"공원에 길이 있습니다."
Translation:There is a road in the park.
길 has a lot of contextual meanings, such as path, street, etc. and shouldn't be limited to "road"
For reference, street, way, path, road, roadway, track, route, choice, and avenue are currently accepted.
Perhaps the order isn't important. Maybe they are trying to get you to pay attention to the particles. This is a bit hard without explanations.
The order in Korean is different than in English. The verb comes last in Korean.
Not at all, in korean its Subject object verb The subject comes first then the object then the verb In korean its: I bread eat In English: I eat bread Duolingo is saying it right
Koreans have different sentence structure
They are saying it right you just aren't use to a different sentence structure
I wrote ‘There are roads in the park.’ too, and got it wrong. I would believe that it should be accepted as a correct answer, though, since in this context the Korean does not have a need to differentiate between singular and plural, whereas the general English statement would be ‘There are roads …’; if in English you would want to stress that there are more than one, or only one road, you would say ‘There are many/multiple/et sim roads in the park’ / ‘There is (but/only) one road in the park’.
Og: Hyggelig å se at du prøver å lære deg norsk, Glutexo!
I'm honestly still so confused :/
What would be the difference between saying "There's a road in the park," and "The road is in the park"? How do I know when the statement is general or specific when 이 and 은 need to be used for different things?
Am I just making stuff up?
I believe the difference is in the verbs, not the particles. Isseupnida translates to "There is". Ipnida translates to "is/are/am". In this case, they used isseupnida, so they meant "There is" or "There exists". If you want to write "The road is in the park", then use "ipnida".
That doesn't match what the notes say about 있다 (있습니다). The definition given in the tips and notes for this lesson is: "there is/to exist/to be located." And never have the notes in any of the sections so far said that the copula (입니다) can be used to state location--it has only been used for "noun is noun" types of statements.
When the context can't tell you whether it is a road or the road, one says 그 (the) 길 rather than just 길.
Why would park 길이 be second? It had seemed up until this sentence that the thing that is in or by comes before the comparative location. So why wouldn't road be in park in that order?
I'm only a beginner, but I've been learning with textbooks. In my understanding of the grammar, it doesn't matter which noun comes first as long as you've got the particle there. This gets even more confusing as in spoken language they tend to omit the particles sometimes.
There needs to be a lot more translation coverage for the sentences.. :-)
i wrote "in the park there is a path"
when the hints for "kil" says "path" why is it not accepted?
Well, maybe I would sometimes just say 길 for a trail, but 길 and a trail aren't really the same.
It's really great that they are "teaching" nuances of particle location when I'm only on Level 3 and barely know any vocabulary ... /sarcasm
It seems like a good idea to me. I feel silly when I spend days learning a bunch of words but can not put the most simple sentence together.
There is a road in the park. The verb comes last in Korean and the type of verb has the meaning "exists" which tends to be "There is...." or "There are..." They seem to put the important or newer information closer to the verb, but they say the order is not so rigid in Korean. We tend to put the important information closer to the beginning in English. They are simply not the same languages and don't use the same order. Using an internet browser scroll down at this link, past the lessons for the tips and notes. https://www.duolingo.com/skill/ko/basics-2
So I think the word order doesn't really matter, but certain orders are more common and become almost like a "default" understanding.
길이 공원에 있습니다 = The road is in the park, 이 is understood as a subject particle, the road is the subject.
공원에 길이 있습니다 = literally, "In the park, there is a road", so this is a sentence about the existence of the road, not its location.
Why can't I say "roads" in this sentence? I thought with or without "들", one can simply decide based on the context. Please, correct me if I am wrong.
Would "길이 공원에 있습니다" also be a correct sentence? I get confused on the order of words! I was told the order was SOV; Subject-Object-Verb. And they gave the sample "방이 집에 있습니다" where the location is the second 'word.' Please correct me if I'm wrong, I heard it from someone else.
Is the 'there is not' word similar to 'there is' in the way that they could both be used as 'I am not' or 'I am'?
Excuse me? I'm studying korean Language at A Korean School and I want to be good. So i know How to translate sentences! What is this?
Im just sharing. I'm just pissed
i found that a word can have many other synonyms.....they should at that so we don't have to look for another translation when it means the same thing. Also i think some of the words are backwards and/or switched around.