"동물은 물이 있습니다."
Translation:The animal has water.
If you try to extract the water from the animal, make sure to filter out the blood and other waste products before drinking!
If "the animal" is the subject and water the object, why is 물이? Shouldn't it be 물을?
있다 is an adjective here. Adjectives do not take objects—only subjects. You can think of 물이 있다 as to be water-having or to be water-bearing.
동물은 물이 있습니다:
- “The animal, (it) is water-bearing.” The animal is a topic here, but since the subject is missing, it is also assumed to be the subject of this statement!
- “The animal is water-bearing.” Water-bearing is an adjective in this statement.
- “The animal has water.” ← In natural English…
This is nothing like anything in the notes or any other comments I've seen. A verb is really an adjective, and adjectives can only describe subjects?? Here is an explanation more in line with the notes, that doesn't require treating verbs as adjectives.
있다 is to exist, and means "there is/are." The subject of the verb is water (물이, which has the subject particle). The topic is the animal (동물은, which has the topic marker). Literally, the statement is, "About the animal, there is water" which is how you say "The animal has water" in Korean. That's how the notes explain this kind of sentence construction.
"을/를" are articles for marking objecta that are the subject of a verb. The only time you was use this if you said "Animals drink water", because drinking is an action/verb.
I'm still confused. Does this mean the animal has water as in "the animal consists of water" or "the animal drinks water" or what?
It just means, say the animal has water (to drink) - implied. In other words, you dont have to give the animal watee again, it already has water with it. I hope you understand.
덩물은 - (The) Animal 물이 - Water 있습니다 - Has
So: The animal literally possesses water. If you need water, the animal has it
If I translate this sentence literally, would it mean
'the animal, exists water'
where 'the animal' is only the introduction of the sentence and doesn't bring any meaning except for shedding light onto the subject of the sentence?(the 이 is a subject marker, right?)
Is it like saying 'car stolen, need help'?
있다 has many meanings. I cannot emphasize this enough. To have is one of those meanings. And that is straightforward to apply to this sentence.
I think that 있습니다 is for formal speech and 있어요 is for the informal speech but i can be wrong
있어요 is less formal than 있습니다, but both are formal. Informal version is 있어.
So you're saying whatever the subject is, if this is its verb, that means it is owned by whoever the topic is?
What is wrong with "the animal's water"? Is it because the posessive 의 was not used?
"The animal's water" has no verb in it--it is not a full sentence. The Korean statement has a subject and a verb and is a complete sentence.
if the sentence end with verb , there will have object in the sentence . example: 저는 빵을 먹습니다 . i eat bread . if the sentence doesnt end with verb , there are not object example : 돈물은 물이 이씁니다 . the animal has water . the most important is the object exist when the verb exist . no verb , no object .