1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Korean
  4. >
  5. "길이 한국에 없습니다."

"길이 한국에 없습니다."

Translation:The road is not in Korea.

September 9, 2017

49 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Peder97764

"There are no roads in [South] Korea." should also be a possible answer. Korean allows for this ambiguity.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Ash-Fred
Mod
  • 1777

"There are no roads in Korea." is now accepted. Korean has a separate word for South Korea, 남한.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Rae143336

They did not accept mine. ☹


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Tridib13

The road is not in Korea


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/GioLim1

I think it's the difference between the marker "이 and 은" If you want the sentence to be "There are no roads in Korea" then you can use the 은 marker.

Correct me if i'm wrong.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Peder97764

No, the topic and subject particles do not alter the meaning that way. "There is/are ~" isn't a Korean structure, but that English meaning can be inferred from the target sentence. Duolingo's translation is only correct if the sentence were something like 그 길이 한국에 없습니다 which is more like "That road is not in Korea." Korean also doesn't have definite or indefinite articles so they could go a step further and say "The/A road(s) are not in Korea."


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/cactuscoffeerose

Would the first two words being switched lend more credence to the "there are no roads in korea" translation?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Peder97764

If the two constructions "There are no roads in Korea" and "The road is not in Korea" in English emphasized "road" or "Korea" more you'd have a point, but where you place both words has less to do with untranslatable "there is/are ~" constructions. Generally, word order in Korean emphasizes what the speaker thinks is more important since word order is way more fluid than in English. So

길이 한국에 없습니다

or

한국에 길이 없습니다

both mean the same thing in Korean except in what the speaker is emphasizing. "There are no roads in Korea" and "The road is not in Korea" don't convey this difference.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/GeraldMath4

If I were asked to put "There are no roads in Korea" into Korean, I would come up with 한국에는 길은 없습니다 . How bad is that?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/deelady4real

Agree with no roads but in Korean north and south have different names.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/EduardAlex13

Well it couldn't be about North Korea so... Plays Captain Obvious music Yeah...


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Ceratius

This is wrong! Source: Am there, saw lots of roads


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ZDJci

so far, according to Duolingo, Korea has no roads or rooms. Bit insulting!


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/gustavjp

Ancap paradise :')


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/matilda411115

What about there are no roads in Korea?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Ash-Fred
Mod
  • 1777

"There are no roads in Korea." is now accepted.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/pabochan

How about "Roads are not in Korea?"


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/fffelipoo

Ah I don't know why it marked me wrong the first and right the second though I gave this same ans both times

And the suggested answer was "there is no route in korea" does route use the same words? I don't think i saw any discussion on "route"


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/CuppaTae

How do you differ between saying "there is" and "there is not" its a dumb question but i cant figure it


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/enbyjay

있습니다 is to have / to exist (there is) 없습니다 is to not have / to not exist (there isn't)

(the beginning of the verb is different by one letter)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Npatch

I wonder how typo acceptance works. I type fast and many a time make mistakes on smartphones. This time "The road is jot in Korea" was flagged as incorrect instead of a correct with typo.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/SongPhilip

I wrote "There is no road in Korea" and got it wrong. Why is this wrong?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Ash-Fred
Mod
  • 1777

"There is no road in Korea." is now accepted.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/JiminJimout

I wrote "there is no road in Korea" and it said I was wrong, can someone elaborate on that?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/jeonhaeso

Lol bu ne lan"Korede yol yok" bu ne biçim cümle


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Kelisendra

Did they change the voice? I haven't studied for a few months and it kind of sounds different :)) Not bad, just different :))


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Choi751345

이런말은 안배워도 됩니다. ㅠㅠ


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ILikeThisA

I always thought time and location came first in korean sentences. Can someone give me more info


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Ceratius

Basically, the only really set in stone rule is that the verb is last. Since everything else is marked with particles, you can switch around many things without changing the meaning. 한국에 길이 없습니다 is right too and means exactly the same.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Ricardo815422

The road is not in Korea = (road + subject-marker) + (Korea + subject-marker) + (to not be located) = 길이 한국에 없습니다 = gil-i hangug-e eobs-seubnida


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Raychel691918

There is no "in" in the choices


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/chaiyunlee

길이 한국에 없습니다. means theres no road in Korea not 'the road is in Korea' because if you want to say 'the' road then you have to type something at the beginning of the sentence. I don'r have a korean keyboard on this laptop so I can't show you guys but just an fyi


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/AndieEvaa

why is -i used here and not -eun


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/HerbalTeeth

So if 에 and can mean "in" and "at" or "toward" how do we make a distinction between them. I assume through context but I'm looking for a less vague answer as I am fairly new.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/mhin1

The meaning of 에 shifts depending on the verb you use.

  • 에 with 있다 or 없다 marks the location where the subject exists or not.

  • 에 with verbs of motion marks the location the subject is verbing "to"

  • 에 with verbs not of motion marks the location where something static is happening

You'll learn more location particles when you learn more verbs.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/AnjaliYoun

I put "roads are not in korea". I feel like that should also be accepted. But maybe phrasing needs to be specific?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/enbykey

something tells me this is not true.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/LisaHarris660796

Since -에 can mean at or to, could it mean "there are no roads to Korea"?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/mhin1

No. The alternative meanings of the particle ~에 arise because of the verb it is used with. ~에 only means "to" when used with a verb of motion:

  • 저는 한국에 갑니다 = "I go to Korea."

  • 저는 한국에 있습니다 = "I am in Korea."

Since 없다 is an existential verb, -에 defaults to the location marker "at". If you want to say "There are no roads to Korea." you would use:

  • 길은 한국으로 없습니다

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Ash-Fred
Mod
  • 1777

You would say "한국으로 가는 길은 없습니다." In your sentence 한국으로 is modifying 없습니다.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Sandy337573

Why does, "There are no roads in Korea." work?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/lAqv19

It's v.confusing


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/makayla367921

I accidentally put the wrong one


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Annick227211

Cela n'est d'aucune aide de proposer de fausses réponses. Le verbe avoir au lieu du verbe être ?????


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/dingdong211190

Why is "There is not a road in Korea" incorrect?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Ash-Fred
Mod
  • 1777

That is not how you say it in English.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Raychel691918

No and not aren't same


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Himaxi2

I typed " In Korea , roads doesn't exist".

Learn Korean in just 5 minutes a day. For free.