<p>Ah. I think the tone matters here ( from MY own perspective).</p>
<p>When we read 只要……就 sentence, you may perceive that the stress is on 只要…… part. We are emphasizing the condition and 就 part is not as strong as the condition （就 weakened the tone）.
However, here Kim Jong-un is making a  vow that North Korea will NEVER USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND ......, unless she is threatened by nuclear annihilation (this is more like a supplementary condition). So 就 is supposed to be omitted to enhance the momentum.</p>
<p>PS. You may let a native read the sentences with and without 就 for you and try to feel the subtle difference.</p>
<p>试比较：</p>
<blockquote>
<p>只要你不在此捣乱，我（就）<strong>决不</strong>撵你出去。( There could be a 就，but I prefer not.)</p>
<p>只要你<strong>不在此捣乱</strong>，我就不会撵你出去。</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-10T11:44:32.023Z
2018-05-10T12:03:56.623Z
2020-06-17T09:50:11.587Z
Toosky Hierot
<p>Asking around, the general opinion is, your sentence sounds a bit weird without 就，but not unacceptable.</p>

<p>In an 'If ....., then .....' sentence I would not talk of a 'main clause', since both the ‘If [condition]’and 'then [result]' are equally important.</p>

<p>In the case [condition] = false [result] will not happen.</p>

<p>只要朝鲜不受核威胁挑衅，<br>
If N.K. is not threatened or provoked with nuclear weapons<br>
朝鲜（就）绝对不使用核武器，<br>
N.K. then absolutely will not use nuclear weapons (no first strike)<br>
不泄露核武器和核技术。<br>
neither will N.K. spread nuclear weapons or nuclear technology.</p>

<p>Thus he says: “Actually we won’t give up our nuclear option.” Whether the Americans will accept that, I very much doubt.</p>

<p>Let’s hope, for all our sakes, that 王毅 can broker a deal!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-10T23:17:08.513Z
2018-05-10T23:17:08.513Z
Pedroski
<p>Is the following sentence <a href="http://m.people.cn/n4/2018/0421/c1648-10866193.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">over 人民網</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>朝鲜最高领导人金正恩在20日举行的劳动党中央委员会第七届第三次全体会议上宣布，朝鲜将从21日开始，不再进行任何核试验和洲际弹道导弹发射，废弃朝鲜北部核试验场。<strong>只要朝鲜不受核威胁挑衅，朝鲜绝对不使用核武器，不泄露核武器和核技术。</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>When you use 只要～, it needs a main clause, which includes either 就 or 便. But this sentence does not carry such words.</p>
<p>So I wonder why it does not have. Is it grammatically correct to omit it, and how can I know what it would mean in the main clause? There would not be any one-fit-for-all clause here, as I came up with multiple main clauses (correct me if something is wrong in the comment). For example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>中国政府就支持朝鲜的恒久发展。</p>
<p>亚洲和世界全体的和平就实现了。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>etc...</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-11T00:51:51.943Z
The reason 就 is missing is  because the compelling word 绝对 being used there.
dan
<grammar><mandarin><adverbs>
Is it acceptable to omit the main clause in 只要～ phrase?
# Is it acceptable to omit the main clause in 只要～ phrase?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-05-10)

Is the following sentence [over 人民網](http://m.people.cn/n4/2018/0421/c1648-10866193.html):

> 朝鲜最高领导人金正恩在20日举行的劳动党中央委员会第七届第三次全体会议上宣布，朝鲜将从21日开始，不再进行任何核试验和洲际弹道导弹发射，废弃朝鲜北部核试验场。**只要朝鲜不受核威胁挑衅，朝鲜绝对不使用核武器，不泄露核武器和核技术。**

When you use 只要～, it needs a main clause, which includes either 就 or 便. But this sentence does not carry such words.

So I wonder why it does not have. Is it grammatically correct to omit it, and how can I know what it would mean in the main clause? There would not be any one-fit-for-all clause here, as I came up with multiple main clauses (correct me if something is wrong in the comment). For example:

> 中国政府就支持朝鲜的恒久发展。
>
> 亚洲和世界全体的和平就实现了。

etc...

**Tags:** grammar, mandarin, adverbs

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The reason 就 is missing is  because the compelling word 绝对 being used there.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-05-10. Score: 1

Ah. I think the tone matters here ( from MY own perspective).

When we read 只要……就 sentence, you may perceive that the stress is on 只要…… part. We are emphasizing the condition and 就 part is not as strong as the condition （就 weakened the tone）.
However, here Kim Jong-un is making a vow that North Korea will NEVER USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND ......, unless she is threatened by nuclear annihilation (this is more like a supplementary condition). So 就 is supposed to be omitted to enhance the momentum.

PS. You may let a native read the sentences with and without 就 for you and try to feel the subtle difference.

试比较：

> 只要你不在此捣乱，我（就）**决不**撵你出去。( There could be a 就，but I prefer not.)
>
> 只要你**不在此捣乱**，我就不会撵你出去。


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-05-10. Score: 0

Asking around, the general opinion is, your sentence sounds a bit weird without 就，but not unacceptable.

In an 'If ....., then .....' sentence I would not talk of a 'main clause', since both the ‘If [condition]’and 'then [result]' are equally important.

In the case [condition] = false [result] will not happen.

只要朝鲜不受核威胁挑衅，  
If N.K. is not threatened or provoked with nuclear weapons  
朝鲜（就）绝对不使用核武器，  
N.K. then absolutely will not use nuclear weapons (no first strike)  
不泄露核武器和核技术。  
neither will N.K. spread nuclear weapons or nuclear technology.

Thus he says: “Actually we won’t give up our nuclear option.” Whether the Americans will accept that, I very much doubt.

Let’s hope, for all our sakes, that 王毅 can broker a deal!


---

