"산은 바다에 없습니다."
Translation:Mountains are not at the sea.
Can you translate this as:
the mountain is not at a sea?
I put the articles the wrong way round by accident and it was marked wrong. I know the articles don't usually matter, but there could be some grammatical reason why it's not correct.
Although, "by the sea," sounds better in English.
I have a theory where context is what determines if this sentence is general or specific since the topic marker is used for a different purpose (showing what is the subject not specificity), and only if in another previous sentence it was talked about a specific mountain, then would you know if this sentence is specific or not.
By my experience so far this is the literal translation. I think the meaning comes more or less to " the mountain is not at the sea/ near the sea) idk how far i m right. My korean phonetic guide as of now are literally k dramas and bangtan's songs . Althought its been five years the interpretations are still muddled.
the thing is, translating languages does not work perfectly all the time... You have some very weird translations going on so I think you should really allow us to make grammatical mistakes! Seriously? Cats are not people, child food, pencils or men... And you expect us to get it right? I feel like its more of an english test sometimes.
I translated it the other way around, "Seas are not in the mountains." I might have used wrongly the preposition "in", but the 에 confuses me. I thought that it marks the place, therefore the place is the mountain, then the sea, the topic marked by 은 is the one being talked about. Therefore, since we're talking about the sea, and the place is mountain, then why is the translation opposite of what I've expected? Where is my wrong?