<p>In Chinese, the structure <em>Subject noun + (很)adjective</em>  forms a clause/sentence.  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>野生大熊猫的数量少是很多原因造成的</p>
</blockquote>

<p>野生大熊猫的数量少 is a clause, which is the subject of the whole sentence. So, in this case, we shouldn't use the structure 少的数量 ， 少数量，because 很多原因 cause数量少, not 数量. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-25T12:12:55.247Z
I don't think this answered my question though. I understand 野生大熊猫的数量少 is a clause and also the subject of the whole sentence. My question is not about how to partition the sentence. I believe 很多原因造成野生大熊猫的少数量 is also wrong, right? So, why 少的数量or 少数量 shouldn't be used?
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-25T13:07:21.400Z
@cnwang09 the last part, because 很多原因 cause 数量少, not 数量.
dan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-25T15:39:39.183Z
My question is not about 很多原因 cause 数量, which is definitely wrong. Let me elaborate my question in a different way: 少数量 is a wrong phrase regardless which sentence it is in and where it is put in a sentence. It is simply wrong. I want to know why.
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-25T23:51:22.247Z
@cnwang09  I think generally in Chinese(unlike in 'English) [adjective + noun] is a wrong expression unless it can form another fixed noun word. For example, 美丽人, 幸福人，高兴人，those phrases sound wrong. 高人 sounds right because it forms another fixed noun word, but 低人 sounds completely wrong. I think the same thing for 少数量. That's what I can tell.
dan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-26T00:48:54.063Z
美丽人, 幸福人，高兴人 are wrong because the particle 的 is missing, not because in Chinese [adjective + noun] is a wrong expression. 美丽的人, 幸福的人，高兴的人are correct. But 少的数量 is wrong, as what you wrote. Now the explanation sounds like "that's the way it is".
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-26T01:47:55.330Z
@cnwang09 well, 少的数量 could be valid in the phrase, 这么少的数量 , but 这么少数量 sounds wrong. The correct expression in Chinese is [adjective+ 的+noun], not [adjective+noun]. That's what I was trying to say.
dan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-26T11:35:31.487Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/76584/discussion-between-cnwang09-and-dan).
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-26T11:40:27.493Z
I disagree. [adjective+noun] is also a correct expression. For example, 大眼睛，红苹果。Besides, 这么少的数量 valid doesn't imply 少的数量 valid.
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-26T23:39:20.450Z
@cnwang09 the point is [adjective + 的+ noun] is always correct. Say 大的眼睛， 红的苹果. But, [adjective + noun] is not *always* correct. Like the case 美丽人. I'd say 少的数量 sounds more correct or at least more close to correct compared with 少数量. At least, we could find it correct in the phrase 这么少的数量. However, you couldn't find 少数量 is correct in any context. That's my opinion.
dan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-27T01:40:58.183Z
I agree 美丽人 doesn't sound right, but that is due to the rhythm of this language. 美丽 is a two-character adjective. 人 is a one-character noun. 美丽人生，美丽城市 are correct and sound nature. Your example proves what I said: when the phrase is in a sentence, it is the rhythm that determines whether 的 should be added between the adjective and noun, not a grammar pattern. Besides, without sentence, talking about a phrase's validation doesn't make sense. 野生大熊猫的少的数量是很多原因造成的 doesn't sound nature either.
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-27T01:54:36.443Z
Also, we might have diverged from my original question. :)
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-27T02:02:03.600Z
@cnwang09 how about 这么少的数量很难满足我们的需求， which is a full sentence.
dan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-27T02:18:23.843Z
This sentence is definitely correct, because 这么少 and 数量are balanced. But that's not my question. :) I added a comment under my original question to give counter examples.
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-25T00:31:57.830Z
2018-04-25T00:47:53.287Z
2018-04-25T00:47:53.287Z
dan
<p>Hummm, I just think "That's the way it is". It's annoying to many that though Chinese has a comparative simple grammar, it's lacking regularity... Or perhaps the grammar imported from the west is not good enough for Chinese...
Let me now TRY to answer your question:
野生大熊猫的数量少 is a complete clause （something like subject clause In English）So we can say "(The fact)that blablabla has many causes." Absolutely correct.
However,野生大熊猫的少数量...First If we regard it as a clause no verb shows In it. If It's just a noun phrase as the subject, It's incorrect too because 数量 cannot be modified by 少. In fact, i ve never heard such things like 大数量 小数量 多数量 少数量. Oh It's just as you cannot say big price small price In English...数量 is an abstract concept,  so It's no bigger or smaller whether it s one billion or one hundred...
May it helps</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-07T07:18:30.633Z
2018-05-07T07:18:30.633Z
Toosky Hierot
<p>Very interesting! I agree with Dan.</p>

<p>Apparently 大熊猫的少数量 means 'some of the pandas' which does not fit well with 是很多原因造成的</p>

<p>I would interpret 少 and 数量少 in 1. as 'lack, scarcity,' as a noun like 缺乏 （e.g. 基本营养的缺乏.）</p>

<p>野生大熊猫的数量少是很多原因造成的<br>
The scarcity of wild giant pandas is due to many causes.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-25T12:18:16.920Z
The 少 in the 1st sentence is a verb. 野生大熊猫的数量少 is a complete sentence, literally equivalent to "The number of wild panda is small". The 少 in the 2nd sentence is an adjective, which modifies 数量, but it is wrong. My question is why 少 can't be used as an adjective here. Per my knowledge, every adjective in Chinese has two roles: adjective and verb. That is, an adjective can be used to modify a noun and as a verb. Is 少 an exception?
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-25T13:00:39.883Z
@cnwang09 actually, 少 is an adjective in either case.
dan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-25T15:27:55.883Z
@dan I disagree. 少 in the 1st sentence is an adjectival verb, not a regular adjective which is usually used to modify a noun.
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-26T00:06:18.107Z
" why 少 can't be used as an adjective here?" Like I said, '少数量‘ carries a meaning of 'a few of, some of'. 2. would then be '*A few of the wild giant pandas are caused by many factors.'
Pedroski
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-26T00:57:17.117Z
@Pedroski It sounds like if 少 is used as an adjective modifier, its actual meaning is "a few of", not "small". If so, 少 is definitely an exception! I have other sentences that both formats are correct. 兔子的尾巴短是很多原因造成的 vs. 兔子的短尾巴是很多原因造成的, both are correct.
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-25T03:45:00.593Z
2018-04-25T03:45:00.593Z
Pedroski
<p>I don't know why the first sentence is correct but the second is wrong.  </p>

<ol>
<li><p>野生大熊猫的数量少是很多原因造成的</p></li>
<li><p>野生大熊猫的少数量是很多原因造成的</p></li>
</ol>

<p>According to the dictionary, 少, when it is an adjective, means "small". So "small amount" should be 少数量, right? Why is the second sentence wrong?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-27T02:20:24.120Z
Just to make my question clearer, there are similar sentences (in a pair too) like the pair in the question, but both of them are correct. 兔子的尾巴短是很多原因造成的 vs. 兔子的短尾巴是很多原因造成的 - Both are correct. 她的急脾气是大家公认的 vs. 她的脾气急是大家公认的. Both are correct.
cnwang09
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-13T09:19:43.550Z
Don't agree with cnwang09. 兔子的**短**尾巴是很多原因造成的 (There are a number of causes that make the **short** tail of a rabbit) vs 兔子的尾巴**短**是很多原因造成的 (There are a number of causes that make the tail of a rabbit **being** **short**), and 她的**急**脾气是大家公认的 (It is acknowledged that her **bad** temper) vs 她的脾气**急**是大家公认的 (It is acknowledged that her temper **is** **bad**). The clauses in the both former sentences are not complete obviously.
xenophōn
<vocabulary>
Why is 少数量 wrong?
# Why is 少数量 wrong?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-04-24)

I don't know why the first sentence is correct but the second is wrong.

1. 野生大熊猫的数量少是很多原因造成的
2. 野生大熊猫的少数量是很多原因造成的

According to the dictionary, 少, when it is an adjective, means "small". So "small amount" should be 少数量, right? Why is the second sentence wrong?

**Tags:** vocabulary

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Just to make my question clearer, there are similar sentences (in a pair too) like the pair in the question, but both of them are correct. 兔子的尾巴短是很多原因造成的 vs. 兔子的短尾巴是很多原因造成的 - Both are correct. 她的急脾气是大家公认的 vs. 她的脾气急是大家公认的. Both are correct.  
> **username_1**: Don't agree with username_0. 兔子的**短**尾巴是很多原因造成的 (There are a number of causes that make the **short** tail of a rabbit) vs 兔子的尾巴**短**是很多原因造成的 (There are a number of causes that make the tail of a rabbit **being** **short**), and 她的**急**脾气是大家公认的 (It is acknowledged that her **bad** temper) vs 她的脾气**急**是大家公认的 (It is acknowledged that her temper **is** **bad**). The clauses in the both former sentences are not complete obviously.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-04-25. Score: 2

In Chinese, the structure *Subject noun + (很)adjective* forms a clause/sentence.

> 野生大熊猫的数量少是很多原因造成的

野生大熊猫的数量少 is a clause, which is the subject of the whole sentence. So, in this case, we shouldn't use the structure 少的数量 ， 少数量，because 很多原因 cause数量少, not 数量.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I don't think this answered my question though. I understand 野生大熊猫的数量少 is a clause and also the subject of the whole sentence. My question is not about how to partition the sentence. I believe 很多原因造成野生大熊猫的少数量 is also wrong, right? So, why 少的数量or 少数量 shouldn't be used?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 the last part, because 很多原因 cause 数量少, not 数量.  
> **username_0**: My question is not about 很多原因 cause 数量, which is definitely wrong. Let me elaborate my question in a different way: 少数量 is a wrong phrase regardless which sentence it is in and where it is put in a sentence. It is simply wrong. I want to know why.  
> **username_2**: @username_0  I think generally in Chinese(unlike in 'English) [adjective + noun] is a wrong expression unless it can form another fixed noun word. For example, 美丽人, 幸福人，高兴人，those phrases sound wrong. 高人 sounds right because it forms another fixed noun word, but 低人 sounds completely wrong. I think the same thing for 少数量. That's what I can tell.  
> **username_0**: 美丽人, 幸福人，高兴人 are wrong because the particle 的 is missing, not because in Chinese [adjective + noun] is a wrong expression. 美丽的人, 幸福的人，高兴的人are correct. But 少的数量 is wrong, as what you wrote. Now the explanation sounds like "that's the way it is".  
> **username_2**: @username_0 well, 少的数量 could be valid in the phrase, 这么少的数量 , but 这么少数量 sounds wrong. The correct expression in Chinese is [adjective+ 的+noun], not [adjective+noun]. That's what I was trying to say.  
> **username_0**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/76584/discussion-between-username_0-and-dan).  
> **username_0**: I disagree. [adjective+noun] is also a correct expression. For example, 大眼睛，红苹果。Besides, 这么少的数量 valid doesn't imply 少的数量 valid.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 the point is [adjective + 的+ noun] is always correct. Say 大的眼睛， 红的苹果. But, [adjective + noun] is not *always* correct. Like the case 美丽人. I'd say 少的数量 sounds more correct or at least more close to correct compared with 少数量. At least, we could find it correct in the phrase 这么少的数量. However, you couldn't find 少数量 is correct in any context. That's my opinion.  
> **username_0**: I agree 美丽人 doesn't sound right, but that is due to the rhythm of this language. 美丽 is a two-character adjective. 人 is a one-character noun. 美丽人生，美丽城市 are correct and sound nature. Your example proves what I said: when the phrase is in a sentence, it is the rhythm that determines whether 的 should be added between the adjective and noun, not a grammar pattern. Besides, without sentence, talking about a phrase's validation doesn't make sense. 野生大熊猫的少的数量是很多原因造成的 doesn't sound nature either.  
> **username_0**: Also, we might have diverged from my original question. :)  
> **username_2**: @username_0 how about 这么少的数量很难满足我们的需求， which is a full sentence.  
> **username_0**: This sentence is definitely correct, because 这么少 and 数量are balanced. But that's not my question. :) I added a comment under my original question to give counter examples.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-05-07. Score: 1

Hummm, I just think "That's the way it is". It's annoying to many that though Chinese has a comparative simple grammar, it's lacking regularity... Or perhaps the grammar imported from the west is not good enough for Chinese...
Let me now TRY to answer your question:
野生大熊猫的数量少 is a complete clause （something like subject clause In English）So we can say "(The fact)that blablabla has many causes." Absolutely correct.
However,野生大熊猫的少数量...First If we regard it as a clause no verb shows In it. If It's just a noun phrase as the subject, It's incorrect too because 数量 cannot be modified by 少. In fact, i ve never heard such things like 大数量 小数量 多数量 少数量. Oh It's just as you cannot say big price small price In English...数量 is an abstract concept, so It's no bigger or smaller whether it s one billion or one hundred...
May it helps


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-04-25. Score: 0

Very interesting! I agree with Dan.

Apparently 大熊猫的少数量 means 'some of the pandas' which does not fit well with 是很多原因造成的

I would interpret 少 and 数量少 in 1. as 'lack, scarcity,' as a noun like 缺乏 （e.g. 基本营养的缺乏.）

野生大熊猫的数量少是很多原因造成的  
The scarcity of wild giant pandas is due to many causes.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: The 少 in the 1st sentence is a verb. 野生大熊猫的数量少 is a complete sentence, literally equivalent to "The number of wild panda is small". The 少 in the 2nd sentence is an adjective, which modifies 数量, but it is wrong. My question is why 少 can't be used as an adjective here. Per my knowledge, every adjective in Chinese has two roles: adjective and verb. That is, an adjective can be used to modify a noun and as a verb. Is 少 an exception?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 actually, 少 is an adjective in either case.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I disagree. 少 in the 1st sentence is an adjectival verb, not a regular adjective which is usually used to modify a noun.  
> **username_4**: " why 少 can't be used as an adjective here?" Like I said, '少数量‘ carries a meaning of 'a few of, some of'. 2. would then be '*A few of the wild giant pandas are caused by many factors.'  
> **username_0**: @username_4 It sounds like if 少 is used as an adjective modifier, its actual meaning is "a few of", not "small". If so, 少 is definitely an exception! I have other sentences that both formats are correct. 兔子的尾巴短是很多原因造成的 vs. 兔子的短尾巴是很多原因造成的, both are correct.  

---

