"동물은 물이 있습니다."
Translation:The animal has water.
있다 is an adjective here. Adjectives do not take objects—only subjects. In this case, 물 is the subject (marked by 이, the subject marker for syllables ending in consonants).
It does take some mental gymnastics like switching what would normally be the object to a subject (have water → water “haved”/possessed).
As for the animal (topic), water (subject) is “haved”/posessed (adjective)
I’d just look at it as a template/pattern of subject + 있다 meaning to have subject in English. The above interpretation is a bit of a mental stretch.
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.
It literally means 'for the animal, there is water' It could sound weird to english speakers, yeah. I'll give an example- -We are leaving the house for a few hours. -Is the dog going to be alright? -He'll be alright. He(The dog) has food and water. We'll be back before 5. See? You could use the phrase in this scenario. Hope this helps.
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'?