A question on particles...

[molores]

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!

so basically you make everything like an adjective or passive voice of verb (the window that i opened, the cat that came) except for the main subject and main verb (the dog chased)? I'm cool with that.. that's how I'd say it.. but isn't there a way to say it like the previous sentence where we had two actions and two doers in the active form? Just really curious because when there's only 2 doers and actions, it's usually said actively..

나는 당신이 똑똑하다*고 생각합니다
>> 나는 생각합니다 + 당신이 똑똑하다*고

계는 생각해요 + 남자가 사무실로 갔다*고

thanks a lot! you've been a big help

[yhenry]

so basically you make everything like an adjective or passive voice of verb (the window that i opened, the cat that came) except for the main subject and main verb (the dog chased)? I'm cool with that.. that's how I'd say it..

That clause in the example is relative clause, modifying noun, cat and window.
Another words, it functions as adjective.
That is way I changed that clause to 'adjectival phrase' to place before a noun it modifies; 창문에서 온 고양이, 내가 열어 놓은 창문

If that clause is a nominal clause like this; 'I think that the cat came from the window.', I say, '나는 *고양이가 창문에서 왔다고* 생각한다.

You sure can see two subjects, 나는 and 고양이, and two verbs, 왔다고 and 생각한다, but What I do is the 'thinking' and what the cat does is 'coming'.
My thought 생각 is referred to what the cat did.

In my attempt to explain the sentence easier by comparing it with English sentence pattern, I made the phrase *고양이가 창문에서 왔다고* as object of the verb 생각한다.

but isn't there a way to say it like the previous sentence where we had two actions and two doers in the active form? Just really curious because when there's only 2 doers and actions, it's usually said actively..

I don't know what you are talking about but we Koreans love to use compound verb, one in front is called main verb and the one behind is assistant verb, adding more action to the main verb, like these;

니가 먹어 보아라 eat and see
나는 울게 되었다 came to crying
너는 그렇게 하지 말아라 stop doing
내가 가고 있다 being going

You see, one doer with two actions.
But the last verb simply adds more action to the main verb.
We call it 본 동사 and 보조동사

나는 당신이 똑똑하다*고 생각합니다
>> 나는 생각합니다 + 당신이 똑똑하다*고

계는 생각해요 + 남자가 사무실로 갔다*고

thanks a lot! you've been a big help

The sentence above examples are different from the sentence with the 'compound verb', because the two different subject have their own verb.
If you think that a quote is inserted between the subject and its verb at the end, you can get it easier, like (S) + [quote]*고 + (V).

However, you don't place the main verb in the middle of a sentence, like you did; 나는 생각합니다 + 당신이 똑똑하다*고

Not that nobody understand what you are saying but just not proper.

[yhenry]

Here is a very complicated sentence as a good example to see how the subject markers and object markers can help you analyze it to organize your thought in order to comprehend.

As you can see, the subject markers indicate a phrase or a subordinate clause in a sentence as whole, having own action word(s).

The subject markers show the borderline between clauses or verbal phrases, indicating that the word before the subject is a word with a conjunctive suffix that connect phrases or sentences together.

테 러리스트들*이 동시다발적인 공격으로 100명 이상을 사살하고 난 뒤 (after) /인질*을 가둔 뭄바이 소재의 한 호텔에서 (where) /경찰*이 적어도 7명의 인질을 구출했음에도 불구하고 (even though) /인도의 테러 사태*는 아직 끝나지 않은 듯 합니다.

It sounds like it's not over in India, even though Police have rescued at least seven people from one hotel in Mumbai where terrorists took hostages after killing more than a hundred people in a series of coordinated attacks.

**the object marker points to the subject which is to come before the object or in another coordinate clause, or no show but implied.

High or low level, if you have learned the basic right, you could deal with such a complicated sentence somehow.
Like this;

테 러리스트들*이 (terrorists) 동시다발적인 (series of coordinated) 공격으로 (attack) 100명 이상을 (more than) 사살하고 (kill) 난 뒤 (after)

/인질*을 (hostages) 가둔 (took/hold) 뭄바이 소재의( Mumbai )한 호텔에서 (hotel)

/경찰*이 (police) 적어도 (at least) 7명의 인질을 (hostages/people))구출했음에도(rescue) 불구하고 (even though)

/인도의 (India) 테러 사태*는 (IT/terror event) 아직(still) 끝나지 않은(not over) 듯합니다. (seem/sound)

Those subject markers also help ESL student analyze and translate easier those complicated sentences of Korean into English.

We, ESL or KSL, need to get to know those markers real good.
Don't you think so?

[Alexis]

Thanks for taking the time to explain so much, yhenry! I don't really understand everything you've said, but I'll definitely be coming back to this topic while I'm learning Korean! Particles can be really confusing to me, especially since English doesn't really have things like them!

[molores]

Wow! Thanks for explaining clearly such a hard topic. It's still a bit hard to make complex sentences but it makes it easier to understand! thanks!

[Alexis]

I have another question on particles! (OMG these things are the bane of my existence right now!!)

I have been listening to beginner lesson 16: This? That? No, that!

Anywho, I was just wondering: why don't 은/는 get used after 이거/저거/그거? How come there's no particle after "that" at all?

In the PDF, it says it can be dropped, but... why? Does that go for anything/everything? Do you not have to use the topic marker at all? Or are there just particular instances where it can be dropped?

[yhenry]

I have another question on particles! (OMG these things are the bane of my existence right now!!)

I have been listening to beginner lesson 16: This? That? No, that!

Anywho, I was just wondering: why don't 은/는 get used after 이거/저거/그거? How come there's no particle after "that" at all?

In the PDF, it says it can be dropped, but... why? Does that go for anything/everything? Do you not have to use the topic marker at all? Or are there just particular instances where it can be dropped?

If you write the whole sentence, it would be a lot easier to distinguish and understand.
그것*은 여기에 두세요
그거*는 치워 버려요
Obviously they came after the subject.

Subject marker can be dropped if the subject is obviously subject even without those subject markers.

그것 여기에 두세요
그거 치워 버려요

나 가도 되요?
너 올래?
갈께

Now, what about ''that"?
that in what context?

[John]

hijack! I'm with yhenry on this one, which is which? Lol I know the last few days I have become a bore on the forums here, but I think I am close to a breakthrough if I can just wrap my head around these problems I am having....

lol wait that didn't sound like I meant it to....whatever you know what I mean.