A question on particles...

[Alexis]

yhenry: Sorry, perhaps I'm kinda dumb, but you've confused me SO much... I didn't really understand what you were saying at all...

[Alexis]

OK, I think I MIGHT be slowly starting to understand this more...

If I said:
나는 김치를 촣아해요 that would mean "I like kimchi", right?

But if I said:
김치는 촣아해요 well... that wouldn't make sense, because that would mean "kimchi likes", and obviously... an inanimate thing like kimchi can't really like anything... but that's what it would mean, right?

But... what would it mean if I said:
김치가 촣아해요 ...would that still be "kimchi likes"?

So basically, when we use 을/를, it's the THING that the verb is being done TO, right? As opposed to the thing/person DOING the verb... right? Please tell me I'm on the right track... LOL.

[cheri]

OK, I think I MIGHT be slowly starting to understand this more...

If I said:
나는 김치를 촣아해요 that would mean "I like kimchi", right?

But if I said:
김치는 촣아해요 well... that wouldn't make sense, because that would mean "kimchi likes", and obviously... an inanimate thing like kimchi can't really like anything... but that's what it would mean, right?

But... what would it mean if I said:
김치가 촣아해요 ...would that still be "kimchi likes"?

So basically, when we use 을/를, it's the THING that the verb is being done TO, right? As opposed to the thing/person DOING the verb... right? Please tell me I'm on the right track... LOL.

I have to catch up on reading all 3 pages of this post hehe (so forgive me if I'm repeating anything that was already written), but to answer your Q quickly...

You hit the nail on the head - 을/를 marks the object of the sentence. So you could say 김치를 좋아해요 (and you're correct in saying that 김치가 좋아해요 is wrong). However, you could say also say 김치가 좋아요 - which means that kimchi is good, and in my opinion, has a similar effect to saying that you like it. ^^

[Alexis]

Oh great... now I'm kinda confused about 을/를 VS 이/가...

[cheri]

Oh great... now I'm kinda confused about 을/를 VS 이/가...

Uh oh, did I make things worse? ㅜㅜ

The reason you can say 김치가 좋아요 is because 좋다 can be thought of as a "descriptive verb" vs 좋아하다 which is an "action verb." You might think of it as this...

김치가 좋아요 Kimchi is good.
김치를 좋아해요 I like kimchi.

With "descriptive verbs," the noun in the sentence is paired with 이/가, and with "action verbs," the noun in the sentence is paired with 을/를.

(Notice that there are no pronouns in the sentence but we're implying that the subject is "I.")

Ok, upon reading that again, I realize how this can sound overly confusing... eek. But it really isn't, I promise. I'm probably doing a horrible job at explaining...

[yhenry]

Oh great... now I'm kinda confused about 을/를 VS 이/가...

First, 을/를 is OBJECT markers and 이/가 is SUBJECT markers.
So far so clear?

Second, In order to use the Object markers, the noun must be in the Object slot and of course must have a transitive verb or action verb, right?

Third, for the subject markers 는/가/이/은, they are to be attached to the SUBJECT, right? Any subject can have action or descriptive verb or adjective, called 'predicate, right?

Now, armed with the basic, we can go up the hill to attack the source of confusion.

The reason you can say 김치가 좋아요 is because 좋다 can be thought of as a "descriptive verb" vs 좋아하다 which is an "action verb." You might think of it as this...

Here you have it; the source of confusion. (maybe I am the source but let's get at this issue first)

Actually, 좋아요 is sort of "descriptive verb" but not exactly it.
It is adjective, according to Korean scholars and dictionary.
That is why it can allow its subject to have only subject markers.
There is no object slot for좋아요 in the adjective predicate! Just as in 'It seems good'.

김치가 좋아요 Kimchi is good.
Like I said earlier, you cannot translate 좋아요 as 'like' an action verb that can have an object in English sense, because 좋아요 is adjective in Korean sense.

In another hand, 좋아해요 is action verb, meaning it can have subject and object.
So, its subject gets subject marker and object object marker respectively.
나는 (S) 김치를(O) 좋아해요(V) ; I(S) like (V) kimchi (O).

With "descriptive verbs," the noun [subject]in the sentence is paired with 이/가, and with "action verbs," the noun[object] in the sentence is paired with 을/를.

If you change 'descriptive verbs' to adjective or adjectival and noun to subject and object respectively, you would be 'correct Korean-ly:D '.

(Notice that there are no pronouns in the sentence but we're implying that the subject is "I.")

For newbies, we should not drop subject, from now on. Maybe that is a source of confusion, if not my English.

Ok, upon reading that again, I realize how this can sound overly confusing... eek. But it really isn't, I promise. I'm probably doing a horrible job at explaining...

If you fix the verb confusion by inviting the Korean adjective concept, you can be more than sure, I guess.

For your ears only; we Koreans have trouble drawing a clear line between some verbs and adjectives. I think maybe because we take 'state of being' as adjective and have no special, independent 'BE' verb, word for existence, like English has.

Any thought?

[Alexis]

Hi everyone! Thanks for trying to explain this to me. It's strange, because I read what you're all saying, and it all totally makes sense. But when I come to actually writing or saying something myself, I get very confused.

I guess I should ask: is there any "easy" translation of these particles in English? EG: for 에 you could say that it means "to" or "at". Is there anything you could actually translate 을/를 as?

Also: does anyone have any ways I could practice these in order to improve and help my understanding? I think I find it really hard to learn things just by reading. I learn well, however, through examples and practicing. So if anyone has any ideas, that would be great! For those of you who are learning Korean as a second language, how did you practice/learn all these things? Or did you just instantly understand it all perfectly?

[Alexis]

I have another question! (Sorry!)

If I want to say "Australia is hot", what would I use? 은/는 or 을/를?

Because doesn't it mean the same thing if I use both?

호주은 뜨거운해요 = Australia is hot
and
호주를 뜨거운헤요 = Australia is hot

So... which one?
It's these times/examples where I'm just really confused and I simply... don't get it.

[shannatan]

If you want to say 'Australia is hot', you should use the topic particle 은/는.

so for a simple sentence, you can write, 호주는 더워요.

덥다: to be hot (weather)
뜨겁다: to be hot (temperature of object)

as 호주 ends in a vowel, you should use 는 instead.

the object particles 을/를 are used with objects and are followed by verbs. Since 'to be hot' is an adjective, we don't use them (:

[molores]

hi so sorry to add to the confusion but I get really confused (well sometimes) when there are two or three verbs in the sentence and two or three things that can be talked about.. for example:

She thought the man went to the office.
계는 남자가 office으로 갔고 생각해요?
is it remotely close? I was thinking nounA- nounB- verb for B- verb for A?

What happens if there are three things being talked about?
The dog chased the cat that came from the window I left open.

[Alexis]

Thanks, shannatan! That makes sense, too!

I guess, what I was confused about were sentences that didn't seem to have an object in the first place. I think I'm pretty clear now on sentences like: I read a book, or I like food etc etc... but with sentences like Australia is hot, it's kinda hard to tell whether Australia is the subject or the object...

Still, things are becoming a bit clearer for me!

Also, I know I should have used 는 instead of 은... that was a mistake! ^_^

I also, at least for now, think it's probably good if I think of what I want to say in English first, and then try and translate into Korean...

Anywho, 감사합니다 여러분!!!

[molores]

hey mate I think some of the confusion stems from not being able to say what's a verb and what's an adjective since it ain't clearcut in korean.. well that's what I think anyway.. like 이것은 좋아 uses 은 because 홓아 is an adjective to be good or likeable. 이것을 좋아해 uses 을 because 좋아해 is a verb so basically it's 'I like it'.
And for the 가/는 thing, it's really confusing but I guess it just needs practice and intuition.

[yhenry]

hi so sorry to add to the confusion but I get really confused (well sometimes) when there are two or three verbs in the sentence and two or three things that can be talked about.. for example:

She thought the man went to the office.
계는 남자가 office으로 갔고 생각해요?
is it remotely close? I was thinking nounA- nounB- verb for B- verb for A?

What happens if there are three things being talked about?
The dog chased the cat that came from the window I left open.

Hi.

You have got a good question that should not be a confusion issue if you know the basic grammar.

Just like English, having many verbs in one sentence but with only one main verb and the rest changed into other verbal form like infinitive, gerund or participle, Korean can have many verb with only one main coming at the end of a sentence and the rest being conjugated functioning, not as verb, but as adverb or adjective.

That said, the example you gave can be analyzed much easier and clearer.

Let me do the sentence analyze for you, step by step , a way easier for you, without getting much into 본동사 (main verb) 보조동사 (assistant verb) stuff.
(I am trying to see a Korean sentence in light of English sentence pattern, not of actual syntax of Korean)

1. {계는]subject [남자가 사무실로 갔다*고] object [생각해요?] verb
2. he/she (S) something (O) think(V) : S+O+V pattern
3. think '남자가 사무실로 갔다고' as a clause or a phrase, that is, nominal.
4. 남자가 (S) the man 사무실로 (adverb)to the office 갔다 (V)went => S+V pattern
5.think '고' as 'that' as in that clause.
6. that a man went to the office; a that clause
7. He/She thought that the man went to the office.

Now you can understand the function of '고' a lot clearer, don't you think?
Or do you want to get into the double decker type verb pattern in Korean to understand Korean as Korean?
If you want, I can take you there.

나는 당신이 똑똑하다*고 생각합니다
아이가 울*고 있다
그는 먹고나서 자*고 있다

[yhenry]

What happens if there are three things being talked about?
The dog chased the cat that came from the window I left open.

1.The dog 개 chased 쫓다 the cat 고양이that came 왔다 from the window 창문I 내가 left open 열어 놓다

2. The dog 개(S) the cat 고양이(O) chased 쫓다(V) ; S+O+V pattern
3. conjugation
subject 개 =>개*가
object 고양이 =>고양이*를
verb 쫓다 => 쫓*았*다
4. the cat that came 왔다 from the window 창문'
that clause is used to modify a noun, so it need adjectival conjugation
왔다 =>온
창문' => 창문*에서
창문*에서 온 고양이
5.the window 창문 that I 내가 left open 열어 놓다
again, that clause modifies a noun, thus, needs adjectival form.
left open 열어 놓다 => 열어 놓*은
내가 열어 놓*은 창문

Now, putting all together, first comes subject, then, object and finally the main verb.
개*가 내가 열어 놓*은 창문에서 *온* 고양이*를 쫓*았*다

See how words are conjugated to show the relation between words!

[yhenry]

Thanks, shannatan! That makes sense, too!

I guess, what I was confused about were sentences that didn't seem to have an object in the first place. I think I'm pretty clear now on sentences like: I read a book, or I like food etc etc... but with sentences like Australia is hot, it's kinda hard to tell whether Australia is the subject or the object...

Why is it so hard for you to tell what is subject and what is object?
Very interesting, if not curious.