I believe that a sentence in English must have a subject. (It does not necessarily have an object as for intransitive verbs.) A sentence without a subject is also possible as in an imperative sentence. Here my definition of a sentence is that a sentence should contain one (main) verb.

However, a sentence without a subject and object in English seems not allowed, whereas in some other languages like Chinese, it is indeed possible.

In some cases, if the performer of an action is not clearly defined, e.g. sky, we use it to specify the subject in English. But the subject is often completely waived in some languages as in Chinese. For example, we say "It is raining" (it is for sky), but in Chinese it is said "Rain now (下雨了)" (it is waived). Any thought is welcome.

1 Answer 1


I think this phenomenon can be understood as a linguistic feature. Many languages omit subjects, which is common in imperative sentences.

Excuse me. (不好意思)

Watch out. (小心)

In addition, due to the extensive use of honorific in Japanese and Korean, people usually avoid the use of the second person (there are few honorific words in the second person) and determine the meaning of a sentence by its ending.

The subject "you" is omitted here:

What do (you) do? (どんな仕事をされていますか?) (무슨 일을 하십니까?)

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .