to buy bus tickets, ask directions and tell time (to list the principal marvels imparted.) Only then may they be exposed to a real literature which they could have read at once. This is a piece of malignant stupidity which one would be hard put to parallel.

Yet there is more. Not only is the student deprived of the immediate and easy rewards of his work, the hard work itself is made far harder. Memorize one must, there's no way around it. But one can get the same result by memorizing poetry and aphorisms rather than random vocabulary lists. Which is easier, which is likelier to live in memory and enrich the learner's life? Likewise the writing system is acquired with far less trouble via the traditional characters. Admittedly these have more lines, but they carry with them the traditional visual etymologies. More often than not these give accurate glimpses into the concepts the characters express. In the cases where they fail to do this, they are at least a rich source of folklore. Even if these two great intellectual treasures were lacking, the traditional etymologies make the meanings of the characters, and often the sounds as well, instantly memorable. Even if one's ultimate goal is knowledge of the modern language, this can be more easily attained via the ancient tongue than by starting with modern conversation, for the simple lexical reasons noted above.

I shall here present a concise grammar of the language, followed by a chrestomathy of classical texts chosen for their intrinsic interest and literary merit, with the object of giving the student material worth committing to memory. I assume a knowledge of pinyin and pronunciation, and the ability to copy characters, such as one may acquire from the first chapter of any good modern Chinese textbook.

Characters may be looked up at the Zhongwen website for the traditional etymology, and then looked up in The Chinese Character Dictionary for the radical. (See the Dictionary section of my China Bibliography page on the Invisible Books website for links to these resources.) The radical is what makes it possible to look up the character in the radical list of Mathews' dictionary (The alphabetizing of entries in Mathews is not easily used.) Mathews, whatever its shortcomings, remains the authority for meaning, since there is at present no better Chinese-English dictionary for the classical language. Never trust exclusively to the definitions Internet dictionaries supply.

Also, one can carry out one's dictionary work with a great savings of time, by acquiring the Wenlin software (http://www.wenlin.com) which has numerous further advantages, including a library of character-linked classical texts. Still, one should consult Mathews for the meanings: the Wenlin entries, though excellent, are not comprehensive.

Pulleyblank's An Outline of of Classical Chinese Grammar is also indispensable. Despite its shortcomings in analysis of syntax, it is invaluable for its treatment of important individual words. The excellent index is a treasure map to lexical understanding.

The student would also do well to invest in a Chinese language word processing program. I have acquired the NJStar (http://www.njstar.com/) with which I am abundantly satisfied. Being able to copy Chinese texts from the internet and read them using the various dictionary features has saved countless hours, and this little book of mine would have been impossible without the program.

The texts in the chrestomathy will be given in traditional characters, pinyin, literal and literary translation. A grammatical commentary will accompany each. I will reply to queries directed to me here.

The student of classical literature should also acquire a reprint of Legge's series of the Chinese classics. The translations are often helpful in their pedantic accuracy, but even more one wants them for the proofread texts. All sources I have found online, and even the text library in the Wenlin program, has a number of exchanged characters. Legge's good text clears up these matters. Beware of modern editions, which are almost all in simplified characters! The student will have enough to do learning the traditional ones.

This is a work in progress, which I shall be updating on a regular basis. The chrestomathy is as yet unposted. The grammar I post now, even in its incomplete and provisional form, since the clarifications I offer on number of topics are vitally important to the reader of classical Chinese, and nowhere else to be found. I shall be grateful to anyone who brings to my attention errors omissions.

This version was posted on November 15, 2009.

The Chinese themselves did not make a scientific study of their classical grammar, such as the Greeks or the Indians did. The traditional Chinese approach to the language is purely lexical. One learns the special idiomatic uses of the words by studying examples. Because of the great simplicity of Chinese, this approach is effective for handling most, though by no means all, points of syntax.

Traditional instruction in the Chinese classics is pretty much the same as what you'd find if you studied the Talmud at a yeshiva. The teacher reads and paraphrases into modern idiom as he goes. Sooner or later the student, who already knows Hebrew, picks up the closely cognate language of the Talmud, Aramaic. He develops "a feel" for the grammar. The merit of this approach is that it favors intuitive understanding. The shortcoming is that a really complete control of the grammar's fine points will remain elusive.

The scientific study of Chinese begins only with the grammars written by Christian missionaries in the 17th century. Though our knowledge of the modern language has made great strides, and is now close to being complete, the grammar of classical Chinese has been neglected. This is due both to the Chinese' own indifference to it, and the purely mercantile motives of nearly all modern western language teaching.

Edwin G. Pulleyblank's Outline of Classical Chinese Grammar is the standard, and indeed the only serious work on this subject. I have relied upon it heavily for my own work, but even this fine book has a number of defects which it will be instructive to point out.

First there is the sheer obscurantism. Really, there is no reason to use words like "anaphoric" and "transformationally" if the intention is to be understood. And saying "adnominal" instead of "adjective" pays unnecessary tribute to Rome. Another vice from which Pulleyblank is not entirely free is "linguistics." The linguistic approach is to describe a language with meaningless elaboration, rather than prescribing and establishing the clear rules which a language will necessarily obey. Finally, Pulleyblank continues the lexical tradition of the Chinese, and most of his book consists of overblown dictionary entries, rendered less useful by the above-mentioned obscurantism and linguistics.

Pulleyblank's is the most useful grammar book I have found for Classical Chinese, and I am sorry to take it so seriously to task. But since it suffers from the above defects to the extent that I now have to write my own grammar of Classical Chinese, I think I may be forgiven a little plain speaking.

It will no doubt be promptly objected by some that I am imposing the terminology of traditional western grammar, which comes to us from the study of Latin, on an inappropriate object. The reply is that the terminology of Latin grammar, which is in turn based on that developed by Alexandrian scholars for the study of Greek, came about as a result of a thousand-year study of these classical languages, and is a splendid tool for understanding and describing any language. Whatever the actual mechanics of a given language, the basics remain the same. Tense, number, person, relation, degree of possibility and so on must be indicated somehow, regardless of whether they are so by specific forms (as in Latin) or by specific words and word order (as in Chinese.)

I use, for example the term "gerund" to describe a phenomenon in Chinese grammar. Now of course there are no gerunds in Chinese, in the sense that there are no special verbal forms that may be so denominated, but there are fixed combinations of verb and particle that do exactly what a gerund does: make a verb (like "write") into a noun by making its action continuous ("writing"), thus making a quasi-noun, which may stand as a subject ("writing is tiresome") and is able to take a direct object ("writing a grammar.") A thing which is, in most of its uses, a gerund, may be conveniently referred to as a gerund, and indeed must be, if the aim is to communicate clearly to the reader. The proper way to teach is to make the known a bridge to the unknown. To invent unheard of terms to describe unfamiliar concepts is a capricious proceeding.

But the proof of my assertions, and the vindication of my method, will come from a perusal of the texts I translate and comment on, particularly in the Grammar itself, but also in the notes to the chrestomathy. If I make the meaning clear by explanations which are consistently effective in explaining the so far intractable problems of Classical Chinese grammar, then I should in fairness be taken seriously as one whose works have in some measure superceded those of my predecessors.

All Chinese texts are given in Pinyin, Chinese, and literal translation. The object of these translations is to make it transparently clear to the student what the Chinese means, thus I will always prefer awkward English to a smooth translation that hides the "watch-works" of the sentence. For the translations that appear with each quotation in Chinese:

I shall always indicate words that I supply by enclosing them between square brackets [ ] .

Sometimes I have had to paraphrase, because a word-for-word rendering would have been, by itself, unintelligible. In such cases I shall use parentheses and the word "literally" ( literally " . . . " ) to show what the Chinese really says.

In the translation portions I shall give Chinese names in my own style of sound-equivalence, which is simply the best approximation of the sound which decent English orthography allows. Pinyin should only be used in transcriptions: to foist its mysteries on the unprepared reader is just scholarly malice.

At times I refer the reader to the entry for a word in Mathews' dictionary. This will look like this (M. 6771). The "M" is for Mathews and the number is for the entry. When I quote from the Mathews definition without change, I place the words in quotation marks.

Though Chinese is not an easy language, it is a very simple one. Once we grasp the full extent of this simplicity, and the problems which this very simplicity causes, we arrive at a truly scientific understanding of the language, and our work in learning it becomes immeasurably easier.

Chinese does not mark person, number, tense, mood, voice or case in the forms of its nouns and verbs. This simplicity in the form of the language entails that word order is rigidly fixed. (Word order is considerably more flexible, however, in poetry.) The following rules are the very essence of Classical Chinese syntax:

1) The subject must precede the predicate, but

a) this order may be inverted in an exclamation

2) A modifier --- be it adjective, possessive, adverb, another noun, a verb used as and adjective (liú shuǐ 流 水 "flowing water"), whatever --- must precede the word it modifies.

3) A verb must precede its object, but

a) an object or any other post-verbal element may be fronted for emphasis;

b) interrogative pronoun objects precede the verb ("What are you doing?")

c) pronoun objects are placed immediately before the verb when the verb is negated ("He did not me deceive.")

d) in archaic texts, a fronted object may be recapitulated by a zhī 之 or shì 是 placed in front of the verb. ("The Dog, him I walked.")

e) 自 zì, is the object "self" and is always placed right before the verb

4) Normally the subject precedes the verb, but

a) a passive is formed by putting the object in front of the verb, and the object, if clear from context, may be unexpressed. For example, the word wéi 為 used all by itself may mean "[it] was done."

5) Any noun, adjective or verb may be used as a causative verb. (lǎi 來, "[he] comes." But lǎi zhī 來 之, "[he] makes him come."

6) The functions of nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, in fact, of virtually every part of speech, are potentially interchangeable. Context and word order are the only reliable guides to how a word is to be understood.

These will receive no special treatment here, since their employment is straightforward and without nuance. The different negating words may be found in the glossary at the end of this book, and their description there will be found adequate for a sound practical understanding.

Easily inferred words are frequently omitted, and so the most fundamental part of learning Classical Chinese is coming to know what to supply. When a word which is typically omitted is in fact given, we may assume that it is so to give additional emphasis, or to avoid ambiguity

Subjects are more often than not unexpressed in declarative sentences. This is particularly the case when:

the subject is easily understood from context, ("He ran home, [he] picked up the newspaper, [he] scanned the ads.")

when it is indefinite ("[One] should always do [one's] best"),

and when it is impersonal ("[It's] raining.")

Note however that in commands, the subject "you" is often expressed, without implying any special emphasis.

All tenses are expressed by the present tense form of the verb. Other tenses must simply be inferred when required. Frequently the tense required will be signaled by a particle.

Often, we must not only give the verb its subjects or objects, but also supply the conjunctions. Typically omitted are the conjunctions which give one verb an adverbial relation to another: when, because, although and if (and of course their synonyms.) Coordinating conjunctions, like and and then must also, ordinarily, be supplied.

There is no "that" in classical Chinese to mark a subordinate clause. Thus the second Chinese verb in a sequence may begin a subordinate clause. For example, it may indicate the purpose of the first verb, in which case we must preface it with a phrase like "in order to." The subordinate clauses are actually learned rather easily, by the traditional method of studying the Classical Chinese with a modern gloss. Recognition of these structures is easy for us because English already expresses subordinate clauses of purpose, result, intention and so on without any special tenses or introductory particles, usually just by adding an infinitive ("He worked hard to get into medical school." The idea here is a purpose clause: "He worked hard in order to get into medical school.")

The particle yě may always be omitted where it is clearly implied. This is true with nouns as with verbs. The use of yě is discussed in detail below.

Some of the most common omissions are the least obvious to the beginning student. Most common among these is the omission of yú 於 ("at") at the beginning of a sentence. This is particularly common with yǒu 有("[At] the house there are guests.") Yǒu is by no means the only such words that may be prefaced by an place-phrase with the yú omitted.

Equally common is the omission of a place-phrase like "there is" before words like huò 或, "someone," and mò 莫, "no one," which in this case are read "There is someone . . ." and "There is no one . . ."

The only interesting problems Classical Chinese poses to the western linguist arise from the ways in which it truly differs from an Indo-European language. These appear in the ways it supplies its most pressing lacks: relative pronouns, and infinitive and participle forms for making nouns out of verbs. For these matters, example is not better than precept and we must carefully analyze the structures.

There is no distinction between singular and plural for the pronouns. Where a pronoun is known to be limited as to number, I have noted this. All pronouns may be used as subject or possessive, while only some are also used as object or emphatic. The latter are indicated. The descriptions are at the moment somewhat tentative, based mainly on the unsatisfactory descriptions in Pulleyblank and Matthews. It may be that a satisfactory description of the archaic and rare pronouns will never be possible due to the scarcity of examples, and that the general principles given in bold in this paragraph are as much as one actually has by way of rules. There will surely be exceptions in archaic texts and among archaizing authors. Experience with the pronouns' actual use must be one's guide, and as mine increases I will add my findings to the following notes.

Note carefully that, as stated above under Basic Principles, a pronoun object always immediately precedes its verb when the verb is negated! This rule may occasionally be ignored for the sake of giving strongest emphasis.

common in classical writing:

wǒ 我 (M. 4778) Always object/ emphatic in classical usage.

wú 吾 (M. 7188) On rare occasions may appear as an object between a negative particle and a verb.

archaic and rare even in classical writing:

áng 卬 (M. 44) Original meaning: "high; to raise."

yí 台 (M. 6008) The original meaning was "Three Stars in Ursa Major, hence: eminent; exalted." With this sense, the character is pronounced tái.

yú 余 (M. 7605) Only used in the singular. Also object/emphatic. In the oracle bones this is used almost exclusively by the king.

yǔ 予 (M.7601) Only used in the singular. Also object/emphatic

zhèn 朕 (M. 316) In the oracle bones this is used almost exclusively by the king.

Common in classical writing:

ěr 爾 (M. 1754) Also object/emphatic. Also used to mean "Thus, so."

rǔ 汝 (M. 3142) Commonly written 女, also object/emphatic. No convincing case has been made for a distinction in meaning or use between ěr and rǔ.

Archaic and rare even in classical writing:

ér 而 (M. 1755) Also used as a particle to mark the imminent end of a clause.

nǎi 乃 (M. 4612) Also used to mean "then, thereupon."

róng 戎 (M. 3181) This may also mean "war; weapons; military."

ruò 若 (M. 3126) Also object/emphatic. Also used to mean "like, similar to."

There is no subject pronoun for the third person singular or plural. At need, one employs the demonstratives shì 是, cǐ 此, or bǐ 彼. Shì is most common and neutral of the three, and is employed when no special emphasis is required. Shì is the demonstrative of choice to refer back to something just mentioned ("Cash liquidity: this (shì) was the problem." Cǐ means "this (here)" and bǐ means "that (there)." The three are similar to the Latin is, hic and ille ( roughly, an emphatic "the," "this" and "that.")

There are however pronouns for the direct object and the possessive. Zhī 之 may always be used as the direct object pronoun, and is frequently a reflexive possessive pronoun. It is discussed in detail below. Qí 其 is the possessive pronoun.

Postclassical third person pronouns include yī 伊, qú 渠, and tā 他 (the standard modern third person pronoun.) This last begins to appear with its modern meaning in colloquial post-Han texts. It is interchangeable with tā 它(M. 6439) "That; another; he."

The main meaning of 之 zhī is as a direct object pronoun. ("him/her/it/them). This use presents no difficulties, and needs no special comment here.

Pulleyblank would have it that there is a special use of 之 zhī with adjectives (and also certain intransitive verbs) which cannot be understood as a direct object.

Here qí is used repeatedly to refer back to Zi Chan. Also note here the use of the reflexive pronoun jǐ 己, "[him, her, it] -self, [them] -selves." The reflexives are discussed below.

Qí may also mean his/ her/ its/ their in the sense of someone else's.

English does not have a reflexive as opposed to a possessive pronouns (as Latin does with suus as opposed to eius). Thus in English, when we have more than one pronominal possessor in a sentence, we have to add parenthetical information to clarify our meaning. We might say for example, "He lent his (his own) car to his (his friend's) brother for the afternoon."

The following is typical of the contrasting uses of qī and zhī.

Here the zhī acts as an 's (indicating that the thing belongs to the immediately preceding subject --- the bonds and fetters: it is their midst he was in. The qī means someone else's: not the bonds' and fetters', but the person's.

The above description of zhī and qī is securely true, and will be adequate to understand the vast preponderance of cases where these possessives are used. However the simplicity and clarity of these usages tempted the ancient Chinese to make more subtle use of the possessives. Not infrequently we find sentences where the original sense of zhī and qī has become, so to speak, metaphorical. Instead of meaning "his (his own)" and "his (another's)" pure and simple, qī is used to indicate a shift in focus and zhī a resumption of topic.

So far I have only seen this construction with sī 思 "thought" (e.g., Shi Jing 38), and the usage may be confined to this word.

[They] strike the drums, how they thud!(literally, "their thud!") (Shi Jing 31)

The effect of using qí which does not normally follow the possessor directly, where one expects a zhī which does follow the possessor directly, is to imply a comma after the possessor, and this pause makes what follows emphatic. The effect may be conveyed in English thus: "The drums, the thudding of them!" and "The wind, the coldness of it!"

In addition to its use as a possessive pronoun, zhī is also the most common direct object pronoun. Refinements in this use of zhī include:

Zhī is usually omitted after yǐ 以, so that yǐ alone is often to be read as meaning 以 之, "by it."

Zhī forms a number of contractions: for these see the glossary under zhū 諸, zhān 旃, and yān 焉.

zhī with bǐ

The demonstrative bǐ may combine with zhī to form what amounts to a third person possessive pronoun,

féng bǐ zhī nù.

逢 彼 之 怒

Literally, "[I encounter of these [people] the anger." meaning, "I encounter their anger." (Shi Jing 26:6)

己 jǐ, is the reflexive particle, supplying the subject or object "self" (myself, yourself, &c.) and the possessive "own" (my own, your own, &c.)

自 zì﹐is the object "self" and is always placed right before the verb, referring back to the subject of the verb. It may itself be either subject or object. As object,

Shēn 身 "body, person" may also be employed as a reflexive pronoun "him/her/it self; themselves."

When someone's speech or thought is reproduced without change, this is called Direct Discourse. Direct Discourse is the quote that goes inside quotation marks. When, on the other hand, someone's language or thought is made to depend on a verb of saying, thinking or the like, this is called Indirect Discourse (which Sinologists, lucklessly, have decided to call "the pivot construction.")

For example:

Direct Discourse: The master said, "This is what is expected of a gentleman."

Indirect Discourse: The master said that this was what was expected of a gentleman.

In Chinese the range of verbs that can introduce Indirect Discourse is rather wide.

Those coming to Chinese with prior study of Indo-European languages are likely to consider the zhī 之as the accusative subject of an infinitive verb, and this is probably a good stratagem for understanding the construction. Zhī, insofar as it is a personal pronoun, is exclusively use as an object. To really show the watch-works of this sentence, we might have translated it "One might say . . . him to have studied." ("Him" is the accusative form of the English pronoun "he.") The shortcoming of this rendering is that the verb in Chinese is not really an infinitive like "to have studied." The most precise rendering would be "One might say . . . him study."

Chinese adjectives behave in many ways like verbs, for example, in the words (like bu) used to negate them. Thus the Chinese for the phrase "she [is] beautiful" could be understood as "she beautifuls."

Further, because any Chinese verb may be interpreted causatively, the phrase "she [is] beautiful" could be understood as "she makes beautiful." This causative use of the adjective is also used to show how one makes something seem, to oneself or another.

This usage, unattractively but usefully called the putative (from the Latin putare, "to think") is, in effect, a kind of indirect discourse.

As noted above under General Rules, any transitive verb may become passive in meaning by placing it after its object. Thus

becomes

The passive may be indicated with greater clarity by the insertion of jiàn 見 (M. 860) before the verb. In this idiom the jiàn is not translated or translatable. It serves only as a marker of the syntax.

To express agent, one uses yú 於

One could have a sentence like the above with a jiàn as well. The two uses are not mutually exclusive.

The passive can be given further coloring by inserting a word before it, such as zú 足 "sufficient", nán 難 "difficult", yì 易"easy" or kě 可 "possible"

Yǐ 以 "to use" also forms a special passive with kě 可 which is translated actively.

The nucleus of this phrase is basic passive structure, verb placed after its object: here this is wáng yǐ, "a king is used." The modal verb kě is inserted between the object and verb, yielding wáng kě yǐ "a king is able to be used." This phrase is followed by what amounts to a complementary infinitive shā rén "to kill a man."

Thus we arrive at "a king is able to be used to kill a man," which we translate into adequate English by "a king can kill a man."

One could also count among the passives a special construction with wéi 為: this is discussed in the chapter on wéi.

Yě functions as the verb "to be." It is employed as often as one wishes to say that something is something else. Though frequently omitted, it is usually expressed.

Yě is also employed after a verb, with a result very much like adding an "-ing" to an English verb. It extends the action of the verb out over time, and suggests that the action is not yet complete (in contrast to yǐ 矣 which shows that the action is over and done.) The use of yě after a verb is entirely optional. The meaning desired, not a formal necessity, dictates its employment.

These are the primary uses of yě, on which all others depend:

Yě is used whenever we want to say that something is something else. For example, "Socrates is a man" would be expressed:

To negate a noun, one uses yě with fēi (and never bu 不). Thus, if Socrates were not a man, we would say:

Yě may combine with other particles. For example, when a sentence ending in yě adds on the emphatic particle hū 乎, the two particles to form yú 與. (For other cases of yě in combination, see the glossary.)

A standard use of Chinese adjectives is, quite simply, as adjectives. They come immediately before a noun to modify it. For example, "high mountain" is gāo shān 高 山.

A predicate nominative is a statement that something is something else, like "a bear is an animal" or "death is inevitable." In a predicate nominative where the predicate is an adjective, Classical Chinese does not require yě. The phrase "The mountain is high" is expressed: shān gāo 山 高. (Literally "the mountain highs.") Here the Chinese adjectives behave like verbs, and indeed, in this use an adjective is negated, as a verb is, by bu 不, not fēi 菲.

Classical Chinese also omits the yě with numbers, which in English require the predicate nominative form. (For example, "The profits were fifty dollars.") This is because numbers are adjectives in all languages, and Chinese treats them as it does all the other adjectives.

Yě is omitted where it is clearly implied. Certain words create the anticipation of the verb "to be" at the end of the sentence. In such cases, the yě may be omitted. This is frequently the case with exclamations and questions. The merest hint of special emphasis suffices to suggest the verb "to be."

Thus yě is often omitted with the common exclamatory particle zāi 哉, and also with wéi 唯"only:"

Zhī qí zuì zhě wéi Kǒng Jù Xīn.

知 其 罪 者 唯 孔 踞 心。

The only knower of his faults is Kong Ju Sheen. (Mèng 1B/4)

Yě is also omitted after yóu 猶 "yet, still, even, especially" (for which yóu 由 is often used), and after qǐ 豈, which makes questions expecting a negative answer.

Yě also tends to be omitted when the verb has any sort of an emphatic future sense. For example, after jiāng 將 "about to" and bì 必, "certainly, must, will, necessarily":

In a conditional sentence this is also often the case.

Neither Yě nor yǐ are ever used with imperatives.

The most common, and probably the most basic use of yě 也, is to show ongoing, uncompleted action, as English does by prefacing the verb with "is" and adding to the verb the ending "-ing." (for example, "is walking.")

Yě after several verbs modifies them all and indicates the conclusion of the sentence.

Ordinarily a verb with yě is negated by bu, but it may also be negated by wèi, 未"not yet," which produces the sense "never."

A gerund is a noun formed from a verb (for example: "writing.") It may still act as a verb (for example, by taking a direct object: "writing a book.") In English, a gerund ends in "-ing" and the "-ing" ending provides the best way of translating this use of yě.

The gerund is frequently used in Classical Chinese to create an abstract noun. For example, the phrase wéi yě 為 也, by itself, means "doing" and may be translated "activity." A gerund is an abstract noun. Do not confuse this use of yě with zhě 者, which makes a concrete noun out of a verb. Wéi zhě 為者﹐means "doer", not "doing."

No second yě is added when a final yě forms a gerund which is also a predicate.

In both of its appearances, the final yě both makes the gerund and supplies the "is." Note that use of fēi shows that "not-being-able" is a verbal noun. If it were a verb, it would be negated by bu 不.

The gerund may be the direct object of a verb.

Often the gerund will produce what amounts to a relative clause. See the chapter below, "Relative Clauses."

Note that here the gerund yì . . . yě takes the direct object zhī, which comes as expected after the verb, but precedes the yě. The yě always goes to the end of a gerund phrase, and so helps mark the end of a clause.

A gerund may occur after a possessive like zhī 之 or qí 其

Adverbs and Adverbial Yě

Virtually anything placed immediately before a verb may serve as an adverb. A noun,

a place-word

This last usage is usually explained, perhaps unnecessarily, as the omission of a yú 於:

[yú] shuǐ sǐ

[於] 水 死.

[in] water he died

But we might with equal justice read it as (literally) "wetly he died," that is, "his was a watery death."

A part of the body may also appear adverbially

Adjectives (which include numbers!) and verbs may also function as adverbs, but the above examples with nouns should adequately prepare the student to cope with this.

Yě may be added to adverb,

Bì yě, literally "[it] necessarily being", is rendered into decent English by "necessarily." In such an adverbial yě phrase, the yě acts rather like a comma, separating the adverb from the individual parts of the sentence and indicating its application all of its clauses.

The final yě in the above quote goes with the verbs, suggesting one who habitually acts thus. The bracketed words at the end of the translation are implied by the foregoing context, not the grammar.

Another example:

The second half of each side of this sentence ends with shàng yě, giving the adverb "improvingly."

There are a few other matters worth clarifying in this passage. With reference to the phrases yǐ shàng and yǐ xià, note that yǐ often combines with prepositions to (for example, yǐ qián miàn 以 前 面 means "in front of"). Thus yǐ shàng means, literally, "upwards" and yǐ xià downwards." There is also a play on words here. Yǐ shàng can also be an idiom meaning "in order to be taught," and yǐ xià may be taken to mean "to be made more ignorant."

The two yě that conclude the halves of the saying should also be taken with the preceding modal kě (see above, "Ongoing Action.") I have expressed this ongoing aspect of the modal with the words "always" and "never"

In both halves of the sentence the object (the mediocre man) is fronted for emphasis. This object ("the mediocre man") is in both cases followed by a relative clause (who is striving, who tends) which is only implied by the phrases yǐ shàng and yǐ xià. For this elliptical method of making a relative clause, see below the chapter on "Relative Clauses."

Wéi is used instead of yě where one is describing a temporary rather than a permanent state. (Consider estar as opposed to ser in Spanish). One might literally translate it, as I shall, with the phrase "acts as." This overstates the case slightly, but has the virtue of making the difference very clear.

In the Analects we find

The question here is directed at finding out what the man's role is in the business, his right and reason to be there. We could capture the flavor of this pert inquiry by translating it, very idiomatically, "What's it to you?" or "Who wants to know?" Were the speaker really interested in finding out the other man's identity, he would have asked shuí yě 誰 也﹖"Who are [you]?"

The above examples emphasize how wéi can suggest role or function, but the basic meaning is a condition which is only temporary in contrast to a truly permanent state.

The contrast here is between what one is (which is permanent) and what one does (which is temporary.)

This isn't really indirect discourse, nor is it really a passive construction (though it is generally so translated ("I will be eaten by . . ."). What we really have is wéi introducing a phrase with a complementary infinitive and an unexpressed yú 於 "for" in front of the nouns. Perhaps the construction is most easily understood by the similar English usage one sees in phrases like: "It's for me to know, and for you to find out."

In later (Han) Literary Chinese this construction will be enriched with the addition of suǒ 所, without making any change in the basic syntax. Thus the phrase from Chuang Tzu given above would become

Yǐ is the converse of yě. Whereas yě makes the action of a verb ongoing, yǐ makes it complete. It is really a marker of the perfect tense ("did, has done") as opposed to the present ("does, is doing") or imperfect ("was doing.") In a logical extension of its completion meaning, yǐ may also give an emphatic sense to a verb. The notion is, the action is not only complete but completely done.

At times yǐ is used purely to intensify some word which has no real verbal meaning:

If the yǐ had gone in its normal place, at the end of the sentence, we would have translated it with one "very." Putting the yǐ after the xiān puts extra emphasis on that word.

Just like yě 也, yǐ is to be taken with the modal where there is one, and not with the following verb.

The idiom kě yǐ means "it is possible." Obviously the final yǐ 矣 can only be taken with a conjugated verb like kě and not with the infinitive complement like wéi. (The terms "conjugated verb" and "infinitive complement" here describe the functions of the verbs, not their unchanging forms.)

Though yǐ 矣 never follows yě immediately, it does combine with yě in the formula yě yǐ yǐ 也 已 矣, often abbreviated as 已or 也 已 or 已矣. The yě is for ongoing action, the yǐ 已 is a particle meaning "already," and the final yǐ signifies completed action. Thus the formula yě yǐ yǐ creates a present perfect tense. It describes a new ongoing condition that has come fully into being,and should be literally translated with the formula "has become." For example "It has become quite late."

Even though this structure is often used to express something one has just become aware of ("Look at the clock, how late it has become!") it does not necessarily indicate a change in awareness only, as Pulleyblank would have it.

The particle zhě makes a concrete noun out of an adjective or a verb. One will translate it with "one" when it is applied to a person, and "thing" when it is applied to a thing.

Note also that zhě may be used for both singular and plural.

Here two adjectives become nouns to describe an inkeeper's two wives.

Here is an example of zhě in the sense of "thing:"

In a logical extension of its vague concretizing nature, zhě may be combined with a noun or noun-like phrase to make it less distinct. Added to a name, for example,Qiū zhě 丘者﹐it means "a certain [Mr.] Chu." (Literally "a Chu one.") Here is an instance of it being applied in this sense to a thing:

Chinese has only one relative pronoun, suǒ 所, "which," Thus Chinese has difficulty making relative clauses like "the man who came to dinner." It is easy enough, using suǒ 所, to say "the dish which I ordered." But the classical language is so accustomed to merely implying a relative clause, that the suǒ 所 is often as not omitted.

Chinese supplied its this of relative pronouns in a number of ways. One can make a verb or and adjective into a substantive (a noun or noun equivalent) by adding zhě 者, as discussed at the end of the last chapter, but there are other means as well.

We can also make a relative clause using zhī 之. In his Chapter VII, Noun phrases and Nominalization, Pulleyblank makes a very complicated business out of the two very simple structures used for this purpose. He derives the phrases from supposed proto-phrases and represents it all in algebraic style. This is the very madness of linguistics.

Here's how matters actually stand. Take a phrase like

Shā rén means "kills a man" and wáng is "king," but the zhī is not readily translatable. It no longer has its ordinary meaning, to show possession, like an apostrophe plus an "s" in English. Rather, the zhī shows that what comes before it is subordinated to what follows it. To render the phrase analytically, we could have to say something like "kills-a-man: this describes the king."

(The subordinating role is in fact an extension of the possessive meaning of zhī: possession shows syntactical subordination. When we say, for example, "Robert's book," Robert, regardless of the dominant role his ownership gives him in the real world, is syntactically only there in a subordinate role, to give more information about the book. In Chinese the subordinating quality of the possessive was developed in a way nothing in English approximates.)

Because the phrase "kills a man" shā rén is subordinated to word after the zhī, we must render it in a way that expresses that subordination, so we will have to render it as a gerundive (a verbal adjective), yielding the phrase "a man-killing king."

There is a variant of this structure in which it is a noun that is subordinated to a verbal phrase:

Very analytically, this means "king: this describes a man-killer." Because the noun "king" wáng is subordinated to verbal phrase after the zhī, we must render it in a way that expresses that subordination, so we will have to render it as an adjective, yielding the phrase a royal man-killer."

To recapitulate: we can subordinate a verb-phrase with zhī to say "a man-killing king," Or, we can subordinate a noun with zhī, to say "a royal man-killer." The two formulations are interchangeable. The only difference is that one ("a man-killing king") emphasizes the fact that he's a king, and the other ("a royal killer") that he's a killer.

The examples about the homicidal king given above are unusually simple. The following instance shows the elaborate use this structures actually enjoys:

Another way Classical Chinese can supply its want of relative pronouns is to employ the particle yě 也,

Zǐ yuē, jiàn xián, sī qí yān; jiàn bù xián, ér nèi zì shěng yě.

The yě ("-ing") applies to both jiàn's, ("see") and in effect implies as subject the impersonal "one who." We could fairly translate the sentence "One who sees a worthy person considers how to emulate him; one who sees an unworthy person . . ." English, unlike Chinese, allows us to give the relative "who" explicitly.

Confucius uses this structure because to say "When you see a worthy person . . . " might carry the impolite implication that the person he is addressing is particularly beset with faults.

Another example:

The mediocre man is here twice followed by an adverbial phrase with yǐ, which, as the English translation shows, unavoidably implies a relative clause. (This quotation is examined in detail above under "Yě with Verbs.) Rather than multiply examples like the two given, I suggest as a rule that a relative clause may be suggested by the mere juxtaposition of a phrase which can fairly be understood as descriptive of a given or implied subject or object. Apposition alone is enough to produce a relative clause. The final test of the presence of an implied relative clause is of course the clarity and consistency of the translation, and one is not at liberty to infer the presence of a relative clause unless it is actually required by the context.

The learning of Chinese is often a purely lexical matter. This list of words with complex usages is thus as much the grammar as the grammar proper, and no mere word list.

I give the citation for Mathews, so the student may see his very helpful examples of the usage. For the really important and common particles, he is generally imprecise, giving a welter of approximate and non-literal meanings. Pulleyblank's definitions are almost invariably excellent, and these I have followed dogmatically, except where his linguistic bias makes him offer more descriptive elaboration than is really helpful.

My object is to provide definitions for these common and versatile words that are simple, clear, and invariably applicable. The meanings I offer are not always exhaustive, but for the primary meanings I have striven for completeness, and mean by this list to supercede the prolixity of Mathews and the ingenuity of Pulleyblank.

A further principle should be noted. My task is to prune back the accumulation of occasionally apt but actually imprecise definitions offered by Mathews. My touchstone here is clear development from root meaning. Words always extend their sense with a certain logic: for example, a word may come to be used less literally, or build new a meaning on the basis of its obvious associations, But a logic there will always be, and where this is lacking, the definition is untenable.

céng 曾 (M. 6771) "Already; past. Sign of the past." Pulleyblank defines this as "once," which is fine, if we understand it in the sense of "once upon a time" and not "once or twice." The same character is used for zēng (see below).

dé 得 (M. 6161) "Get." Also a helping verb, meaning "manage to, be able to, can" (as in the English idiom "I got to ride in an airplane."

ér 而 (M. 1756) This word does not have any translatable meaning. It is pure punctuation, and may be accounted for by inserting a comma, a semicolon or a period after the verb or verbal phrase that follows it. Only appearing before the last verb in a series, never appearing between two nouns, ér indicates that a phrase or sentence ends with the following verb or verbal phrase. One must strongly resist the impulse to translate ér automatically as "and." Often one will obtain a very satisfactory translation by so doing, but this is because words like "and" must ordinarily be supplied to Chinese verbs. See "Omissions" above.

fēi 非 (M. 1819) Negation of nouns and pronouns, used with yě 也. Used by itself, fēi can mean "wrong, bad" and is opposed to shì 是 in its sense of "right."

In pre-classical Chinese, fēi is sometimes written fěi 匪 or fěi 棐.

Fēi 非was originally condensed from the phrase bù wéi 不 唯, "is not." In this phrase wéi had its preclassical meaning "is," not its classical meaning "only."

Later we find that this uncontracted expression (bù wéi) reappears, but with the new meaning "not only." It may be expressed either fēi wéi 非 唯 or bù wéi 不 唯.

fǒu 否 (M. 1902) "No. Not." Originally written 不 bu, and still to be found so written in early texts, fǒu is the form bu assumes when the verb it negates is omitted. The meanings are as follows:

"No." Since Classical Chinese has no word for "no," one expresses "no" by negating the verb. Thus, in answer to the question "Do you ride?" one can respond in the negative only by saying "I don't (不 bu) ride." Or one can use fǒu and omit the verb, which gives us the equivalent of "no."

This "no" can also be used at the end of a sentence in the sense of "or not?" Thus: "Do you ride, or not (fǒu)?"

Fǒu, as the negation of an omitted verb, logically finds use in conditional sentences: "If you have a horse, you ride; if not (fǒu) you must walk."

This example shows fǒu creating an implied relative clause:

The character 否 originally stood for another word, pǐ "bad, evil," and appears with this value in the phrase 臧 否 zāng pǐ, "good [and] evil." It is also the title of one of the hexagrams in the I Ching.

fū 夫 (M. 1908) Noun: "man."

when pronounced fú, it may have the following meanings:

Demonstrative pronoun: "that one, he."

Introductory particle to indicate a topic: "As for, regarding."

Fú may be combined with hé 何, giiving fú hé 夫 何 which means "whatever, however," &c.

Final particle: "is it not?" (like the French n'est-ce pas?). In this last use it represents a fusion of bu 不 and hū 乎.

fú 弗 (M. 1981) A less common variant of bu 不.

hé 何 (M. 2109) Interrogative pronoun ("what?"), adverb ("how, why?") and adjective ("which?) Not an intensifier, as in the English "How lovely you are!"

Hé precedes all other words in an expression. However, in preclassical usage, we find these exceptions :

hé follows:

wéi 唯 when it means "is": wéi hé 唯何, "is what?" (In the classical period wéi will change its meaning to "only.")

rú 如 "resemble", rú hé 如 何 "is (literally, "resembles") what?"

yuē 曰 and yún 云, whether they mean "say" or "is called" are followed by hé.

In (nearly) all other cases, hé precedes. As an interrogative pronoun, it always precedes the verb (including verbs of motion!) or preposition that affects it. Thus, hé yù 何 欲 "what do you want?" hé yǐ 何 以 "by means of what?" hé zhī 何 之"where is [he] going?"

It precedes yě, "is". Thus, hé yě 何 也, meaning "[it] is what" and sometimes "[it] is for what reason; why?"

But hé follows the verb when it is the second object of two.Thus we find wèi zhī hé 謂 之 何 "call it what?" (as opposed to hé wèi 何 謂"designate what?") Note the common idiom rù zhī hé 如 之 何 (literally, "make it resemble what?")

When used as an adverb, hé precedes the verb In this use it means "how; why." Thus, Wáng, hé bì yuē lì 王, 何 必 曰 利, "Why must the king say 'profit'?"

When used as an adjective, hé of course precedes the noun in accordance with the rule that modifier precedes modified. Thus we find hé rén 何 人 what (sort of) man" and hé gù 何 固 "[for] what reason?"

Special idioms with hé:

Hé yǒu, literally "has what?", has the idiomatic meaning "has what [lack/failing/shortcoming]."

A very common and at first sight quite puzzling use of hé is

Hé is here placed, as always, before the verb (rú, "like," is a verb here). The phrase reads then "resemble what?" The subject, "this," need not be given in the Chinese because it is clearly implied.

The actual meaning of this idiom is "What do you think about [this]?" or "What should one do about [this]?"

Another common idiom has hé preceded by ruò 若 or rú 如, both of which mean "be like, resemble."

In this idiom the object which follows ruò/ rú may be a long phrase, or it may be a single word, like the pronoun zhī 之. In the latter case, some authors (Mò Zǐ, Zhuāng Zǐ) will replace ruò zhī 若 之 with nài 奈, which acts like a fusion of ruò and zhī.

hé 盍 (M. 2119) "Why not?" Contraction of hé bú 何 不 or hú bú 胡不

hū 乎 (M. 2154) An exclamatory particle, which could be translated "really" or "indeed." It is often used after questions as well, but it only adds emphasis, and does not itself turn a statement into a question.

As a preposition, hū used as a variant of yú 於. Hū' s meanings as a preposition are: "in; at; to; from" from the Shī Jīng onwards. Hū is never found at the beginning of a phrase.

with adjectives hū expresses comparison, "than."

with passive verbs, hū expresses agency, "by."

huò 或 (M. 2402) "Some; someone; something;"

also has an adverbial meaning "somewhat" (usually translated "perhaps" which is not correct.)

When it means "somewhat," we sometimes find huò combined with zhě: 或 者.

jiāng 將 (M. 656). "Bring; lead an army."

Modal verb of futurity, "about to, be going to, intend to."

kě 可(M. 3381) "May, can, might, able to."

The combination kě yě 可也 means literally, "ongoingly possible." Mathews renders it ""it will do ---" a final phrase," and he is quite right. It is a term of agreement, whose meaning could be rendered by "yes."

mǐ 靡 (M.4455) Archaic, used for wú 無"not have" in the Shī Jīng.

miè 蔑 (M. 4485) Equivalent to wú 無"not have," usually followed by yǐ 矣.

mò 末 (M. 4546) The essential meaning is "tip, end, tiny part." From this it comes to be used as a negation, "not at all," "not in the least." Especially common in the Lún Yú.

mò 莫 (M. 4557) "[There is] no one/nothing [who/that] . . ." In postclassical Chinese, it may mean "do not."

nǎi 乃 (M. 4612) Archaic "you; your." Also used to mean "then, thereupon."

nài 奈, 柰 (M. 4615) Mathews gives us: "But, how. A remedy, a resource. To bear. To endure. A crab-apple, for which the second form is strictly used." Pulleyblank says that nài is interchangeable with ruò 若 in the expression and ruò zhī 若 之 "do [what] about it." I shall settle this matter as I find more examples.

pǒ 叵 (M. 5349) "It is not possible." Contraction of bù kě 不 可. Uncommon.

qí 其 (M. 525) "His, her, its; their." Beyond this Mathews offers a welter of particulate meanings. The truth however is quite simple.

qǐ 豈 (M. 544) Question particle anticipating a negative answer, like the Latin num. In English, the sense may be conveyed by the formula "Surely X didn't Y? Thus, "Surely you didn't leave the gas on?"

rú 如 (M. 3137) "[is] like."

shèn 甚 (M. 5724) "What? Who? Any. Very, extremely. More important than."

sī 斯 (M. 5574) "This; then (in the sense of "therefore, consequently").”The logic behind the different meanings is that the word probably went from meaning "this" to meaning "this being so."

wáng 亡 (M. 7034) meaning "lose," is sometimes used as a substitute for wú 無 in the sense of "not have."

wǎng 罔 (M. 7045) "Net," is sometimes used as a substitute for wú 無.

wēi 微 (M. 7061) "Small." In the Shī Jīng and other early texts, this is used, like fēi 非 to negate nouns. In the classical period it becomes rare, and tends to appear as the opening of a conditional sentence "If not for [X, then Y] . . ."

wéi 唯, 隹, 惟, 維 (M. 7064) In preclassical Chinese, this means "is/are" and is used instead of yě 也, but unlike yě, wéi comes between the subject and the predicate. In the classical language its meaning is "only."

wèi 未 (M. 7114) This negates an ongoing action, and is used with yě 也. It may be rendered "not already," "not yet," or "never." Wèi is never used with yǐ 矣, the marker of completed action.

wú 無 (M. 7180), with the variant form 旡 (M. 7173). The basic meaning is "not have; there is/are not" (the negative of yǒu 有)

wù 勿 (M.7208) Both a negation ("doesn't") and a prohibitive ("do not.") A stronger equivalent of wú 無 in its prohibitive use. It means "don't" while wú means "shouldn't."

wú 毋 (M.7193) properly a simple prohibitive "don't," but often confused with wú 無 in texts from the time of Mencius on.

yān 焉 (M. 7166) Yān 焉 is not a contraction of, but a circumlocution for, yú zhī 於 之 or yú zhī 于 之, (which never occur, since neither of these propositions can directly precede zhī 之.) Usually it recapitulates some previously expressed phrase with yū 於 or yú 于. It is common in classical texts from the Shi Jing onward.

In some texts yān can occur before the verb with the sense of yú shì 於 是, "then" (literally, "in addition to this.")

yě 也 (M. 7312) see chapters above dedicated to this topic.

yǐ 以, (M. 2932) "take; use; consider, regard as; with, by means of, through; on the basis of, in accordance with."

Yǐ [zhī]: "by this" Yǐ followed by zhī 之 means "using this, by means of this" and "in order to." The zhī, however, is almost never written out. The sense "in order to" is seen in the idiom yǐ [zhī] shàng meaning "in order to be taught" (literally, "by [this] to be elevated.") Shàng is used here as a passive verb.

Yǐ with verbs and prepositions forms an adverb. Thus yǐ 以+ lái 來 "come" = "afterwards;" yǐ 以 + xià 下"down" = "downwards" (literally, "by this to descend.")

Yǒu yǐ 有以 means "have that by which [to];" wú yǐ 無 以 means "not have that by which [to]."

Suǒ yǐ 所 以, "that by which" should be translated precisely. It does not mean "therefore" as it does in modern Chinese.

Wéi X yǐ Y, 為 X 以 Y, is an idiom meaning "take (consider) X to be Y" (literally, "make X by [this] Y.") Eventually this produced the compound word yǐ wéi, 以 為, which now means "to think." In classical Chinese however the phrase should still be rendered "consider to be."

Yǐ combines with kě 可 to form an expression of possibilility. This is discussed in the chapter Verbal Usages under "Active and Passive."

However, one may also use yǐ 以 "by means of, using" to create an expression precisely analogous to the English "I gifted Tom with a book."

yì 亦 (M. 3021) "Also." Further definitions and grammatical musings are superfluous. The word does sometimes take on more color from its use in context, or may be entirely colorless --- exactly like "also." One may prefer to use one of the meanings Mathews offers: "and, also, moreover, likewise, further, however, then," but one should do so with an understanding of the root meaning "also" which is amplified, perhaps unnecessarily, by such expedients..

yīn 因 (M. 7407) "Because, in consequence of. A reason; a cause. Therefore; then; for this reason. To follow. To rely on. To accord with."

yóu 由 (M. 7513) "Cause. From; through." sometimes the character is used to substitute for yóu 猶.

yóu 猶 (M. 7528) "Like, similar to. As if, as. Yet, still, even, especially."

yú 于 (M 7592) Verb, "to go." Used as a helping verb, thus:

Also a preposition, in which case it always appears right after the main verb, and means "to; at." Occasionally found in time expressions, such as yú jīn 于 今, "till now," yú may also mean "to" or "for" to indicate the recipient of an action.

As a preposition meaning "to," the I Ching (Yì Jīng) uses instead yú 於 when the direction meant is upwards. Yú 于 comes to be entirely replaced by yú 於 in classical Chinese, except where an archaic effect is intended (as often in Confucius.)

yú 與 (M. 7615) a fusion of yě 也 and the exclamatory particle hū 乎. The meaning of the component particles is unchanged. In Lun Yu and later, we often find this double-sense particle replaced by the forms yú 歟 or yé (written both 邪 and 耶)

There also occurs, especially in the accretions to the the Lun Yu, the form yú yě 與 也. This is a bogus archaism, adding the yú for without realizing that the yě is built into it

yǔ 與 (same character, different accent) means "with; to give."

This yǔ 與 may also be used in comparisons,

And I, in comparison (literally, "[compared] with"], would [I prefer] to die in the hands of retainers, would I not rather die in the hands of several (literally, "two [or] three") of [my] gentleman [friends'] hands? (L.Y. 9: 12)

yù 與 (same character, different accent) means "share in; be present at; be concerned about."

yú 於 (M. 7643) "In; at; to; from; than." The most common meaning is "to be in, at" without any implication of motion.

yú also indicates the agent with a verb used passively.(See the section "Verbal Usages" above.)

yuán 爰 (M. 7735) Like yān 焉, this is not a contraction of, but a circumlocution for, yú+ zhī 於 + 之 or yú zhī 于 之, (which never occur, since neither of these propositions can directly precede zhī 之.)

As the meanings of yú are various, so should be those of yuán , for example "in, to, from, by, than / he, she, it, them." It also frequently has the meanings "there" and "then, thereupon."

yuē 曰 (M. 7694) Most of the time this should not be translated at all. It is no more than an opening quotation mark (").

zé 則 (M. 6746) In addition to its function as a particle meaning "then," it is used to call attention to something, like the French voila! and may be rendered by "look."

Zé is also a noun meaning "rule, law, pattern, standard; list."

zēng 曾 (M. 6771) M. equates this with céng, and defines it as "already; sign of the past." Pulleyblank says it is usually glossed with nǎi 乃 or zé 則, "then," but he suggests the meaning is more like "just" or "even." So far the evidence seems to support Mathews.

zhān 旃 (M. 133) = zhī + yān, 之+ 焉,"it herein". Rare form.

zhě 者 (M. 263) See chapter so titled, above.

zhǐ 只(M. 946) "Only; but; yet; merely." May be used as a vague emphatic, like "O!" in English.

pronounced zhī, "single, only, unique."

zhū 諸 (M. 1362) "All, every." But in this usage it often means little more than "the" as in the phrase zhū hóu, 諸 候, "feudal lords."

Zhū is also used as a contraction of zhī + hū, 之+ 乎, it + ! Thus: yǒu zhū, 有 諸 = yǒu zhī hū 有 之 乎 "Is that so?!" (Literally, "is there this indeed?!")

Zhū may also stand for zhī + hū, 之+ 乎, in the sense of "goes to." Here the zhī is used in its sense of "to go" and hū is used as a variant of yú 於 "to."

Zhū is also used as a fusion of zhī + yū, 之+ 於, "it to/in."

Return to the Invisible Books main page