A question on particles...

[yhenry]

Yes, I'm definitely not the person to explain official Korean grammar.

Honestly, I don't know anything about topic, but heard a lot about it.
All I know was subject, object, verb, complement,predicate, stuff like that.

Maybe that is a new word brought into the KSL(Korean as Second Language) community to explain a certain aspect of the Korean language for foreigners to understand easier, becoming a common word among them?

In that case, I should know what 'topic' is used for so that I can talk the same thing when in the community, however unofficial it is outside the KSL community.
Please tell me what you know about 'topic' or how it is understood among Korean learners?

I understand how hard it is to explain the grammar point in even simple sentence like '우리 남편은 누나가 있어요'.
우리 남편은 누나가 있어요' can be translated as 'my husband has a sister'.
That is what the sentence implies.
You got the meaning alright but not the true feeling of how we Koreans express things.
I am not too sure if I am saying it right though.

The way we say that 우리 our 남편은 husband 누나가 sister 있어요 'is, exist or present' may sound funny to English natives but very natural to us.
If you simply take ''my husband has a sister' and go, you can have only the English version of Korean, not true taste of Korean, without understanding how we say what way.

We have a word '가지다', a counterpart of 'have or possess' in English.
However, we don't use it like the way English word 'have' is used.

We love to use '있다 or 없다 instead, like 돈 money 좀 some 있냐 is in your possession? 밥 meal 좀 some 사 buy 줄 give 수 can/able 있냐 is/exist? 돈 없어 일 없어 etc.
We even like to add 있다 to 가지다, like 가지고 있냐.
'have' is not enough for us.
We seem to like to make sure if it is exist now and here.

Any other thoughts?

[javiskefka]

Yes, I'm definitely not the person to explain official Korean grammar.

Honestly, I don't know anything about topic, but heard a lot about it.
All I know was subject, object, verb, complement,predicate, stuff like that.

Maybe that is a new word brought into the KSL(Korean as Second Language) community to explain a certain aspect of the Korean language for foreigners to understand easier, becoming a common word among them?

In that case, I should know what 'topic' is used for so that I can talk the same thing when in the community, however unofficial it is outside the KSL community.
Please tell me what you know about 'topic' or how it is understood among Korean learners?

In that case, I can tell you that I have been taught that the TOPIC is simply the word or phrase in the sentence that has been marked with 은/는. The actual significance of what a TOPIC is depends on the context .

[yhenry]

In that case, I can tell you that I have been taught that the TOPIC is simply the word or phrase in the sentence that has been marked with 은/는. The actual significance of what a TOPIC is depends on the context .

Then, what is to be the difference between subject and topic.

In the case of 남편은 누나가 있어요, what can be the topic?
Is there any subject?

I assume that you know the grammar rule for the use of 는/가 after vowel ending and 이/은 after consonant ending.
And, all 4 suffixes can be the subject marker depending on the ending sound of the word.

So, what is to be subject and topic?
What can be the telltale sign?

[javiskefka]

In that case, I can tell you that I have been taught that the TOPIC is simply the word or phrase in the sentence that has been marked with 은/는. The actual significance of what a TOPIC is depends on the context .

Then, what is to be the difference between subject and topic.

In the case of 남편은 누나가 있어요, what can be the topic?
Is there any subject?

I assume that you know the grammar rule for the use of 는/가 after vowel ending and 이/은 after consonant ending.
And, all 4 suffixes can be the subject marker depending on the ending sound of the word.

So, what is to be subject and topic?
What can be the telltale sign?

I think my learning style must be different from yours, because I don't worry too much about classifying the words in a Korean sentence with grammar terms as if it were an English sentence. I just try to understand its meaning.

In cases like that, where there is:
명사A-은 명사B-가 동사

I think of 명사A as "what the sentence is about" and 명사B as "what does the action".

For example, in 나는 머리가 아파요. If you translated this to English (My head hurts) there would clearly be only one candidate for SUBJECT, so deciding if 나 or 다리 is the SUBJECT seems pointless to me.

That's just my opinion, though .

[yhenry]

I think my learning style must be different from yours, because I don't worry too much about classifying the words in a Korean sentence with grammar terms as if it were an English sentence. I just try to understand its meaning.

In cases like that, where there is:
명사A-은 명사B-가 동사

I think of 명사A as "what the sentence is about" and 명사B as "what does the action".

For example, in 나는 머리가 아파요. If you translated this to English (My head hurts) there would clearly be only one candidate for SUBJECT, so deciding if 나 or 다리 is the SUBJECT seems pointless to me.

That's just my opinion, though .

Yes, that is my learning style, but I think my style helps me understand and secure the basic easier. Once the basic is laid firmly, one can build learning experience a lot more organized and faster than those with loose or vague ideas about the basic and add more to that loose foundation. That is like loose jewelry not beaded together to be worn.

A lot of people try to memorize a useful phrase here and a commonly used sentence there, which is ok just to get by for a short time stay.
But, if you have a long term plan, you better get the basic right, though it takes more time and effort to begin with.

Yes, finding sentence patterns is a very good idea, but without knowing the basic 명 동 형 부 and those suffixes putting them together, those vocabularies you learned can't be fitted in the right place with proper suffixes carrying the original intention and nuance.

Just my way.

Do you happen to know the difference between these two sentences?

무었이 좋아요? 나는 사과가 좋아
무었을 좋아해요? 나는 사과를 좋아한다

[Alexis]

Hi again! I have another (possibly stupid) question...

I have just been introduced to 을/를 and I am COMPLETELY confused. I think so far, I've been OK with particles like 은/는 and 이/가 and other ones like 의, 에 etc, but I am finding myself simply... not really understanding 을/를. Beginner lesson 15 said it is often attached to ACTION verbs. But one of the examples it gives is: 저는 짬뿡을 먹었습니다. How is 짬뿡 an action VERB? 짬뿡 is what you ate, so it's a noun. ...I'm SO confused!

Also if the OBJECT of the sentence is 짬뿡, then what's the difference between the object and the subject? Why not just use 이/가 for 짬뿡??

...could someone please explain 을/를 a bit more for me...? It would be helpful to see a sentence that includes 은/는, 이/가 AND 을/를 so I can really see the difference. Sorry if this is a stupid question. I'd really appreciate it, though...

[holdfast]

이/가 and 은/는 can be used fairly interchangeably without completely changing the meaning HOWEVER 을/를 is something entirely different. it can't be used in a place where 이/가 or 은/는 would be used without changing the whole meaning of the sentence.

"Beginner lesson 15 said it is often attached to ACTION verbs." it is attached to the object of an action verb (which would be a noun), not to the verb itself. here:

을/를 marks the object of a verb - which means it shows what the action is happening to. so in the sentence 나는 사과를 먹었어요 - apple is the object, it is the thing being eaten, the thing receiving the action. and i used 나는 instead of 내가 because it is more natural sounding, even though they would both work.

another example:

나는 좋아해요 - i like (it).
나를 좋아해요? - (do you) like me?

in the first sentence, it is 나는 (again, 는 is more natural than 가 in this instance) because 나 is the one doing the action. in the second sentence it is 나를 because 나 is the one receiving the action.

in the example you were confused about 저는 짬뽕을 먹었습니다 - 짬뽕 is the object of the action verb 먹다 - the subject would be the one doing the action (저는 in this case). you can't use 이/가 with the object or it wouldn't make sense. if you wrote 짬뽕이 먹었습니다 that would mean "the 짬뽕 ate (it)."

does that make sense?

[Alexis]

Oh wow, thankyou SO much, holdfast! That definitely makes more sense now! I'm still a tad confused, but I think I'll just need to read over your explanation a few times to really get a firm grasp of it!

Again, thanks HEAPS!!

[holdfast]

no problem! it took me a long time to understand it too. people explained it to me and i understood what they were saying, but it still took awhile for me to really get it. the more you see it used - especially with the difference between 은/는 and 이/가 - the easier it will be to know when to use which particle. ^^

ah, and i just remembered something else that i learned with 은/는 and 이/가 - as i said before, 은/는 is less direct than 이/가 and i heard it explained like this:

나는 사과를 먹었어요 and 내가 사과를 먹었어요 both mean "i ate an apple." but the first sentence is simply like "i ate an apple" whereas the second sentence implies "i am the one who ate the apple." so.... if someone asked you 뭐 먹었어요? (what did you eat) the appropriate response would be 나는 사과를 먹었어요 but if someone asked you 누가 사과를 먹었어요 (who ate the apple) you could say 내가 먹었어요 (i ate it).

hopefully i'm not confusing you even more... (:

[Alexis]

OK, so... if I wanted to say... "I went to Korea", would it be:

"나는 한국을 갑니다"??

Hang on... that's wrong, isn't it? Because couldn't you just say:

"나는 한국에 갑니다"?


Urg... I'm very confused...

holdfast: I sorta understand what you mean, I just can't think of examples where it would be used...

...

...what's the difference, then, between an action verb and just a verb??

[SiEd]

OK, so... if I wanted to say... "I went to Korea", would it be:
"나는 한국을 갑니다"??

Hang on... that's wrong, isn't it? Because couldn't you just say:

"나는 한국에 갑니다"?


Urg... I'm very confused...

Because 한국 is not an object, which is what -을/-를 marks - it's a goal. And we do this in English: we can say "I went" and "I went to Korea.", but we cannot say "*I went Korea" because the verb 'to go' cannot take an object. We have to express this goal/destination with the preposition "to".

...what's the difference, then, between an action verb and just a verb??

Verb is a "supercategory" of words that denote events or states, rather than physical/figurative entities (which are called "nouns"). Action verbs, then, are verbs which denote activities and events (rather than states).

[holdfast]

you are right with 한국에 - even in english you "go to korea" not "go a korea" so 을/를 won't work in that situation.

hhmmmmmmm........ i am at a loss of how to explain this. i can give you a bunch of examples though....

eat an apple - 사과를 먹다
read a book - 책을 읽다
study korean - 한국어를 공부하다
watch a movie - 영화를 보다
take/ride a bus - 버스를 타다
listen to the radio - 라디오를 듣다

in each case, the thing is describing the action of the verb - it describes "what". in 한국에 가다 - korea is describing where you went - it describes "where".

make sense? ^^;;

[Alexis]

Ahhhhh...!!! I think it's starting to register in my head more!!

When you say it describes "what" it starts to make more sense...!

Does anyone else ever get confused over this? LOL.

[yhenry]

Hi again! I have another (possibly stupid) question...

I have just been introduced to 을/를 and I am COMPLETELY confused. I think so far, I've been OK with particles like 은/는 and 이/가 and other ones like 의, 에 etc, but I am finding myself simply... not really understanding 을/를. Beginner lesson 15 said it is often attached to ACTION verbs. But one of the examples it gives is: 저는 짬뿡을 먹었습니다. How is 짬뿡 an action VERB? 짬뿡 is what you ate, so it's a noun. ...I'm SO confused!

I think you mistook noun 짬뿡을 with verb 먹었습니다 which is to come at the end of sentence in Korean.
을/를 is object marker. You will see a lot of it whenever you see a sentence pattern of subject + object + verb.

Also if the OBJECT of the sentence is 짬뿡, then what's the difference between the object and the subject? Why not just use 이/가 for 짬뿡??

The difference between subject 주어 and the object 동사 is the same between 'I and apple' in 'I like an apple'.

The reason 이/가 is not used for 짬뿡 is because 짬뿡 is placed in the object slot, followed by verb, NOT in the subject slot where 이/가/는/은 can go, marking the noun as subject the doer. It is I that ate 짬뿡, not 짬뿡 that eat(?).

If 짬뿡 is in the subject slot, it can take 이/은 out of 4 choices of subject marker 이/가/는/은, simply for being 'correct grammatically', none else, or simply 궁합 purpose because 짬뿡 has constant ending naturally attracting to the opposite character with vowel headed particle/suffix 이/은, like 음/양 or 남/녀, a perfect or suitable mating.

Once you get it mated according to the principle of the universe, that is, being natural, then you can go about doing your nuance business, putting emphasis on doer or doing, between 이 and 은.

If 짬뿡 is in the subject slot, it can have predicate either adjective or verb.

1. predicate with adjective;
짬뿡*이 좋아요 (good + is)
짬뿡*이 매워요

***if you translate 좋아요 as 'like', you will definitely get confused because 'like' is an action word but 'good' is adjective. That is why I chose 'good' for 좋아요, both being adjective and suitable for adjective predicate, even though it sounds kind of awkward in English translation.

***If you know Korean adjective can be conjugated unlike English adjective, you can avoid making 짬뿡 out of the two different concept of adjectives.

2. predicate with verb;

매운 짬뿡*은 나*를 울려요/울게해요/눈물나게 해요
Hot 짬뿡 makes me cry.

..could someone please explain 을/를 a bit more for me...? It would be helpful to see a sentence that includes 은/는, 이/가 AND 을/를 so I can really see the difference. Sorry if this is a stupid question. I'd really appreciate it, though...

학생*은/이 공부*를하고 상인*은/이 장사*를 해요
그녀*는/가 책*을 보고 그는/가 게임*을 해요

****Just remember consonant ending calls for vowel head, and vowel ending for consonant head.
Don't try to mate the same kind.

I explained differently but basically said the same thing other posters said.

PS, please don't say, 'stupid question'. You ask because you want to know, not because you are stupid. Only stupid person is someone who is in confusion or learned wrong but never asks a question for egotistic reason, 체면.

[yhenry]

나는 좋아해요 - i like (it).
나를 좋아해요? - (do you) like me?

in the first sentence, it is 나는 (again, 는 is more natural than 가 in this instance) because 나 is the one doing the action. in the second sentence it is 나를 because 나 is the one receiving the action.
does that make sense?

What you said is correct, but I like to add a little more to clarify.

나는 좋아해요 - i like (it).
나를 좋아해요? - (do you) like me?

Both sentence is a sentence pattern of S (subject) + O (object) + V (verb).
나는 좋아해요 is missing object (무었을/누구를?)which is not mentioned but assumed contextually.
나를 좋아해요? is missing subject(누가?) for the same reason.

However, if you use '좋아요' instead, which is adjective, you can say 나*는 좋아요 but not 나*를 좋아요, simply because 좋아요 is not a verb that can take noun object with object marker 응/를.

Am I pointing to what you have already learned?