1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Korean
  4. >
  5. "소고기 없이 불고기는 못 만들어요."

"소고기 없이 불고기는 만들어요."

Translation:We can't make bulgogi without beef.

September 15, 2017



I wrote "Without beef, you can't make bulgogi" which is correct but was marked as wrong...


Shouldnt the general sense give a correct answer here? You cannot...


but there is no "we" in the sentence, which would translate to the subject "we" in an english sentence... without beef its impossible to make bulgogi... without beef, no making bulgogi... no beef no bull ;)


Bulgogi cannot be made without beef should be accepted.


This is more like passive voice. I am pretty sure Korean has a different way to express that.


Why is it "불고기는" and not "불고기를", please ?


를 is grammatically correct. However, the author may have chosen 는 because 은/는 can emphasize general facts or statements.


In context it may indicate contrast. "You can make vegetarian versions of all kinds of things. Maybe even burgers. But bulgogi? Not a chance."


콩불고기 돼요 :).


Why is " I can't make bulgogi" wrong here? Since the subject isn't mentioned in the sentence, can't I assume it's I ???


Is 'without beef you cannot make bulgogi' possible?


Why would "Without beef, bulgogi cannot be made," be incorrect?


Check the answer I gave on @AshwinThap3 and @oee16 questions. I think it applies here, too.


What is the word for "we" in this sentence?


It isn't there. You can write I, you, we, etc.


Bulgogi is a type of food. To make Bulgogi use thin tender strips of ribeye beef, and a sauce which is usually made with Soy-sauce, sesame oil, and juice from an asian pear (the 'apple shaped' yellow sort of pear) Some people still call it bulgogi if you use the sauce on other meats like pork, but other people say it's specific to beef-- and some even argue it's specific to the cut of beef like "steak" is in English. In any case it's delicious, and if you can you should try it. :D


There is no pronoun, so shouldn't a generalization like "you" work?


Could you also say "불고기는 소고기 없이 못 만들어요"?


No. 소고기 없이 is an adjective here, so it has to precede 불고기는


I don't think that's right. It's an adverb, not an adjective. Adjective (modifier) form would be 소고기 없는, which would, as you say, have to precede 불고기 for it to work.


Could this be translated as "Bulgogi cannot be made without beef"?


"Cannot be made" is passive voice. There may be a way (different grammar) to express/represent that in Korean. Considering there is no "we" explicitly in the Korean sentence I can see how you got to that translation. It makes sense.


For future reference, the korean sentence in passive form would look something like:

소고기 없이 불고기는 안 만들어져요

만들다 - make (active) 만들어지다 - be made (passive)

Side Note:

안 - not (is used instead of "못", cannot). In casual speech, 못 is mostly used for emphasis.

안 is also used to mean "cannot" especially in sense verbs like to hear, to see, to smell etc. and other verbs like to understand, or the one used in the example.

The interchangeability of these two words is quite similar to their use in English.

[With thanks to @TeoJr]


소고기 없으면 불고기는 못 만들어요?


I wrote "can't make bulgogi without beef", shouldn't that be considered correct since there's no 우리 in the sentence?


Strictly speaking, no. This is because an English sentence always requires a subject.

However in English, omission of subject is sometimes found in casual short messages (e.g text messages) as a way of saving time and space.

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