는...은/이... 가 when to use which :(

[kyuree]

This question was probably asked before somewhere around here, sorry...

I would like to know when I HAVE to use 이...가 instead of 는...은. I grew up to think they were interchangeable but they are not. It seems that 이...가 stress the subject more than 는...은 do.
by the way, I know about the ending in a consonant or not thing.
Can someone explain it to me? Also providing example sentences.

I can give you one (from sth I wrote at lang-8 )

신령님은 나무꾼이 거짓말을 했는지 아셔서 욕심 많은 나무꾼에게 화를 내셨습니다.

I had the 이...가 and 는...은 the other way around.... but since I'm not sure about the rule I had to sort of guess anyways....

[cheri]

This might be a little helpful...

http://cafe.naver.com/ArticleRead.nhn?a ... d=13862555

I still get confused.

[carsont]

This might be a little helpful...

http://cafe.naver.com/ArticleRead.nhn?a ... d=13862555

I still get confused.

Points 1 and 2 in the post linked above (or at least the English versions) seem to contradict one another unless you use only a very specific meaning for "introduce"...

1. 이야기의 처음에 나타날 때는 '이/가'를 쓰며, 앞에서 이야기한 것을 다시 말할 때는 '은/는'을 쓴다.

When you talk about something and something comes for the first time in that story, you use 이/가, and later when you mention that thing again you use 은/는

예) 옛날 옛적에 흥부라는 착한 사람이 있었습니다. 흥부는 아주 마음씨가 착했습니다.


2. 무엇에 대한 소개를 하는 경우 그 대상은 반드시 '은/는'을 사용한다.

When you introduce something or someone, you use 은/는

예) 처음 뵙겠습니다. 저는 김인호입니다.

I'm guessing that "introduce" here refers to a sentence of the "...은 ...이다" form used in the example, and not to the first time something is mentioned...?

I think the explanation of this in Using Korean may be a little more clear:

19.3.1 Uses of -은/는 when it marks a topic

• To set the stage for the rest of the sentence, by indicating what it is to be about
  이케익은 직접 만드셨어요?
  This cake, did you make it yourself?
  윤호는 오늘 넥타이를 맸어.
  As for Yunho, he was wearing a tie today.
  여름에는 냉면이면 그만이다.
  In summer, naengmyeon is all you need.
  봍고 딸어지고는 운에 달렸다.
  Passing or failing the exam depends on luck.
  
• To express old information (either known to both the speaker and the listener, or part of the shared background)
  A: 떡은 누가 먹었요?
  The rice cake, who ate it?
  B: 떡이 있었어? 나는 못 봤는데.
  Was there a rice cake? I didn't see it.
  
  A: 스타워즈는 정말 대작이야.
  Star Wars is really a masterpiece.
  B: 스타워즈가 어떤 영화인데?
  What kind of movie is Star Wars?
  
  NOTE: 'Rice cake' and 'Star Wars' are NEW information to B and therefore don't appear with -은/는 in his utterances.
  
  <snip>
• To define or make a broad statement
  <snip>
• To change the topic

Unfortunately, this book doesn't specifically address the question of when to use one or other in writing; it just provides use cases and examples for each.

[kimchiandsoju]

이...가 instead of 는...


OK, this is how I understand it, and I could be off base, but I feel like I'm right... lol...

이 and 가 are purely subject markers, to distinguish them from an object in a sentence, but thats about it....

but when you use 는, you are applying a specific "specialness" to the subject. almost like "this one in particular" or "especially this thing".

so if you were to say "KyuRee is at the store" it would be "규리가 가개 에 갔다."

but... if you were meeting a bunch of friends and everybody is there except KyuRee and then people are like "where is KyuRee?" then its like "규리는..."

Its like, you are specifically talking about that one thing, as opposed to anything else. Like when my mother-in-law is talking about my baby she'll say "Harrison"... but when she's talking about something that he in particular does or likes or whatever she'll say "Harrison은..." The emphasis is put on Harrison...

does that make sense? Thats the vibe I get from it....

Or another example... say Mom-in-law brings out the dinner... but there is no Kimchi! I would just say "김지는..." Because its supposed to be there, because its the kimchi... and its not there, so its like "what the hell?"

[holdfast]

max wrote a great analogy a long time ago, and i saved it on my computer. it helped me a lot ^^

I was watching the movie "Iron Man" the other day, and it reminded me of the 는/가 dichotomy. By the way, we have the same problem in Japanese!

Iron Man is a superhero. He's actually just a normal guy Tony Stark in a hi-tech suit of armour. During the course of the movie, he saves the world (sorry to ruin the ending, but I'm sure you would have worked it out anyway).

Well, at the press conference, Tony Stark tries to address a crowd of reporters, all of whom are trying to work out who Iron Man really is. Tony has prepared a speech that gives him an alibi as to where he was at the time when Iron Man was out saving the world. He wants to keep his secret identity intact.

But on a spur of the moment, he admits it. He gives a wry smile and says "I'm Iron Man."

He's saying that he is Iron Man. If he was speaking in Korean he would have used 가.

Where as if he were just introducing himself to someone (Wolverine or Batman I suppose) he would have used 는. He's not pointing out that he is Iron Man, but just introducing himself.

If Iron man were to introduce himself with 가, the other person would probably protest: "I never said you weren't Iron Man!"

I'm not entirely sure that this post makes sense.
_________________

by maxiewawa

[kyuree]

haha, max's post is very entertaining but it's contradictory to what other ppl said about which of the two puts more emphasis on something.

Actually my biggest problem with the two is when I have a long sentence and more than one subject (or so I think). Lemme see whether I can find the sentences I wrote on lang-8 that were all wrong ...




this is what I wrote:
신령님이 나무꾼은 거짓말을 했는지 아셔서 욕심 많은 나무꾼에게 화를 내셨습니다.

And this is the correct version according to the native speaker
신령님은 나무꾼이 거짓맛 했다는 것을 아셔서 욕심 많은 나무꾼에게 화를 내셨습니다.

(Since the spirit knew that the wood cutter had lied he got angry at the greedy wood cutter.)

This is what *I* wrote:

신령님은 벙글벙글 웃셨고 나무꾼은 너무 정직한 사람 이기 때문에 나무꾼에게 쇠도끼와 은도끼와 금도끼도 주셨습니다.

and this is how it would be correct according to the native speaker::

신령님은 벙글벙글 웃셨고 나무꾼이 너무 정직한 사람 이기 때문에 신령님은 나무꾼에게 쇠도끼와 은도끼 그리고 금도끼도 주셨습니다.

(The spirit laughed vividly and because the wood cutter was a very honest person the spirit gave him the iron axe, the silver axe, and the gold axe.)

((Just don't ask, it's a Korean folk tale/fair tale that we had in my Korean class...))

[kimchiandsoju]

haha, max's post is very entertaining but it's contradictory to what other ppl said about which of the two puts more emphasis on something.

Actually my biggest problem with the two is when I have a long sentence and more than one subject (or so I think). Lemme see whether I can find the sentences I wrote on lang-8 that were all wrong ...




this is what I wrote:
신령님이 나무꾼은 거짓말을 했는지 아셔서 욕심 많은 나무꾼에게 화를 내셨습니다.

And this is the correct version according to the native speaker
신령님은 나무꾼이 거짓맛 했다는 것을 아셔서 욕심 많은 나무꾼에게 화를 내셨습니다.

(Since the spirit knew that the wood cutter had lied he got angry at the greedy wood cutter.)

This is what *I* wrote:

신령님은 벙글벙글 웃셨고 나무꾼은 너무 정직한 사람 이기 때문에 나무꾼에게 쇠도끼와 은도끼와 금도끼도 주셨습니다.

and this is how it would be correct according to the native speaker::

신령님은 벙글벙글 웃셨고 나무꾼이 너무 정직한 사람 이기 때문에 신령님은 나무꾼에게 쇠도끼와 은도끼 그리고 금도끼도 주셨습니다.

(The spirit laughed vividly and because the wood cutter was a very honest person the spirit gave him the iron axe, the silver axe, and the gold axe.)

((Just don't ask, it's a Korean folk tale/fair tale that we had in my Korean class...))

ARRRRG!!!! I was working on this long response and my stupid browser crashed!!!!!

The thing with these examples is that they are compound sentences, with 2 subjects, but only one is the actual primary subject of the sentence.

Sentence number 1:

신령님은 나무꾼이 거짓맛 했다는 것을 아셔서 욕심 많은 나무꾼에게 화를 내셨습니다.

(Since the spirit knew that the wood cutter had lied he got angry at the greedy wood cutter.)

Lets break it down....
1. The wood cutter had lied.
나무꾼(이) 거짓말(을) 했다.
Simple. 1 subject, 1 object (I added the object marker).


2. The Spirit got angry at the greedy woodcutter.
신령님(이) 욕심 많은 나무꾼에게 화(를) 내셨습니다.
Simple again. 1 subject (spirit), 1 object (anger).


3. Since the spirit knew that the wood cutter had lied he got angry at the greedy wood cutter.

Now the sentence has 2 subjects in it, but we know that the primary subject of this sentence is the Spirit. Its the Spirit that got mad. The woodcutter lying is what made him mad, but the point of the sentence is the Spirit getting mad. So the Spirit gets the "는". The "는" is emphasis, and in this example we are emphasizing that "는" is the subject of the sentence.

Does that make sense?



OK, the next sentence is the same thing... a compound sentence.

신령님은 벙글벙글 웃셨고 나무꾼이 너무 정직한 사람 이기 때문에 신령님은 나무꾼에게 쇠도끼와 은도끼 그리고 금도끼도 주셨습니다.

(The spirit laughed vividly and because the wood cutter was a very honest person the spirit gave him the iron axe, the silver axe, and the gold axe.)

1. The Spirit Laughed Vividly. (spirit is subject)
2. The wood cutter was a very honest person. (woodcutter is subject)
3. The spirit gave him the irone axe, the silver axe, and the gold axe. (spirit is subject)

Take 2 and 3 and add them together and now you have 2 subjects in 1 sentence, but only 1 final verb which is 주셨습니다. And we know that its the Spirit giving stuff away, so how do we indicate that its the spirit doing the giving and now the woodcutter? The "은". The "이" lets us know that the woodcutter is the subject of that particular part of the sentence (the woodcutter was a very honest person), but that the subject of the whole sentence is the one with the "은".


"Kyuree is a nice person so I bought her lunch. "
1. Kyuree is a nice person (Kyuree is the subject).
2. I bought her lunch (I am the subject).
3. Kyuree is a nice person so I bought her lunch (I am the subject).

I'm the main subject of this sentence so I get the "은/는".


For compound sentences like this its actually pretty easy. Whoever is doing the verb at the end of the sentence gets the "은/는".

Its when its just a singular sentence that its harder to explain... when you are placing emphasis on the subject, and not because there are multiple subjects to keep track of, but because there is a nuance... That one is harder to explain and my understanding of it is only as an outsider and not as a native speaker of Korean. I only feel like I understand it because I live with Koreans and I hear it all the time. But its easier to hear it and understand it than to know when to do it yourself.

but I think its like this...

Kyuree went to school.
규리가 학교에 갔다.

But if somebody just said "I saw all of Kyuree's friends at the mall.... but I didn't see Kyuree...!" I would respond:

규리는 학교에 갔다. "Kyuree (as opposed to all of her friends who went to the mall) went to school."

[kyuree]

thanks for the ling reply. I think my problem was that I mixed the order of importance up.