# 你们是日本人，日文书很多。我们是美国人，英文书很多



## StyxAcheron

Hello, my friends!
should that sentence [你们是日本人，日文书很多。我们是美国人，英文书很多] be translated as something like: 
You are Japanese, (so you have) a lot of Japanese books. (But) We are Amerikans, (so we have) a lot of english books
If this is correct, is the 'so/therefore/thus, etc' usually left out in a Chinese sentence?
By the way, no further context is given
Thanks again (I told you I'd be back)


----------



## xiaoyudang

Yes, we don't have so much logic words. You can say it like that.


----------



## StyxAcheron

Thank you, xiaoyudang


----------



## bleedingorange

I don't think 'so/therefore/thus, etc' is _usually_ left out, but in spoken Chinese, it can be left out without being misunderstood.


----------



## fyl

I agree with bleedingorange. To me these sentences seem like 4 separated simple sentences without logic connection. It is possible that textbooks use these sentences because they are simple... It is possible that these sentences appear in causal spoken language. But for clarity, it would be better to add those words: 你们是日本人，所以[so/therefore]日本书很多。而[but]我们是美国人，所以[so]英文书很多。


----------



## brofeelgood

I agree with bleedingorange (nice nick btw) and fyl. A simple 所以 dispels the mentioned ambiguity. Without it, the sentences sound decoupled.


----------



## BODYholic

I just want to add on that apart from those sentence connectors, if you intend to link up those two sentences, it is imperative to insert "也" in the second sentence to make it sound_s_ idiomatic.
你们是日本人，所以[so/therefore]日本书很多。而[but]我们是美国人，所以[so]英文书*也*很多。

And in fact, "*也*" is more important then the sentence connectors because it makes your entire paragraph sounds logical. 
[你们是日本人，日文书很多。我们是美国人，英文书*也*很多]


----------



## Hazel Xie

Not really….. We use “也” for comparison. However, 英文书 is different from 日文书 so you can't use “也”. If your are comparing 书  only then it's okay to use “也”.


----------



## Skatinginbc

fyl said:


> To me these sentences seem like 4 separated simple sentences without logic connection.


There are cohesive devices effectively linking them together:  
1.  Connected through a shared topic: 你们是日本人 + 你们日本书很多 (structurally parallel to 夏天蚊子很多, 中國自行車很多, 他們話真多) = 你们是日本人, 日本书很多 (==> Two clauses are joined together by a shared topic). Likewise, 我们是美国人 + 我们英文书很多 = 我们是美国人, 英文书很多. 
2.  Connected through parallelism: 你们是日本人, 日本书很多 and 我们是美国人, 英文书很多 are linked together through parallelism, which automatically implies a contrast ("whereas") given that the topic of the first element (i.e,. 你们) is different from that of the second (i.e., 我们).

The sentence can help learners of Chinese as a second language familiarize themselves with such structures as topicalization and parallelism.  And I think that's one of the reasons that it is included in the textbook.


----------



## YangMuye

The sentences sound a little awkward to me without conjunctions.

I would prefer 你们是日本人，所以日文书很多。同样，我们是美国人，所以英文书很多。 But it really depends on what exactly you want to convey.

It's usually no problem leaving out conjunctions, since we can infer them from the context. But sometimes, conjunctions function like topic markers. It signals the purpose of utterance.

For instance, the whole sentence 你们是日本人，所以日文书很多。我们是美国人，所以英文书很多 can be simplified to 我们理所当然英文书很多, which 1) either justifies the reason we have a lot of English books by analogy, 2) smoothly introduces a new piece of information -- we have a lot of English books.

Without 所以, it would be a little hard for me to capture what exactly the speaker wants to convey. When I hear 你们是日本人，日文书很多；我们是美国人，英文书很多； I will expect the speaker continues with 所以……, and just wait for the final conclusion.

The “也” BODYholic suggests has a similar function. So when I hear 你们是日本人，日文书很多； I would just wait for the speaker to continues, and when I hear 我们是美国人，英文书也很多, I know the speaker intends to introduce the new information -- we have a lot of English books -- by comparison.

I think the awkwardness when conjunctions are left out comes from two factors:
1) both sentences are mere tautologies, not likely to be the point you want to make
2) the juxtaposition of two constructions that are extremely similar, while probably have totally different information values

The most reasonable interpretation is they are all "background information", serving as the basis of the subsequent discussion. In this case, I rely on explicit conjunctions.

If we pick another example, 他是日本人，听不懂中文。我是中国人，给他翻译。 would sound more natural. The biggest difference is: all the four sub-sentences are likely to be something the listener doesn't know, and all contain important information. It would be suitable as an answer for "what are you doing", but it's not suitable for questions like "why are you doing ...", in which case you have to add 所以 before 给他翻译.

Skatinginbc has mentioned Chinese sentences can be connected by parallelism. But that doesn't means conjunctions can always be left out. And the examples he picked don't sound natural to me.


@Hazel Xie: In fact, 也 can be used here. Regarding the usage of 也, I think Skatinginbc and I had a discussion before.


----------



## Skatinginbc

媽媽: 「大野狼躲在樹後面看小紅帽拿出一個漢堡, 吃得津津有味...」
小妹: 「為什麼吃漢堡, 不吃飯?」
媽媽: 「我们是中國人, 米飯比較普遍; 他們是美国人, 漢堡比較普遍.」
小妹: 「喔! 然後呢?」
The main point is the contrast in custom (不同人有不同習俗) as highlighted with parallelism, rather than the implied causal relations (我们是中國人所以米飯比較普遍; 他們是美国人所以漢堡比較普遍) that do not necessarily hold truth or may not be sound in logic.  To add any causal conjunctions, in this case, is 畫蛇添足.


----------



## YangMuye

我们是中國人, 稻米很多（所以吃饭）; 他們是美国人, 漢堡很多（所以吃米）.
I think the causal consequences are ellipsed and the sentence lacks a point, as pointed out by 小妹 “然後呢?”. The reaction is exactly the same as I expected


> I will expect the speaker continues with 所以……, and just wait for the final conclusion.
> [...]
> The most reasonable interpretation is they are all "background information", serving as the basis of the subsequent discussion. In this case, I rely on explicit conjunctions.



Nevertheless, the contrast is implied in 為什麼吃漢堡, (而)不吃飯 and 我们是中國人, 稻米很多; (而)他們是美国人, 漢堡很多. (But I just doubt if the speaker intends to “highlight” the contrast.)


----------



## Skatinginbc

Parallelism itself is a highlight, which makes obvious the contrast.

我们是中國人, 米飯比較普遍 = 我们是中國人 + 我们(這裡)米飯比較普遍.  Seriously, the structure does  not demand a causal relation.  It is simply a compound sentence that  puts two pieces of information together (我们是中國人 + 我们(這裡)米飯比較普遍).  It is  like the English compound sentence where two clauses are joined by  "AND".   
因為我们是中國人所以我们米飯比較普遍 ==> What kind of logic is  that?  The causal relation, which is weak, is not the main point.  And that's why no explicit causal conjunction is  present.  

Likewise, 你们是日本人，日文书很多 is also a compound of two  pieces of information.  Being a Japanese person does not warrant having many  Japanese books, so the causal relation between 你们是日本人 and 日文书很多 is loose  and thus not highlighted with an overt conjunction in this case.  An overt conjunction is usually reserved for an argument whose soundness in logic may be put to  test.


----------



## brofeelgood

「我们是中國人, 米飯比較普遍; 他們是美国人, 漢堡比較普遍.」 

I have to agree that it works in this context. None of the gist gets distorted due to the omission of 所以, and sentence lucidity is not compromised in any way.

But how about this?

小妹: 「為什麼用刀叉,不用筷子?」
媽媽: 「我们是中國人,所以用筷子;他們是美国人,所以用刀叉.」 - discarding 所以 results in 「我们是中國人,用筷子;他們是美国人,用刀叉.」

Am I drawing a fair comparison with this example? Here, I would only accept the version with 所以.


----------



## Skatinginbc

How about 「我们是中國人, 習慣用筷子; 他們是美国人, 習慣用刀叉」?  No causal conjunction is needed.
我们是中國人, 習慣用筷子 = 我们是中國人 + 我们習慣用筷子
他們是美国人, 習慣用刀叉 = 他們是美国人 + 他們習慣用刀叉


----------



## brofeelgood

Skatinginbc said:


> How about 媽媽: 「我们是中國人, 習慣用筷子; 他們是美国人, 習慣用刀叉」?  No causal conjunction 所以 is needed.



That definitely works, but like the first example, it seems to work by pointing out an unequivocal follow-on fact.

- We're Chinese, that's why we're comfortable with using chopsticks. Because of that, we eat with chopsticks, and not forks and spoons.

With the use of 所以 however, the answer addresses the question directly.

- We're Chinese, that's why we eat with chopsticks, and not forks and spoons.


----------



## Skatinginbc

I think the gist is more like this:  
小妹: 「為什麼用刀叉,不用筷子?」 "Why do they eat with forks, not chopsticks?"
媽媽: 「我们是中國人, 習慣用筷子; 他們是美国人, 習慣用刀叉」 "Don't forget we are Chinese and they are American.  We are used to eat with chopsticks, whereas they are used to eat with forks."


----------



## brofeelgood

What I meant was, 

- "我們是中國人,所以用筷子", the answer implies we use chopsticks because we are Chinese. 
- "我們是中國人,习惯用筷子", it's saying we use chopsticks because we are comfortable with them.

Both answers address the question, but I see a difference in the inherent reasoning.


----------



## Skatinginbc

為了幫助貧困的小學生, 同學們發起了一個捐書運動, 捐出看過不用的童話書.  當幾個國際學生興高采烈地捧來一堆書時, 負責收書的高橋本田不禁喃了一聲, 心想這些外語書籍小學生怎麼看得懂: 「怎麼這麼多英文書?」 
「你们是日本人，日文书很多； 我们是美国人，英文书很多。」一個國際學生回答了.
「喔, 謝謝!」 高橋本田無可奈何地把書收下.


brofeelgood said:


> I see a difference in the inherent reasoning.


 There is indeed a difference in nuance.


----------

