<blockquote>
<p>is the sentence valid in grammar?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, it is. I would say it is even preferred to omit conjunctions in some cases, unless of course you are writing very technical documents. Adding all the conjunctions makes one's Chinese look cumbersome.</p>
<p>As for your question, it really can't have other interpretations. If you want to express</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You couldn't get the permission of the leaders, so you cannot go.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>that would be</p>
<blockquote>
<p>不会得到领导的允许，你不能走。</p>
<p>你不会得到领导的允许，不能走。(I think this one is better.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you want to express</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You haven't got the permission of the leaders, so you cannot go.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>that would be</p>
<blockquote>
<p>没得到领导的允许，你不能走。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Please note that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>得不到领导的允许，你不能走。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>would mean the same thing as the original sentence. '得不到' and '不得到' here mean the same thing. However, '得不到' can have another meaning, but the sentence structure would need to get a little change:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>你得不到领导的允许的，不能走。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>'不' and '没' with their various usages are really difficult in Chinese. 加油～</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-25T10:23:12.303Z
2016-11-25T10:23:12.303Z
2020-06-17T09:50:11.587Z
Betty
<blockquote>
  <p>But the sentence above doesn't use a conjunction. In this case, is the sentence valid in grammar?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Conjunctions are often omitted in Chinese and English. The example sentence is valid.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>不得到领导的允许，你不能走。</p></li>
<li><p>(如果)不得到领导的允许，你(就)不能走。</p></li>
</ol>

<p>These two sentences express the same thing. Just the first one omitted 如果 and 就.</p>

<p>You can also omit only 就 and write "如果不得到领导的允许，你不能走。" ; or you can omit only 如果 and write "不得到领导的允许，你就不能走。" . Both sentences are valid.</p>

<p>If you want to express "<em>You couldn't get the permission of the leaders, so you cannot go.</em>" the conjunctions would be different- (因為) 你得不到领导的允许，(所以) 你不能走</p>

<p>You can omit 因為 and write "得不到领导的允许，所以你不能走" ; or you can omit 所以 and write "因為得不到领导的允许，你不能走"</p>

<p>but you cannot omit both and not affect the sentence's meaning.</p>

<p><strong>The point is</strong>: </p>

<ul>
<li><p>You can omit conjunctions if it doesn't affect the sentence's meaning. </p></li>
<li><p>When a conjunction is needed to clarify the sentence, leave it un-omitted.</p></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Side note</strong>:</p>

<p>Beside conjunctions, you can also omit subjects and objects. As long as it doesn't affect the meaning of the sentence. For example: The full reply to "你認得我?" should be " 我認得你" since it is a Q and A between two people, the subject and object can be omitted to make it cleaner, just reply: "認得" is enough.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-24T09:37:06.373Z
2016-10-24T09:37:06.373Z
Tang Ho
<p>In macOS' Dictionary app, the result of <code>允许</code> shows the following example sentence:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>不得到领导的允许，你不能走。</p>
<p>You can’t go without the permission of the leaders.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, I wonder how the sentence can be valid without a conjunction. Specifically, I can understand it if it uses a conjunction, like:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>如果你不得到领导的允许，你就不能走。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But the sentence above doesn't use a conjunction. In this case, is the sentence valid in grammar?</p>
<p>Also, in these cases, how can I interpret it as a sentence that uses a <code>without</code> preposition? If I were to see just the sentence, my understanding would be something like the follows, with the comma functioning as a resultative:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You couldn't get the permission of the leaders, so you cannot go.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>, which slightly differs in meaning.</p>
<p>I have much difficulty in reaching the correct translation used in the dictionary...</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-24T09:06:25.343Z
literally: if you do not get the leader's (leaders')permission, you can't go,
grammars call this a contracted sentence 紧缩句, w/o conjunction, but implying correlation,  
不得到：(literally) did not get, "could not get" would be 得不到,
consult dictionary regarding prep. w/o: 没有、无（动），不（副）；缺少（动）
user6065
<mandarin><meaning-in-context>
How to interpret a sentence with two clauses but no conjunction?
# How to interpret a sentence with two clauses but no conjunction?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-10-24)

In macOS' Dictionary app, the result of `允许` shows the following example sentence:

> 不得到领导的允许，你不能走。
>
> You can’t go without the permission of the leaders.

However, I wonder how the sentence can be valid without a conjunction. Specifically, I can understand it if it uses a conjunction, like:

> 如果你不得到领导的允许，你就不能走。

But the sentence above doesn't use a conjunction. In this case, is the sentence valid in grammar?

Also, in these cases, how can I interpret it as a sentence that uses a `without` preposition? If I were to see just the sentence, my understanding would be something like the follows, with the comma functioning as a resultative:

> You couldn't get the permission of the leaders, so you cannot go.

, which slightly differs in meaning.

I have much difficulty in reaching the correct translation used in the dictionary...

**Tags:** mandarin, meaning-in-context

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: literally: if you do not get the leader's (leaders')permission, you can't go, grammars call this a contracted sentence 紧缩句, w/o conjunction, but implying correlation,   不得到：(literally) did not get, "could not get" would be 得不到, consult dictionary regarding prep. w/o: 没有、无（动），不（副）；缺少（动）  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-10-24. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

> But the sentence above doesn't use a conjunction. In this case, is the sentence valid in grammar?

Conjunctions are often omitted in Chinese and English. The example sentence is valid.

1. 不得到领导的允许，你不能走。
2. (如果)不得到领导的允许，你(就)不能走。

These two sentences express the same thing. Just the first one omitted 如果 and 就.

You can also omit only 就 and write "如果不得到领导的允许，你不能走。" ; or you can omit only 如果 and write "不得到领导的允许，你就不能走。" . Both sentences are valid.

If you want to express "*You couldn't get the permission of the leaders, so you cannot go.*" the conjunctions would be different- (因為) 你得不到领导的允许，(所以) 你不能走

You can omit 因為 and write "得不到领导的允许，所以你不能走" ; or you can omit 所以 and write "因為得不到领导的允许，你不能走"

but you cannot omit both and not affect the sentence's meaning.

**The point is**:

* You can omit conjunctions if it doesn't affect the sentence's meaning.
* When a conjunction is needed to clarify the sentence, leave it un-omitted.

**Side note**:

Beside conjunctions, you can also omit subjects and objects. As long as it doesn't affect the meaning of the sentence. For example: The full reply to "你認得我?" should be " 我認得你" since it is a Q and A between two people, the subject and object can be omitted to make it cleaner, just reply: "認得" is enough.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-11-25. Score: 2

> is the sentence valid in grammar?

Yes, it is. I would say it is even preferred to omit conjunctions in some cases, unless of course you are writing very technical documents. Adding all the conjunctions makes one's Chinese look cumbersome.

As for your question, it really can't have other interpretations. If you want to express

> You couldn't get the permission of the leaders, so you cannot go.

that would be

> 不会得到领导的允许，你不能走。
>
> 你不会得到领导的允许，不能走。(I think this one is better.)

If you want to express

> You haven't got the permission of the leaders, so you cannot go.

that would be

> 没得到领导的允许，你不能走。

Please note that

> 得不到领导的允许，你不能走。

would mean the same thing as the original sentence. '得不到' and '不得到' here mean the same thing. However, '得不到' can have another meaning, but the sentence structure would need to get a little change:

> 你得不到领导的允许的，不能走。

'不' and '没' with their various usages are really difficult in Chinese. 加油～


---

