"남자가 공원에서 뜁니다."
Translation:The man runs at the park.
We have a lot of that in English.
Her run of luck seemed to run out with a run in her stocking.
He wound the bandage around the wound.
They rocked the rock back and forth to clear it away before the rock concert.
The information on the seal's death was put under seal.
There was scream at a high pitch as the man gave the first pitch with the pitch-covered ball while others worked to pitch a tent on the pitch.
Let me point out that though that bi-meaning words in western languages are usually totally different meanings. This is quite close, so two kind of movements. It is like somehow there are some shady meaning commonities between the two in their culture so that's why they use the same word for both.
We have similar words in english, like "spring".
He sprang onto the table. He sprang across the field.
Soared, jolted, flew, lept. We have many words in english that can be used for both running and jumping.
When you think about it, running and jumping are very similar actions. Running can be thought of as jumping forward repeatedly, and a lot of running looks like jumping
Just for a tip: You can't figure out whether 뜁니다 is either jump or run because of context clues.
It is more common to see a man running in a park rather than jumping without reason.
Think of that before you answer! Talk to me in Korean's YouTube channel has a Q and A titled "감사합니다 or 고마워요" and they have a whole discussion on 뜁니다
There is a problem within the engrish language cause at means on the boarfer or boardering. Good english would be like he is running within the park or running around "in" the park. Because around again would imply that he runs in circels around, sorry for my bad english, the park. So what do you think? Please delete this garbage and start over.
"At" can mean on the border or having recently arrived or "in the vicinity of", but it can mean a lot of things, and prepositions are usually used inconsistently in any language that has them. "At the park" is more commonly said than "in the park" in my experience, but they can mean the same thing, and neither necessarily implies on the boarder (though you're right, at can imply on the boarder). Similarly, "at the airport" is used more commonly than "in the airport" to mean the exact same thing. At can also specify a target: "I fire a missile at the park" means that the missile is intended to hit the park.
Caveat: in almost any language, there are many inconsistencies in how prepositions (and postpositions) are used. For example, in English, we say "in the car" to mean inside the vehicle, but we "on the bus" and "on the plane" and we mean the same thing by "on" in those other examples as we mean by "in" in "in the car." So please understand that the explanation I am about to give probably has some exceptions that I did not take into account.
In English, "to" usually implies a destination or reception of some kind, while "at" (or sometimes in, or on, often in different ways but sometimes merely used for different nouns) usually implies just a location where an action is done. In other cases, "at" sometimes it implies a direction or target, in particular when the noun following the "at" is not a location and/or when the verb can have a target. Here are some examples. "I'm running at the park." "park" is a location and "run" does not have a target, so "at" means that the park is the location where I am running. "I'm running in the park." Means the same thing as "at", but "at" is more commonly used than "in" when used with park. "I'm running to the park." The park is my destination, but not the location where the action of running occurs. (Once I am at the park--that is, once the park is where I am--I have reached my destination, and so I probably am not running anymore unless the context says otherwise.) "I throw the ball at John." John is not a location, and "throw" can have a target (the ball is intended to hit the target), so "at" implies the direction of the ball, and a target that the ball is intended to hit. The sentence means that I throw the ball, intending for the ball to hit John. "I throw the ball to John." In this case and in many other cases where the noun (John in this case) following "to" is not a place or the verb (throw in this case) can have a target, "to" implies reception (or at least the intent of reception), which in this case means John catches the ball (or at least, that the person throwing intended for John to catch the ball--you could throw the ball to John and he may not catch it if he wasn't paying attention or if he tried but didn't succeed). "I fire a missile at the park." The park is the target of the missile. "I fire a missile to the park." This would usually not be said. It sounds weird, as if the park were to receive the missile. "I fire a missile in the park." The park is the location where the missile is fired. The missile may or may not leave the park. "I fire a missile from the park." The park is the location where the missile is fired, but "from" implies exit, so the missile is in the park when it's fired, but not in the park at some point after it's fired. "I run to my child." Even though "child" is not a location, "to" still implies a destination. * "I run at my child." This one is difficult to explain, but it's kind of like having a target and might be used in the context of sports. "John caught the ball, so we all ran at him."