1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Korean
  4. >
  5. "남자가 공원에서 뜁니다."

"남자가 공원에서 뜁니다."

Translation:The man runs at the park.

September 9, 2017



If 뜁니다 can be run or jump how do you know which one it is ?


You can't without context. Both run and jump are accepted.




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.


I think this is more of a case in which two different words mean the same. Your examples are single words with different meanings.


This is the same, two words have the same meaning but the problem is that also one word means then two things right?


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


That is my exactly my question.


I think I will need to watch a lot of video classes before try to finish this. I didnt get most of the particles


Difference between 달립니다 and 뜁니다?


달립니다 is only "run", while 뜁니다 is "jump" and "run"


Should't it be "to the park" ?


It should be in the park because 에서 suggests something taking place in the location. 까지 (to/until) should be used if you want to say to the park.


Isn't "에서" supposed to be "from"?


It means "at", almost always, i.e. the location where an action takes place. Only when there's also a destination mentioned, does it translate to "from" in English.


No, that's an indirect object version of from.


"남자가 공원으로 뜁니다."


So 공원으로 means 'to' and 공원에서 means 'in/at'?


으로 means' towards'


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


"뜁니다" Oh, that takes me back! To Peace Corps training, specifically, and this children's song.

산톢이 톢이 야

어디로 가는야

깡쭝 깡쭝 뛰면서

어디로 가는야


男子가 公園에서 뜁니다


How do you know if 뜁니다 means jump or run?


뛰다 sounds like twitter lol


Thought comments will make it easier but they just made it more complicated


Can either 뜁니다 or 달립니다 be used in this case?


"뜁니다" is means Jump, and Run. So it would be better to use "달립니다"


How was 뜁나다 formed


I think 뛰다 is the jump\runs verb, and ㅂ니다 is a official formal style


How do i know when it can translate to "run" or "jump" ?


i don't get how to know when it's "to" and when it's "at" lmao can someone please explain?


I said "the man runs in the park" and got it right. But is there a difference between "in" and "at"?


What is the '서 '?


I hear tteumnida, interesting


why is run to the park wrong?


Why is there 서 at the end of "at the park"?


Is "The man at the park runs" also correct? Because the English grammar in this is rather off


Korean sentences have a different format than English ones.


That's how it is in Spanish they put the action before


This man might be a thriathlete


I google translated 뜁 and it says its to skip?


Its because 뛰 is the actual word, and ㅂ니다 describes you doing it. Together it is 뜁니다. So it's like 뛰 that means to jump and with ㅂ니다 it means jumping.


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.


The man jumps in the park, should also be correct am I right?


Yes, and it is currently accepted.


For fr, who even jumps to the park


The "뙵니다" means "runs at" while "달립니다" means just "run"


남자가 공원에서 뜁니다.


How would you add 메일 to the sentence?


Hi Yana, Add the word 메일 = mail, why? 남자가 공원에서 뜁니다. The man at the park jumps.


Think a better translation is 'the man runs in the park'


"runs in" is better English than "runs at"


It should be "to the park "


Why are people questioning the english translation? Most parks have running trails that people run for exercise - "The man runs IN the park." That is the sentence we are learning. Not to the park, IN


The meaning are wrong. Audio says 뒵니다 which means jump but translation says run which is 달립니다


The action verb for run is 달립? Correct? So how are they accepting the non action verb 뜁 as run/runs like "She runs to school." That is very confusing for me.


In the park or at the park?


isn't 뜁니다 jump? and run is 딸립니다?


in what context would this be RUN? The word duolingo has presented so far for RUN is 달립니다. So far I have only seen 뜁니다 used for JUMP. In english, I generally prefer the word with only one meaning, so is there a word that only means JUMP?


It should be to the park


Its confusing


I thought this was jump. It didnt accept jump for me.


And then bashes his head to a pole


Please can someone help me, can we judt say

[deactivated user]

    Why doesn't tha man run IN thr park? Someone please help me


    How come it's not "the man runs from the park"? In one of the examples, 저는 집에서 갑니다 The English answer that was accepted was "I go from the house".


    "Run" though .. :(


    How you pronounce 뜁니다


    I have a doubt that 뜁니다 means jump or run??


    Why is it "the man runs at the park" and not "the man runs from the park"?


    Can this both mean "The man runs at the park" and "The man runs from the park"? I'm still trying to figure out when to distinguish - 에서 as "from" and "at/to the" in a sentence.


    I think it should be "The man runs to the park", not at the park. That's grammatically incorrect.


    More natural English is: "The man runs in the park." Or "The man jumps in/at the park." Or "The man runs at the park."

    Because "에" is "at" or "in".

    This action does not happen on the way to the park.


    "to the park" or "in the park" is correct. You dont run "at" the park.


    Nope. You definitely can run "at" the park. Just like you can run at the gym, or at the track.


    I think "at the track" is less common. I would say "on the track." In fact you can run on the track at the gym, or you can run on the track at 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."

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