Can 由于 be used at the beginning of a sentence without a corresponding phrase indicating a result?

[anonymoose]

I found a couple of strange sentences in a book. The first one is:

由于流行性出血热患者早期的血和尿中携带流行性出血热病毒，虽然有个别病例接触后感染，但人不是主要传染源。

I think if a sentence starts with 由于, there should be a corresponding 因此/所以 phrase following it. Is this sentence correct, and if so, is it considered stylistically good?

Also, another from the same book:

由于病毒感染和感染后引起的免疫反应导致细胞变性、死亡或凋亡及器官功能损害。

It seems that this is not a complete sentence.

Any comments?

[creamyhorror]

I'm not really in a position to judge validity, but for

由于流行性出血热患者早期的血和尿中携带流行性出血热病毒，虽然有个别病例接触后感染，但人不是主要传染源。

This seems weird to me because the basic implied structure is

由于患者的血和尿中携带病毒，[所以]人不是主要传染源。

which doesn't quite make sense. I also agree that the second example sentence is incomplete.

I'm interested to see what native speakers think.

[lingo-ling]

Is the second sentence followed by another sentence? Perhaps there should be a comma where the period is. That's a rather common "mistake" that Chinese writers make. (Remember that sentence structures that would be considered poorly formed in English are par for the course in Chinese.)

[Michaelyus]

The first sentence is trying to get the point across that [normal] human contact is not a major source of infection due to the cited fluids being the primary source of pathogen.

I would say that this is very typical of academese (which I would classify as poor style). The "Because..., although... but..." structure is common enough in academic English, but of course it works (even!) less well in Chinese, as the apodosis is generally marked in "because" constructions if 由于 is in the protasis.

The second sentence does sound incomplete to me. But there could be an alternative mistake (going on my biomedical knowledge):

由于病毒感染和感染后引起的免疫反应 | 导致细胞变性、死亡或凋亡及器官功能损害。

Again, classic academese. Here the solution is undoubtedly to remove the 由于.

[skylee]

I think if a sentence starts with 由于, there should be a corresponding 因此/所以 phrase following it.

There doesn't have to be. Consider, for example, 由於電力故障，前往中環方向的列車已暫停服務。乘客請改乘其它交通工具。

As to the two sentences, consider -

虽然由于流行性出血热患者早期的血和尿中携带流行性出血热病毒，虽然有个别病例接触后感染，但人不是主要传染源。

Or 由于流行性出血热患者早期的血和尿中携带流行性出血热病毒，虽然故有个别病例接触后感染，但人不是主要传染源。

And

由于病毒感染和感染后引起的免疫反应會导致细胞变性、死亡或凋亡及器官功能损害。

[lingo-ling]

由於電力故障，前往中環方向的列車已暫停服務。

In this case, the comma makes it clear where the division between the cause and effect clauses are.

由于流行性出血热患者早期的血和尿中携带流行性出血热病毒，虽然故有个别病例接触后感染，但人不是主要传染源。

This recasting of the sentence untangles the nested dependent clauses (common in Chinese writing) and clarifies the meaning eminently.

Author, take note!

由于病毒感染和感染后引起的免疫反应會导致细胞变性、死亡或凋亡及器官功能损害。

See, once the division between cause and effect is specified, everything falls into place! I was puzzling over it, but now it's clear as a bell! (Again: authors take note!)

The simple addition of a comma would also have clarified the division:

由于病毒感染和感染后引起的免疫反应，导致细胞变性、死亡或凋亡及器官功能损害。

This would be like "Because of...., [this] leads to..."

It reminds me of the 由於... 讓... structure I see Taiwanese students use a lot:

由於修過這些課程，讓我學很多。

"Because I took these courses, [this] made me learn a lot" (or, "I learned a lot from these courses.")

[Kenny同志]

Just ignore them.

On the Mainland, atrocious Chinese isn't rare in Chinese language publications of natural sciences and the media. Some publishers probably do not even bother editing their books or news before publication.

[anonymoose]

Thanks everyone for your comments. At least it confirms for me that it is poor Chinese and not just my lack of familiarity with the language.

And Skylee, I appreciate your example (由於電力故障，前往中環方向的列車已暫停服務), but I feel it is different because although you didn't explicitly include a 所以, it is clear that there is an implied 所以 at the beginning of the second phrase.

[anonymoose]

The first sentence is trying to get the point across that [normal] human contact is not a major source of infection due to the cited fluids being the primary source of pathogen.

I don't think so. The way I interpret the sentence is that, in spite of the cited fluids being the primary source of the pathogen, human contact is not a major source of infection.

[skylee]

And Skylee, I appreciate your example (由於電力故障，前往中環方向的列車已暫停服務), but I feel it is different because although you didn't explicitly include a 所以, it is clear that there is an implied 所以 at the beginning of the second phrase.

It is implied all right. But my point is that there doesn't have to be a corresponding 因此/所以 phrase following 由於 (what you said).

The two sentences you quoted are problematic. But then people who write those things are probably people who do science. I would not be very critical of their writing. Not everybody can write well, which is why we appreciate and applaud good writers.

[creamyhorror]

The simple addition of a comma would also have clarified the division:

由于病毒感染和感染后引起的免疫反应，导致细胞变性、死亡或凋亡及器官功能损害。

This would be like "Because of...., [this] leads to..."

It reminds me of the 由於... 讓... structure I see Taiwanese students use a lot:

由於修過這些課程，讓我學很多。

"Because I took these courses, [this] made me learn a lot" (or, "I learned a lot from these courses.")

I find this sort of construction ("由于A，导致 / 让B。") uncomfortable to read, even though I see it occasionally. I just feel that 导致 and 让 have to have a bare subject ("A导致B"), but a 由于 phrase doesn't qualify. I understand it's a colloquialism, but is there any backing for it in formal writing?

The two sentences you quoted are problematic. But then people who write those things are probably people who do science. I would not be very critical of their writing. Not everybody can write well, which is why we appreciate and applaud good writers.

Frankly, I think mistakes like those are the equivalent of high school grammar errors. Not everyone can write well, but I'd generally expect such errors to be edited out of books before publication.

[Michaelyus]

This seems weird to me because the basic implied structure is

由于患者的血和尿中携带病毒，[所以]人不是主要传染源。

which doesn't quite make sense.

I don't think so. The way I interpret the sentence is that' date=' [b']in spite of[/b] the cited fluids being the primary source of the pathogen, human contact is not a major source of infection.

Here, the danger of this form of "because... although... but..." construction (in all languages I've come across) is precisely this sort of ambiguity. This is why such sentences are nigh on intolerable, and such grammar mistakes would be criticised quite heavily in all serious scientific work.

I'm going on biomedical knowledge mainly, but the above syllogism does make sense, in the context of the early stages of viral haemorrhagic fevers. Blood and urine are generally easy bodily fluids to avoid contact with [another hidden step in the syllogism]; what would be worrying and difficult is the existence of pulmonary methods of transmission, e.g. if there is any viral load in mucus, which does seem to be the case in later stages.

Hence I must disagree with Skylee's corrections above: the ambiguity has been resolved in the incorrect direction. The basic syllogism (由于... (所以)...) is correct, and the 虽然 clause is also correct; how these two have been put together is clunky at best, horribly misleading at worst.

What is perhaps most dangerous is the lack of definition in the grammatical subject in the first sentence's apodosis ("人" I would see as an unscientific word; I would have expected 人体 referring to the human body itself or something a little more specific referring to general human contact, such as 人之间平常的接触). I also dislike "由于A，导致 / 让B" because it leads to poor definition of the subject in the apodosis. I think this kind of poor wording can plague academic language, in particular within the biosciences, because it comes from a tendency to refrain from committing to the 'strong form' of causation (as encapsulated in the construction "A 导致 B") prematurely.

[lingo-ling]

The Chinese often nest dependent clauses inside other dependent clauses.

They also seem to believe that things that are too clearly and explicitly written are "childish", and well-written, mature works should be vague and impenetrable, requiring interpretation and analysis on the part of the reader. This may be the case in English literary writing, but English academic writing needs to be explicit and unambiguous: the burden of analysis rests on the writer.

[skylee]

I don't think I understand Michaelyu's #12. I believe my interpretation of the first sentence is not wrong. To better illustrate what is said in #12, could Michaelyu revise the first sentence to make it both grammatically correct and scientifically accurate and/or unambiguious?

They also seem to believe that things that are too clearly and explicitly written are "childish", and well-written, mature works should be vague and impenetrable, requiring interpretation and analysis on the part of the reader.

I disagree. Too much generalisation here. But as said in #13 this might be the case in Chinese literary writing, as in English literary writing.

[Michaelyus]

So a correct rendition, though maybe not stylistically very nice, is the following:

虽然有个别病例接触后感染，但是由于流行性出血热患者早期的血和尿中携带流行性出血热病毒，(所以) 平常人之间接触不是主要传染源。

Here the nested dependent clauses have become stacked, which removes the ambiguity. This is the correct direction of causation, with 虽然 at the beginning and the 但是 introducing a 'because/由于' clause, the sense of which must then carry onto the final "result". Because of the stacking of connectives, the 所以 to my ear sounds best left out of the apodosis.

It might help if a selected part of the protasis is emphasised:

虽然有个别病例接触后感染，但是由于流行性出血热患者是(在)早期的血和尿中携带流行性出血热病毒的，(所以) 平常人之间接触不是主要传染源。

This seems to be the main motivational 'idea' behind the statement.

[skylee]

But this is not what the original sentence means. You've put in addtional information.

[Michaelyus]

Well, frankly I find the original sentence far too ambiguous to be admissible.

虽然有个别病例接触后感染，但由于流行性出血热患者早期的血和尿中携带流行性出血热病毒，人不是主要传染源。

vs

虽然由于流行性出血热患者早期的血和尿中携带流行性出血热病毒，有个别病例接触后感染，但人不是主要传染源。

You can see that the two resolutions have very different meanings, though both resolutions have come from simple reordering. Thereafter there is the problem with what 人 means in a medical context: it is not usually specific enough. If 人 means human contact, then the first is more scientifically accurate. If 人 means the human species (as opposed to certain animal vectors) then the second is more appropriate. Clarifying 人 would help resolve the ambiguity, because then the sense of 主要 would be made a little more evident. But that's where the problem of ambiguity lies with this type of clause!

[skylee]

I have re-read this thread. Regarding the first sentence in #1, I agree with anonymoose's #9. Unlike Michaelyu, I don't think the first part of the original sentence is meant to be the explanation of the last part of the original sentence.

[creamyhorror]

I also think that the intended meaning is what skylee and anonymoose have said (虽然A->B，但是C). What the intended meaning is kind of beside the point, however, since we all agree that the sentence is confusing and grammatically malformed no matter which interpretation you take.