I was taught that in Archaic Chinese 也 as a modal particle[FONT=&] in the middle [/FONT][FONT=&]of a sentence [/FONT][FONT=&]([/FONT][FONT=&]句中语气助词[/FONT][FONT=&])[/FONT] is attached to the preceding element. For instance, [FONT=&] 形之龐也，類有德; 聲之宏也，類有能.[/FONT] 地之相去也，千有餘里； 世之相後也，夭有餘歲. 师道之不传也, 久矣; 欲人之无惑也, 难矣. Although 也 gradually adopted the meanings of [FONT=&]亦[/FONT] during Late Middle Chinese, its modal particle usage remained. For instance, 南宋袁文:[FONT=&]其欲人君之聽也難矣.[/FONT] 宋,洪邁《容齋續筆》: 成也蕭何[FONT=&]; [/FONT]敗也蕭何. 明,[FONT=&]唐[/FONT][FONT=&]寅[/FONT]《一剪梅》: 行也|思君，坐也|思君 (in parallelism with 花下|销魂，月下|销魂). In Modern Chinese, 也 seems also to be used as a modal particle in sentences where it can be replaced with a vernacular particle 嘛 (which carries no meaning). For instance, 说远也不远; 说近也不近 = 说远嘛不远; 说近嘛不近 吃也吃不饱; 睡也睡不好 = 吃嘛吃不饱; 睡嘛睡不好. My questions: (1) Do you say 说远|也不远; 说近|也不近 and 吃|也吃不饱; 睡|也睡不好? If so, can you provide any linguistic justification for your attaching 也 to the subsequent rather than the preceding element? (2) How should we read those modern sentences deliberately written with archaism, for instance, A: [FONT=&]浮石之[/FONT]贵也|贵在不浮, or [FONT=&]浮石之[/FONT]贵|也贵在不浮 B: [FONT=&]其[/FONT]贱也|在粗，其贵也|在[FONT=&]粗[/FONT] or [FONT=&]其[/FONT]贱|也在粗，其贵|也在[FONT=&]粗[/FONT].